Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:

Blimey - £30 billion deficit forecast in 2019/20, forecast as surplus of £10bn just in MArch - a £40 billion swing into the red
..oh good..

A good 30 billion or so of that is increased borrowing for new projects/goals. The rest is diminished tax receipts, I believe.

I'll be honest, considering they ditched the 2020 target as well, I think it's fair to say austerity is effectively dead at this point. They'll most likely continue trimming minimally in various departments for savings, but they're ratcheting up spending in other ways. Just to pick through the more salient points:-


-I think this is the first budget I've ever seen that more or less that focuses on the mid-long term instead of the short. It would have been exceedingly easy to lump that 30 billion into the NHS or somewhere else for immediate relief and short term political gain. Instead it's going into various other long term infrastructure projects, such as sufficient funding to match what's being lost from Europe, large transport projects, and so on.

-Future welfare cuts have also been ruled out, Universal Credit support extended, the pension triple lock maintained, fuel duty rises cancelled, and the minimum taxation theshold raised to £11,500. So generally speaking, most public services are being maintained at their current levels, and those at the bottom of the wage train should have a few quid more at the end of the week (although I reckon that'll be absorbed into rising costs effectively).

-Letting agent upfront fees, something which annoys everyone, will be made illegal.

-A minor sticking plaster on the housing front. Mostly a fudge, I mean, 40,000 homes? Drop in the ocean. Hammond tried to big it up as best he could, but the extra 'affordable homes' are anything but to begin with.

-Digital infrastructure is a big priority for them here, and I'm not sure I agree with it. Lots of investment into fibre optic and 5G.

-Local (and outside London travel networks are getting a bung of a billion, rural rate relief is being doubled, and a couple of billion into the Local Growth Fund. The theme would appear to be making it easier for those in more rural areas to set up new businesses, and to enable workers to get to them.


It's an interesting budget. It's far better than anything Osborne ever came out with. Looking at forecasts, they're hoping future short term growth will fuel increased tax receipts to cut the operating deficit, but that's far from guaranteed in the face of Brexit. Which makes their focus on long term investment even more interesting as a choice, because this could go tits up in a year or two if the economy tanks.

Altogether, I'm actually inclined to say that the budget meets the sort of priorities May has been laying out/vaguely alluding to. It's a long way from the large scale spending into public services Labour are always talking about, but it seems to be drawing a line under austerity as a strategy for the time being. The focus appears to be upon making it easier for people to be entrepreneurial, maintaining current levels of service provision and living standards, and laying the ground work for future growth in the 2020's. I don't think it's going to make life easier for those at the bottom generally, but provision has been made to ensure it doesn't get worse, it would seem.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
None the less, this country will have to sink or swim after Brexit - we can't afford to coast along any more.

None of that was done before Brexit, so I can't see why any of it would be done after Brexit.

Especially if we're economically worse off, there won't be any more for these massive infrastructure projects, or the incentive (building enough houses will hurt house prices, which will in turn hurt landlords, which make up a little over half of MPs IIRC).

I'm not disagreeing that we *should* be throwing huge money at infrastructure, but I think it's even less likely under a Brexited Tory party than it is now.

It will have to be done. We need more or better motorways, especially if we take a lead and integrate self-driving cars, plus our Victorian rail infastructure is needing a major overhaul. This creates jobs.

It's a win win for everybody...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
None the less, this country will have to sink or swim after Brexit - we can't afford to coast along any more.

None of that was done before Brexit, so I can't see why any of it would be done after Brexit.

Especially if we're economically worse off, there won't be any more for these massive infrastructure projects, or the incentive (building enough houses will hurt house prices, which will in turn hurt landlords, which make up a little over half of MPs IIRC).

I'm not disagreeing that we *should* be throwing huge money at infrastructure, but I think it's even less likely under a Brexited Tory party than it is now.

I'm guessing announced infrastructure building includes plans and schemes already in place. It sounds grand though.

Forget infrastructure and Brexit, we need to plan for the future:

better flood defenses, what to do about automation and the job losses, and of course, self-driving cars and other stuff.

A citizen's/basic income is being planned as a pilot for some parts of Scotland. That's a good thing IMO.

Self-driving cars will put a lot off people out of work, so we need to plan for that...

And of course, with climate change, parts of Britain are vulnerable to flooding - so these areas wil need to be protected.

