General election

Interesting to see that 1 of the 13 mp's to reject the election was a Dennis skinner, he must know his seat is under threat.

Quoted from barralad

Your sentence about mass overborrowing doesn't make sense. That's not a grammar police issue but I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. If it is that too much money was borrowed during the crisis then as most of the borrowing went on bailing out banks who were playing Monopoly with their (our) money what would your alternative have been?
I don't really want to use historical fact but by any measure Attlee's 45-51 Government must have borne much of the cost of "rebuilding Britain".

Bailing the banks or not my point was that this borrowing doesn't look like it was included.

Quoted from Grim74

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

The figures for Murphy's run down of statistics are those published by the OBR. Yes, official government statistics so I'm not quite so sure why you doubt them. I think he even provides a link where you can download them yourself to check if you're in doubt.

The Tories have traditionally borrowed more and repaid less, it's as simple as that. The fact that they've somehow gained a reputation for fiscal rectitude is baffling until you consider how much of the media they've had lying for them over the years. The Tories have borrowed more in more years (though they've been in power longer as well) and repaid much, much less during these additional years in power.

And that paints a better picture than the actual reality. Let's not forget that the bulk of the North Sea Oil receipts came in the Thatcher/Major years when they repaid almost nothing and borrowed much more:

http://www.newstatesman.com/po.....ain%E2%80%99s-future

All the while privatising various national assets, of course. Just what happened to all that money, I wonder? Did it end up in the pockets of the wealthy from ongoing tax cuts? Yep.

In comparison, the Norwegians invested their oil receipts in a sovereign wealth fund the value of which is forecast to reach $1 trillion by 2020 and the profits of which are invested back into their country. I don't think most people realise to this day just how badly the Tories shafted the country in the eighties.

Anyway, Murphy's figures are calculated in 2014 prices so all borrowing by the Labour government during the financial crisis and its immediate aftermath is included in the figures. Don't forget that the Coalition/Tories have continued to borrow hugely since then as well. Murphy gives a clear rundown of amount borrowed in original and 2014 prices so I'm not quite sure how you can argue against this.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you mention the post-war years. Clement Atlee was Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 and this is why the Welfare state and NHS came into existence, not to mention the benefits which came from nationalising of various major industries (since dismantled and sold off on the cheap, mostly during the 1980s).

However, I'm actually pleased you mentioned the post-war years. At the end of the war, the UK's debt/GDP ratio was almost 250% (as opposed to the current 90 percent or so), so can you imagine what the intellectual pygmies of the current Conservative Party would have done faced with this figure? Thankfully, back then there was an awareness that you can't cut your way out of a difficult situation such as this and despite all the wonderful policies enacted by the post-war Labour government (creation of the NHS, Welfare state etc etc) the debt was still reduced to 150% of GDP and falling by the early 1950s due to growth. And the subsequent Conservative and Labour governments continued with this post-war consensus which saw things improve further with debt falling below 50% in the 1970s. It was only with Thatcher that the Tories really lost their marbles and really started to screw the country over.

In comparison to the post-war years, in 2010 the Tories inherited a large deficit following the financial crisis buy growth was over 2% until they immediately began swingeing cuts which would have sent us back into recession if they hadn't quietly eased off whilst still blaming Labour largesse for their own problems. No wonder at all that they still won't be clearing the deficit until after 2020 (if then, given the likely impact of Brexit on our economy) when they originally promised to do so by 2015. A pity there is no real way to calculate how much lower the deficit would have been had we seen 2+% growth continue from 2010 until the present.

As for Labour plans to invest, at present there is such demand from investors to safely stow their money for minimal returns that long-term gilts (30 years or more) are effectively returning negative interest rates - the government could borrow billions to invest in the economy at no effective cost whatsoever and there is little doubt that such investment would more than pay for itself in the longer term. Just think what a couple of hundred billion invested in house building could do to resolve much of the housing crisis we're currently experiencing? Not that we've got enough skilled builders to do the work if such an investment was to be made - we'd have to get skilled immigrants to come and build our houses! We've long under-invested in infrastructure, education and training in comparison to our European and World neighbours/competitors as well as exporting all our manufacturing and heavy industry so it's no surprise that we're now ending up with a low-wage basketcase of an economy.

Quoted from Grim74

Bailing the banks or not my point was that this borrowing doesn't look like it was included.

