True, although another debate would be in regards to the quality of work - whether people are earning enough to get by, the prevalence of zero-hour contracts, temporary contracts, part-time as opposed to full-time etc.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
True, although another debate would be in regards to the quality of work - whether people are earning enough to get by, the prevalence of zero-hour contracts, temporary contracts, part-time as opposed to full-time etc.
Yeah, always makes things fairly interesting even when I don't agree with him.
Seems to be taking the Trump approach on anti establishment.Accept he actually believes in it. Liked how he batted down the questions from the media and hope that the talk of him using social network to bypass the press is true.
Its a huge difference.
There is a time lag before a deficit change greatly affects the debt levels. Just like you can't immediately turn the tap off to erase a deficit you can't turn it on to erase a surplus. Blair was lucky to inherit a decent economy at the end of some difficult times and at the beginning of the internet boom. The trend started under Major.
Last edited:
Indeed. Thats a harder metric to quantify.
So you're right. Now I'm confused, whys there's so many other sources saying otherwise?
There are lots of different ways to measure deficit. The government might spend $10 more than they make in revenue, but they might only need to borrow $8 as they can sell off $2 of assets, for example.
Borrowing is what they need to raise and pay interest on (and therefore the most common indicator), revenue deficit is the actual money coming in and out. They all roughly show the same thing though.
Certainly. Blair inherited a growth period and stuck to Tory spending plans too, not disputing that.
It's really really hard to follow your line of economic reasoning. @rcoobc posted the deficits for the last 23 years and pretty much all of your claims are false. Whenever it's mentioned that one specific one is, you come up with a new factor that is supposed to make it irrelevant.
Last edited:
There was a survey that found 2/3 of people on zero hours contract were happy with their hours, although they were largely unaware of the benefits through employment law they were missing out on IIRC.
Its not a public wealth fund
Is there a difference between a public wealth fund and government assets? Cos you'll find plenty of support for nationalisation here.
Now I'm a liberal but I'm calling dodgy data here. 'Excluding global financial crisis' - have the Tories got a pass for decifit from 2010-2017? I'd guess no, yet Labour have one during 'global financial crisis' that we're still all suffering from?
Also according to Prof Richard Murphy's chart Labour and Cons have been in power for 37 years out of the last 70. Umm okaaaaayyyyyyy who was in charge for the other 33 years? Is it Will Thorpe or Prof Richard Murphy who doesn't have a clue here? If someone can't even get the most obvious statistic right how can we trust him with anything else?
I think it should be since 1980 rather than last 70 yrs. (13 is also correct then since 1997-2010 is Labour, the rest is Cons). There are also comparisons with and without the financial crisis data (avg borrowing in the 1st few rows, wtht crisis is later).
What's happened to all the geezers that believed in the fixed-term parliament act?
Not heard from them for a bit.
Not heard from them for a bit.
There's no specific thing called a public wealth fund. Its just a loose term for a government backed investment fund.
One of Jeremy's pledges is along those lines.
Was quite funny having people coming up with complicated scenarios as to how it could be got around, turns out it's kind of worthless as no-one wants to be seen as afraid of an election
I'm guessing May, should she win, will probably repeal it just because you might as well.
Really? I presume hes talking about a sovereign wealth fund, in which case he's even more clueless than I thought. You need to run a budget surplus or stumble across a huge oil reserve to set one of those up
Was quite funny having people coming up with complicated scenarios as to how it could be got around, turns out it's kind of worthless as no-one wants to be seen as afraid of an election
I'm guessing May, should she win, will probably repeal it just because you might as well.
Wait, is she not repealing it before the election? And if not, how is it not a violation?
This is old - from September last year - so maybe it's been revised since then. We'll certainly hear more about it in the coming weeks...Really? I presume hes talking about a sovereign wealth fund, in which case he's even more clueless than I thought. You need to run a budget surplus or stumble across a huge oil reserve to set one of those up
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-to-make-britain-more-socialist-a7337651.html
You only need a 2/3 vote in the Commons to bypass it, which they got easily yesterday, but the legislation itself stays in place.
Christ. 500 billion. 'We can borrow it or we can print it'. And people seriously want to vote for this man?
Did you read the article?
Oh, makes some sense I guess.
Yes. I know that quote was not directly from Corbyn but the people referenced in it are his mouthpieces. That's a lot of money they want to pluck from thin air.
Fixed that for you.
I was mistaken.
He did say they will borrow it.
http://labourlist.org/2016/09/united-we-can-shape-the-future-jeremy-corbyns-speech-to-conference/
So it's not a wealth fund. Glad that's cleared up
Average yearly change in borrowing whilst in power (figures from the ONS):
Conservatives - 12.3b reduction
Labour - 9.9b increase
Discounting the 2 biggest impact years of the recession when Labour were in power:
Conservatives - 12.3b reduction
Labour - 1.0b increase
I'd say a Socialist Professor whose competence was questioned even by the Shadow Chancellor himself is not the most reliable source to base an opinion on.
The absolute figure of *borrowing needs the context of the current level of debt or the budget deficit, as well as the number as a proportion of GDP, doesn't it? A "reduction in borrowing" when the ampount of borrowing was already very high doesn't mean much, and vice versa. If the stats in the above tweet are correct, then this change doesn't mean much at all.
*change in
Last edited:
The caf has turned Jippy into a Corbynite.
Me too. Will be my first Labour vote at a GE. Andy Slaughter is a good local MP and battling both Heathrow expansion and the closure of Charing X hospital.
Not really. If the government is locked in to a deficit of 100b in the year on top of a 500b debt, it's not realistic to reduce the debt pile. A lot of that deficit/borrowing is locked in for years and will take time to reduce. Halving it would be an excellent result but would still result in an increase in the debt. A reduction in the deficit is the most significant indicator of whether the government's measures are working or not, at least in the mid term.
We could probably sell the royal family to get oneReally? I presume hes talking about a sovereign wealth fund, in which case he's even more clueless than I thought. You need to run a budget surplus or stumble across a huge oil reserve to set one of those up
I'm trying to pretend in my head that Slaughter is independent. He hates Corbyn.The caf has turned Jippy into a Corbynite.
Yes, it is. Its an investment fund funded by the country's reserves to prop up the pension pot. Its not a sovereign wealth fund. Its not a private wealth fund.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-protected-antonio-tajani-says-a7694036.html
Brexit deal will be vetoed if citizens' rights are not protected, President of European Parliament says
Antonio Tajani says the issue is a 'red line' and its exclusion will derail any agree
If true, I love the EU
Brexit deal will be vetoed if citizens' rights are not protected, President of European Parliament says
Antonio Tajani says the issue is a 'red line' and its exclusion will derail any agree
If true, I love the EU
Really? I presume hes talking about a sovereign wealth fund, in which case he's even more clueless than I thought. You need to run a budget surplus or stumble across a huge oil reserve to set one of those up
They've been very clear since the start that citizens rights were first and foremost to them. No talk of bargaining chips from their side of the channel.