There is an opportunity here to create new jobs, and build a Britain ready for the 21st century...

People are talking about today and yesterday. My focus is tomorrow

The rail franchises are largely foreign owned

http://order-order.com/2016/11/23/tory-decade-irresponsibility-debt-borrowing-soar/

Debt

Philip Hammond has announced that the debt to GDP ratio will rise to an “eye-watering” 90.2% in 2017-18, a seven point increase on previous forecasts, the highest debt level in half a century. National debt by the end of parliament will be £1.945 trillion.

Deficit

The Tory manifesto promise of a surplus in 2019/20 has been abandoned, they are now seeking to balance the books by an undisclosed date in the next parliament.

Borrowing

Borrowing forecasts for 2016-17 have soared to £68 billion, up £13 billion from the previous forecast in March. Borrowing will be £59 billion in 2017/18, £21 billion more than forecast. In 2018-19 the government will borrow £46.5 billion, a massive 117% increase from the £21.4 billion forecast in March. Hammond plans to borrow £118 billion more this parliament.

In 2008 George Osborne told the Commons:

“What [Brown/Darling] did not admit is that he is going to double the national debt to £1 trillion, and that a national debt that has accumulated over centuries is gonna double in just five years. That is the bill for Labour’s decade of irresponsibility.”

Well, on the plus side, Brexit has at least put to bed the idea that the tory party is economically responsible.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
None the less, this country will have to sink or swim after Brexit - we can't afford to coast along any more.

None of that was done before Brexit, so I can't see why any of it would be done after Brexit.

Especially if we're economically worse off, there won't be any more for these massive infrastructure projects, or the incentive (building enough houses will hurt house prices, which will in turn hurt landlords, which make up a little over half of MPs IIRC).

I'm not disagreeing that we *should* be throwing huge money at infrastructure, but I think it's even less likely under a Brexited Tory party than it is now.

It will have to be done. We need more or better motorways, especially if we take a lead and integrate self-driving cars, plus our Victorian rail infastructure is needing a major overhaul. This creates jobs.

It's a win win for everybody...

The rail network doesnt need an overhaul, it needs to be burnt all the way down. Major station developments such as New Street in Birmingham are cosmetic in nature. Platforms and points are barely adequate and cannot be used to increase capacity any further.

Cross rail is coming on line and the extra capacity it promised is pretty much used up. There are talks of extensions and Crossrail 2 which by the time they come online there will need to be another solution to free up capacity.

Motorways ditto. The main issue is the condition and use of through fares and arterial routes within cities and towns. Any road developments or improvements such as bypasses are sticking plasters. Unless there is consideration to knock whole streets down roads will not be improving anytime soon.

 reds8n wrote:


Well, on the plus side, Brexit has at least put to bed the idea that the tory party is economically responsible.

It depends, I don't think that's entirely fair with regards to this budget.

Labour's prior spending if you look at the figures of borrowing, was a year on year increase in general operational expenditure which was never projected to end, with multiple dodges used like pfi to try and hide further spending on top of that.

This particular budget on the other hand, is designed to be a smaller temporary injection of large scale long term investment, with a minimal increase in more general spending met by future growth. There's not really any concealment here, they're being quite blatant in what they're doing and how long for. It is however, a slight gamble. Because if that future growth does not materialise, they're going to be left with increased expenditure on less income. Not so much so that it would be problematic (they're being quite cautious), but they're banking on chickens not already in the coop.

That being said, I'm not sure they could have done anything else. I don't agree with a number of their investment choices, but in terms of strategy, I can't see a better option.

 Ketara wrote:

Labour's prior spending if you look at the figures of borrowing, was a year on year increase in general operational expenditure

After years and years and years of cuts and under investment.

dodges used like pfi to try and hide further spending

A tradition gloriously carried on by Osbourne.

I don't agree with a number of their investment choices, but in terms of strategy, I can't see a better option.

Quite.

That's largely what happens when you vote to blow your own foot off because you don't like the colour of your shoes.

 reds8n wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Labour's prior spending if you look at the figures of borrowing, was a year on year increase in general operational expenditure

After years and years and years of cuts and under investment.