Spent a long time with my previous post dipping in and out of it as I'm also working so missed quite a few messages. As noted, the figures include government borrowing so are exactly correct.

Perhaps you're confusing it with Quantitative Easing which was not borrowing at all, but a type of money creation enacted by the (theoretically independent) Bank of England? This is not borrowing and not carried out by the government in any case so would clearly not appear in government figures.

Quoted from Grim74

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

Thanks for coming back with an answer more credible than your last one. So it does indeed appear to be false that labour borrow more than the torys (Grimsby Pete please take note of this, given it was your throw away comment that started this line of investigation).

Can we now debunk the myth that it was labours fault that there was a global financial crisis. I'm pretty sure there were both left and right wing governments in power throughout the world when this happened and that all these countries ended up with a pile of debt as a result of it. Which suggests to me that it would have happened in the U.K. Regardless of who was in power.

Quoted from Grim74

That's all well and good but the last Labour government nearly bankrupt the country, and the one before that brought the country to a standstill, every time Labour have power it always ends badly for the country simply because they are driven by socialism.

No it didn't. The banking crisis nearly bankrupted the country. The exact same thing would have happened if the Torres happened to be in power at the time. The republicans were in power in the states at the same time and it fu(Ked them as much as us. It's actually out of control capitalism rather than socialism that caused it. Stop deluding yourself.

I would like to add or reply to some fellow fishy members who replied to my 1st post,

1,  I am more worried about world war 3 breaking out than the tory cuts, with that nutter in North Korea threating using nuclear weapons and the USA saying the same.
BUT
Roast em Bobby
Labour have said they will borrow another 500 billion pounds more than the present government so that concerns me more than what has gone on in the past.

2, Ginny said he can not understand a working man voting Tory, well I am not a working man I am happily retired,

3 I think if you look at all the leaders May is the best to get us a better deal with the European Union because the others will just say we don't really want to leave,
Well we voted to leave so we need the best team negotiating our exit and that's the Tories.


Finally I do think May is wrong in not agreeing to have a leaders debate it does not put her in a good light and that might go against her.

Don't worry about North Korea. Their nukes are only small devices and the only ones who need to fear them are South Korea and perhaps Japan if a NK missile could actually make it there without blowing up. Oh, and any US carrier fleets nearby. The North Koreans have enough artillery targetted at Seoul to obliterate the city in a heartbeat in any case so I think nukes are the least of the worries in that case.

In the event that the North Koreans were to attempt to use a nuke aggressively, they would be obliterated in short order by the Yanks so I'm guessing that even they aren't that stupid. Any sort of conflict in the area could still be disastrous to the region and world economy as a whole, of course.

As for the £500 billion of infrastructure spending mooted, here's a good run down from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ialist-a7337651.html

To put it into context, this would be £500 billion invested into the economy over the course of 10 years. In comparison, the last coalition government borrowed £430 billion between 2010-2013 just to pay the bills!

£500 billion sounds like (and is) a lot of money, but £50 billion per year isn't actually such a vast amount when you consider the country's GDP is over £2000 billion in size. Especially if you get something back from it.

For your final point, Pete, you do realise that Theresa May was in the 'Remain' camp? Just like pretty every other senior politician in the country.

Thanks Maringer that independent article has helped me understand that using QE to fund investment is indeed possible - albeit unlikely to happen.

Another thing. Theresa May is in the pocket of the Americans. She's that worried about a possible trade deal she is supporting trumps actions against Korea. The North Koreans have no reason to bother with us unless we were to back the Americans in military action which you can bet most of the Looney side of the Tories would support.

Anyway to the economy. Cutting spending is not the way forward anymore. Most economists are pro government intervention and spending because it leads to better outcomes. Investment in infrastructure  boosts productivity and returns usually around 3 times the cost. Investing in sport, mental health services, green technology all reduces illness and therefore reduces demand for the NHS. Even benefits do. If you cut benefits people are less likely to be able to look after themselves therefore develop health issues. It's no coincidence that the NHS is in such a mess under the conservatives.

May has already admitted that we will leave the single market despite economists saying not to. How can that be called economically savy? The Tories are also admitting that there form of brexit won't reduce immigration and at the same time people like Rees-Mog are trying to get us closer ties with the commonwealth who's demand for a free trade deal is likely to include allowing more migration (see India)