Not quite. If you actually go back and look through the raw data for tax receipts, public borrowing, and public expenditure for the previous Labour administration (I have), you'll note that tax receipts were roughly equal to public expenditure within a year or so of Blair coming to office (there was a minor operational surplus). Then tax receipts soared as the economy started booming. That HAS to be attributed to the previous Conservative government's fiscal policies, as Labour physically hadn't been there long enough. That paid for the initial Labour spending increases for the first four or five years of their government. The money literally came in as fast as they could spend it, it was happy days.

Then around 2001-2002, tax receipts took a minor dive. Then either remained relatively static or only gave minor increases right up until the global crash in 2007-2008. For that five to six years in the middle though, Blair and Brown carried on increasing the expenditure of government at fairly extreme rates, as if the tax receipts had been increasing like they had in their first four years in power. Which they weren't. In order to pay for those ballooning increases, they just borrowed, with no plan in mind for reduction of spending or increasing tax receipts.

Then the global crises hit, Blair ran, and Brown borrowed in the space of about a year and a half what they had borrowed in the previous five years Altogether. He said he was trying to cushion the impact from recession through government spending, but I suspect it had as much to do with trying to maintain power for the upcoming elections, and not wanting living standards to suffer until afterwards.

Then Cameron got in, and there was no cash, government expenditure obscenely high.

So in other words, they actually only started borrowing ridiculous sums of money after they'd been in power for four years or so, and the going was good, with receipts matching expenditure. There was no need to keep increasing spending. What's more, they took the credit for the economic bounceback the Tories effectively set up.

There have been Labour governments with good fiscal policies, but the last administration was not one of them. It's somewhat disingenuous to compare that lot to May's current budget.

NHS was fine when New Labour got in

Gotcha.

 reds8n wrote:
NHS was fine when New Labour got in

Gotcha.

You moved the goalposts/topic of discussion.

I remarked that New Labour's spending in relation to borrowing was year on year increases in borrowing for operational expenses.

You noted that this was because they had to do so due to years of Tory cuts.

I pointed out that they only started needing to borrow for their ever increasing operational costs after having been in power for four years (due to a huge injection of cash from increased tax receipts for those first four years).

You're now talking about 1997 when the Conservatives left, which is not when New Labour started borrowing willy nilly, but a good four years beforehand.

 reds8n wrote:
The rail franchises are largely foreign owned

http://order-order.com/2016/11/23/tory-decade-irresponsibility-debt-borrowing-soar/

Debt

Philip Hammond has announced that the debt to GDP ratio will rise to an “eye-watering” 90.2% in 2017-18, a seven point increase on previous forecasts, the highest debt level in half a century. National debt by the end of parliament will be £1.945 trillion.

Deficit

The Tory manifesto promise of a surplus in 2019/20 has been abandoned, they are now seeking to balance the books by an undisclosed date in the next parliament.

Borrowing

Borrowing forecasts for 2016-17 have soared to £68 billion, up £13 billion from the previous forecast in March. Borrowing will be £59 billion in 2017/18, £21 billion more than forecast. In 2018-19 the government will borrow £46.5 billion, a massive 117% increase from the £21.4 billion forecast in March. Hammond plans to borrow £118 billion more this parliament.

In 2008 George Osborne told the Commons:

“What [Brown/Darling] did not admit is that he is going to double the national debt to £1 trillion, and that a national debt that has accumulated over centuries is gonna double in just five years. That is the bill for Labour’s decade of irresponsibility.”

Well, on the plus side, Brexit has at least put to bed the idea that the tory party is economically responsible.

Black Wednesday destroyed the Tories reputation for economic competence years before the Brexit debacle.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Black Wednesday destroyed the Tories reputation for economic competence years before the Brexit debacle.

Unfortunately people forget that when elections come round and the Tories tell them that they're better with the economy.

 Ketara wrote:

You moved the goalposts/topic of discussion.

No, I haven't.

My claim is that for many years under the prior tory administration that ended in 1997, when Blair was elected, there had been severe under investment in the country, in things like the NHS.

All of which would have continued.

Even the tory party admitted this, hence the X years of self flagellation and general uselessness whilst they flopped around with trying ideas like putting their leader in a baseball cap as opposed, you know, trying actual policies or being effective opposition.

The tory party now has added more debt than every single Labour administration put together.

And Labour are the ones with a bad economic record.

I note how this budget is " a slight gamble" when Labour do the same thing -- except of course for the better figures/smaller debt -- it's reckless spending with no end game or plan.

Uh huh.

You wanna argue that they threw all that way with ludicrous (mis)adventures in the Middle East that's continuing to have knock on effects today , then I'll back you all the way --

with the caveat that one would suggest that it's....... optimistic ....... to believe that a tory govt. wouldn't have back Bush's war in the same way.

due to a huge injection of cash from increased tax receipts for those first four years)

And one of that was due to brown at all.

uh huh.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Black Wednesday destroyed the Tories reputation for economic competence years before the Brexit debacle.

Unfortunately people forget that when elections come round and the Tories tell them that they're better with the economy.

Alas, the alternative, Corbyn and McDonnell, is even worse

In 300 years of British politics, I can't think of a more luckier party than the present day Tories.

In any other decade of British politics, a government performing this badly would have been annihilated by the opposition.

Bojo would have been run out of London long ago...

 reds8n wrote:

My claim is that for many years under the prior tory administration that ended in 1997, when Blair was elected, there had been severe under investment in the country, in things like the NHS.

Which nobody disagreed with, or mentioned in the first place. Read back. I literally just stated the chain of discussion. My original comment was about New Labour's spending in relation to borrowing, which started in 2001-2002. Word for word:-

Ketara wrote:Labour's prior spending if you look at the figures of borrowing, was a year on year increase in general operational expenditure

Your following comment was:

Reds8n wrote:After years and years and years of cuts and under investment.

Is about the Tories. Aka, 1997. Four years before New Labour had to start borrowing. The alternative is that you're claiming that Labour did four years of cuts prior to 2001.

The tory party now has added more debt than every single Labour administration put together.

Which is completely logical. It's a bit like driving a car when speeding up is easier than slowing down, to use an analogy. Labour put their foot down on the pedal and took us up to 40 mph for five years, then 90mph for three years, but the Tories have only slowed it down by 5mph per year. Naturally, the total ground covered will be greater after six or seven years of Tories than Labour covered in their period of time. It's basic mathematics.

It doesn't eliminate the fact that Labour were the ones to put the foot on the pedal to accrue the speed in the first place. It was made even harder by the fact that we were in recession in 2010 (making slower down harder and more painful), in coalition with the Lib Dems (who wanted the Tories to slow down as well, slowly as possible). Chuck in the complications of falling tax receipts (effectively meaning you have something speeding you up again), and you have problems. It's an overly simple analogy, but it should make the point as to why it would be expected for the Tories to have accrued more in total.

The only alternatives are that you think that they should have braked the metaphorical car a lot harder in 2010 and cut government expenditure in half in one go, or that they should have maintained the 90mph and kept borrowing the whole time. Which would you have preferred, out of curiosity?

And Labour are the ones with a bad economic record.

I wouldn't claim to have sufficient knowledge of past administrations back before1997. But after that? I know the figures pretty well. And New Labour really were dire. Little planning, assumptions that tomorrow will go on like today, and short-termist.

I note how this budget is " a slight gamble" when Labour do the same thing -- except of course for the better figures/smaller debt -- it's reckless spending with no end game or plan.

If you can produce the plan from New Labour over the period of 2002-2006 explaining what what the excessive borrowing was for and how they were going to reduce it immediately afterwards within a given timeframe with what monies, I'll quite happily be proven wrong. Gordon Brown /might have had an excuse from 2007-8 onwards, but prior to that? I don't think so.

And one of that was due to brown at all.
uh huh.

It's very easy to be a great chancellor and spend lots of money when you're running at a surplus and tax receipts keep going up. If you're feeling harsh, the logical point at which Brown's short-term policy consequences/results should have started taking effect, is 2001-2002. Which is when....the tax receipts went down. Oo-er.

That being said, that would be an overly simplistic way to approach economics, and unfair to him. The flip side of the coin though, is that it's ludicrous to ascribe the balanced budget (something only achieved through those years of cuts you mention) to him, or the trade boom that picked up about six months before he got voted into power either.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I think it's prudent for an island nation to have a strong navy.

Not in this day and age.

 Ketara wrote:


Which is completely logical. It's a bit like driving a car when speeding up is easier than slowing down, to use an analogy. Labour put their foot down on the pedal

Mainly because under the tories the car was actually in reverse.

They didn't borrow for the first X years due to that whole keeping to election pledges , which seems oh-so 90s now.

It's quite logical to think it might take a bit more than 4 years or so to make up for nigh on 20 years of under investment and cuts.

If you recall the plan -- and I''l grant you that's a generous term, like all politics upon reflection -- was to end the boom/bust cycle so it would be easier to predict things like govt. borrowing and get it under control.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

I think it's impossible to end the boom/bust cycle. It seems to be inherent in the psychology of the free stock market capital system.

The government can't control the market -- remember Alan Greenspan's comments about "irrational exuberance" -- so its role must be to act as a dampener or shock absorber, influencing the market by mechanisms such as the bank base interest rate, and preparing support measures like public ownership and quantitative easing for when the bubble bursts.

 reds8n wrote:

Mainly because under the tories the car was actually in reverse.

If the analogy is that acceleration is borrowing, then the inverse must be that deceleration is borrowing less, and going into reverse is making a surplus. So yes. The Tories had literally just finished slowing the car down to hit it into reverse when New Labour took over the wheel.

And I don't think anyone can argue that having a balanced budget (aka being in reverse) is necessarily a bad thing!

They didn't borrow for the first X years due to that whole keeping to election pledges , which seems oh-so 90s now.

As I said earlier, it's more that they didn't have to. The soaring tax receipts funded their various pledges and spending without needing to resort to borrowing. It was only once those flatlined and they kept on increasing expenditure it became an issue.

It's quite logical to think it might take a bit more than 4 years or so to make up for nigh on 20 years of under investment and cuts.

Quite possibly, and that's an entirely legitimate point of view. There's no inherent problem with governments borrowing a little constantly. Even borrowing a lot of money for short term necessity or long term goals is fine. It's only when you're relying on those loans to meet your effective day to day running costs that it becomes an issue. Which sadly, is what New Labour did.

Ultimately, there's little point in borrowing vast sums of money to bung into the NHS and other places on a day to day basis if it's not sustainable. You're just guaranteeing that when the crash comes (and it always does) and the debtors come knocking, you've got nothing in the bank, borrowing more just exacerbates the issue, and you end up having to institute vicious cuts. You essentially end up looking like Greece.

The way to do it is to run your day to day operating costs of Government off the tax receipts, and borrow set sums for set projects, with the purpose of creating a greater amount of sustainable income from receipts later on. Then you can reliably increase spending on things like the NHS without breaking the back of your economy or needing to institute cuts/reductions later.

But that requires a mid-long term approach, which no government up until now has taken. Certainly, Cameron didn't. Hammond's budget is the first one that's even remotely begun to look more than 5 years ahead that I've seen.

 Ketara wrote:


-Future welfare cuts have also been ruled out, Universal Credit support extended, the pension triple lock maintained, fuel duty rises cancelled, and the minimum taxation theshold raised to £11,500. So generally speaking, most public services are being maintained at their current levels, and those at the bottom of the wage train should have a few quid more at the end of the week (although I reckon that'll be absorbed into rising costs effectively).

That depends on interpretation. It doesn't appear that they are making cuts to the public services any worse (from what we can see), but the previous budgets have already ratched up the savings such bodies have to make. However there's no investment for inflation so that's still a cost and most areas apart from NHS and Science (where they were flatlined) still have significant savings to make up to 2021. It's a 'blessing' for these organisation's that they don't have to make any additional savings but the idea that public services are being maintained is slightly misleading as they are still going to make significant cuts over the next five years or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


Labour's prior spending if you look at the figures of borrowing, was a year on year increase in general operational expenditure which was never projected to end, with multiple dodges used like pfi to try and hide further spending on top of that.

PFIs still exist. They were just renamed PF2 (or Public Private Partnership schemes).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with most things the devil is in the detail and there are a few things hiding away in the statement that hasn't really been discussed.

For example

Overseas development aid is to be decreased (despite May's previous comments on spending more money to help prevent the need for asylum)
New Grammar schools scheme is to be funded by £60m pa (I'm sure that could be better spent on state schools and seems they are pressing on regardless of the criticism)
National Insurance contributions for primary and secondary thresholds are to be aligned (estimated as increasing tax by £145m pa). The removal of the lower rate will affect those on the lowest pay
Insurance premium tax will go up 2% (again likely to affect those on the lowest incomes relatively more than others).
Lets not forget that higher earners will still benefit from both the lower tax threshold change and the higher tax threshold change as well!

As for the overspending I'm not sure either party covered themselves in glory. However Labours spending wasn't particularly excessive. By the end of 2007/08 government debt was only 30% of gdp and only slowly increasing. There were big jumps in the following years as the banks were bailed out (and this certainly something the Tories would have also done). By the end of the last Labour full term (2009/10) government borrowing was at 50%. However since the Tories have been in power that has increased to 80% (so about 5% increase per year. Labour's borrowing increase between 2000 and 2007 (pre banking crash) went from about 17% to 28% which is about 1.5% per year.

OK, so we can accept Labour had committed to some things pre-election but that doesn't account for a 5% pa increase since the Tories got into power, so the idea Labour were fiscally inept is a bit of a fallacy (really it was more the banking sector exploiting the circumstances and to some extent our demand for cheap products and crediting ourselves to the hilt).

 Whirlwind wrote:

By the end of 2007/08 government debt was only 30% of gdp and only slowly increasing. There were big jumps in the following years as the banks were bailed out (and this certainly something the Tories would have also done). By the end of the last Labour full term (2009/10) government borrowing was at 50%. However since the Tories have been in power that has increased to 80% (so about 5% increase per year. Labour's borrowing increase between 2000 and 2007 (pre banking crash) went from about 17% to 28% which is about 1.5% per year.

OK, so we can accept Labour had committed to some things pre-election but that doesn't account for a 5% pa increase since the Tories got into power, so the idea Labour were fiscally inept is a bit of a fallacy (really it was more the banking sector exploiting the circumstances and to some extent our demand for cheap products and crediting ourselves to the hilt).

Sorry, but are you seriously trying to quote 'National debt as a percentage of GDP' as a way of judging the financial policy of the current government? Because as someone who mentions the complexity of statistics a lot, I'd be genuinely surprised you were actually trying to claim that as evidence for the subsequent judgements you're making on a subject as complex and manifold as fiscal policy. It's literally one of the less relevant financial measurements you could pick.

Here's a shot of the normal operating budget deficit (or difference between government income and outgoings) in billions since1997:-



Here's a shot of it as a percentage of GDP:-



Here's the national debt:-




As is pretty apparent from the three, the amount of money the government spends on a day to day basis has gradually declined over the last six years. The total borrowed has gone up, because logically, we're still borrowing large sums.As Red pointed out, it's now accumulated to more than Labour actually borrowed. But as I've also pointed out, that's because the operating deficit rocketed so high in the few years before they entered government.

Not to mention the fact I find it baffling that the people who slate the Tories for financial ineptitude are doing it on the basis that the Tories are still borrowing money, but those same people (I'm not specifically fingering anyone on the forum here, but talking more generally) criticise them for not spending enough on things like the NHS. Where is the money supposed to come from, if borrowing it is a black mark against the government? I mean, would they prefer the government literally just cut the entire deficit down to 0% and cut services accordingly? Because I have a sneaky feeling the same people would then be howling murder about the evil uncaring Tory bastards.

I mean, they literally can't win. If they maintain spending at Labour-like levels, it's financially disastrous for the country, if they reduce the operating deficit gradually, they're badmouthed both for the cuts and for the fact that there still is a deficit, and if they cut the spending far back enough that there was no deficit, they're evil bastards taking much needed public services the working man.

They honestly cannot win. There just seems to be this idea that the Government should provide perfect services, but nobody should have to pay enough for it.

Edit:- I should also note here as a minor correction to an earlier point I made to Red, that tax receipts actually didn't flatline during the entire 2002-2007 period, they just crashed for a single year, then began to recover. Although that being said, that actually makes the Labour Government look worse, because it means that they kept borrowing even as tax receipts climbed again (meaning their expenditure really was quite high).

What about taxes?

Okay guys, it's time to get serious.

The government still wants to cut off our access to kinky porn

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay guys, it's time to get serious.

The government still wants to cut off our access to kinky porn

Is the agency which is going to be at least partially at fault for censoring porn really called BBFC? Really? I mean, that's almost too much.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay guys, it's time to get serious.

The government still wants to cut off our access to kinky porn

They can take my porn from my cold. Dead. Hands.

...



Wait...feth. Did I say that out loud?

 Ketara wrote:
But as I've also pointed out, that's because the operating deficit rocketed so high in the few years before they entered government.

Yes, but you're "pointing out" that fact to insinuate Labour are less fiscally responsible than the Tories when you know damn fine well that the vast majority of that increase was due to the response to the financial crash, and unless you're going to sit there and try to argue that the Tories would have left the banks to swing in the wind rather than bail them out, then quite obviously the insinuation is bollocks. Nobody's arguing that Labour are fiscally responsible, merely that the Tories are no better. They have a reputation for being better, an unearned one, but that's hardly surprising given their brand of fiscal ineptitude tends to enrich the people who own the media and the experts who work in the think tanks the media go to for quotes.

You can argue Labour bear a healthy share of the blame for the crash itself given they followed Thatcher down the rabbit hole of reckless deregulation, and you can argue that they were morons for attaching so few conditions to the bailouts, but surely you won't try and pretend the Tories wouldn't have done the same things if not worse, given their incestuous ties to the finance industry.

The other major chunk of that spending the Tories complain about of course was our Middle East Misadventures at the behest of the USA, another decision the Tories almost certainly would also have taken.

Whatever, at this point I think debating Labour vs Tories is pretty academic, Labour aren't getting even a sniff at power for at least a decade, probably more like two.

How Britain has a stronger hand in the Brexit negotiations than some might think. I'd post further comments but I'm in work.

Also, I'm not happy with the government monitoring my internet life. I've nothing to hide, but I just don't like anyone spying on me like that without probable cause. Especially because storing private information allows it to fall into the wrong hands.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Okay guys, it's time to get serious.

The government still wants to cut off our access to kinky porn

Its almost as though the government have absolutely no idea about the internet and how it works. This kind of censorship can be easily avoided by anyone with access to google.

At least we get constantly reminded that websites use cookies....

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How Britain has a stronger hand in the Brexit negotiations than some might think.

Its still a weak hand though, with a distinct lack of aces, and just what has Trump got to do with the UK's bargaining position?

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, but you're "pointing out" that fact to insinuate Labour are less fiscally responsible than the Tories

Why on earth would I do that? I'm not particularly fond of either of them. You're projecting some sort of strawman onto me here.

What I'm asserting, is that the last Labour Government (New Labour specifically), under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, was not particularly fiscally responsible. My evidence, as pretty clearly indicated above, is that they borrowed when they didn't need to (tax receipts were burgeoning, the economy was doing well), and used the money on various short termist items (anyone remember EMA?) to expand and bloat government services and giveaways far beyond what they could afford sustainably, and kept on borrowing to pay for it. The result being that when the crash happened, the government was already fiscally far over-extended and nose deep in its metaphorical pint.

when you know damn fine well that the vast majority of that increase was due to the response to the financial crash,

The crash made up somewhere in the region of 2/3 of the borrowing. The majority, yes, vast, no.

and unless you're going to sit there and try to argue that the Tories would have left the banks to swing in the wind rather than bail them out, then quite obviously the insinuation is bollocks. Nobody's arguing that Labour are fiscally responsible, merely that the Tories are no better.

Going by the figures above, I would argue that the Cameron and May Government are more fiscally responsible than the Blair Brown ones. Cameron's was just as short termist in many regards, and we could sit around and argue about the efficacy of the branch of economics he chose to follow, but if he was as irresponsible as Brown, he'd have just kept borrowing and pretended nothing was wrong.

But that's anathema, isn't it? The idea a Tory Government could be decent at anything is just well,...unthinkable, right? Evil bastards that they are.

The other major chunk of that spending the Tories complain about of course was our Middle East Misadventures at the behest of the USA, another decision the Tories almost certainly would also have taken.

The total cost of our adventure in Iraq was under ten billion pounds, spread over several years. It doesn't even cover the cost of one year of Labour borrowing.

Whatever, at this point I think debating Labour vs Tories is pretty academic

That's the misunderstanding. I was never debating Labour versus Tory particularly. Merely New Labour (aka, the last government) versus the Tory Government of today. Whether Harold Wilson or Clement Attlee would have been any better or worse in today's scenario, I've no idea, and wouldn't care to speculate.

.@UKIP @Nigel_Farage today voted against automatic #EU xchange of anti-money laundering information #EP

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0432+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN


sticking up for your average guy on the street there once again.

@reds8n

That's a clear misprint and a blatant attempt to smear Farage.

That should be an O at the end, not an E., as in Nigel Farago, the leader of the Spanish Independence Party (SIP)



On a serious note, If people bothered to check what Farage did half of the time i.e nothing, I doubt if he'd be so popular...