|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 13, 2023 21:37:52 GMT
View AttachmentI believe that Pacifico is mixing up "Public Debt" with "National Debt" Public Debt is the deficit or Budget Deficit, whereas National Debt is the total of accumulated debt for which the deficit adds to. I accept that it is confusing I'm not mixing up anything. You made a fool of yourself and now cannot admit it. Google 'UK Public Debt' and the first link you get is: UK government debt and deficit: March 2023 |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 13, 2023 21:40:56 GMT
No. Austerity means getting out of a debt spiral. Except that it didn't. Well it would have if we had had any austerity. Public spending has risen as a percentage of GDP and in Real Terms - and growth is still anemic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 13, 2023 22:28:03 GMT
Well it would have if we had had any austerity. Public spending has risen as a percentage of GDP and in Real Terms - and growth is still anemic. Well I think that we can both agree that the naughties were a failure. But yet after 13 years you seem to want more of the same. I'm not sure where this growth is going to come from. (I'm also not sure where it would come from under Labour either.) |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 14, 2023 6:21:38 GMT
The idea that Johnson was innocent of 'crimes' whilst PM is laughable, not to mention the 'talking' to KGB agents after slipping his security detail. Johnson is a liar, misogynist, idiot, populist buffoon. But you lot criticise the process that brought him down, ridiculous. Would you seriously want Johnson in charge of your finances? would you want Harriet Hate-Men, supporter of Paedophile Information Exchange, believer that every interview for every job should go first to a black, brown or otherwise ethnic, lesbian or bisexual or anything other than heterosexual, woman (or these days anything identifying as such, but that was not her original position) and only in the last resort ever to go to white, heterosexual men of any age whatsoever, except where the position is one of union officer in which case her husband is of course the only acceptable candidate, in charge of ANYTHING |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 14, 2023 6:35:27 GMT
Well it would have if we had had any austerity. Public spending has risen as a percentage of GDP and in Real Terms - and growth is still anemic. Well I think that we can both agree that the naughties were a failure. But yet after 13 years you seem to want more of the same. I'm not sure where this growth is going to come from. (I'm also not sure where it would come from under Labour either.) immigration |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 14, 2023 6:39:29 GMT
Hmm. If that's the answer to where Labour is going to find growth, where are the Tories planning on getting it from? Unless you meant this as the answer for both?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 14, 2023 6:41:01 GMT
Hmm. If that's the answer to where Labour is going to find growth, where are the Tories planning on getting it from? Unless you meant this as the answer for both? Currently the Tories are importing over 1 million people a year - the only difference between them and Labour is that Labour want more. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 14, 2023 7:54:48 GMT
What's personal debt got to do with government spending. Homelessness has always been a problem, is it better now?
Thank god the Tories have reversed that.
The 9.5Bn was not for nothing, look it up. There are plentiful Brexit threads. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 14, 2023 7:58:45 GMT
Hmm. If that's the answer to where Labour is going to find growth, where are the Tories planning on getting it from? Unless you meant this as the answer for both? Currently the Tories are importing over 1 million people a year - the only difference between them and Labour is that Labour want more. So finally you agree that immigration is about growth. Next you can work out its about tax growth as well, the constant increase to keep just ahead of the debts. We all know this comes down to INCREASE TAX or DECREASE CARE. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 14, 2023 8:29:19 GMT
Currently the Tories are importing over 1 million people a year - the only difference between them and Labour is that Labour want more. So finally you agree that immigration is about growth. Next you can work out its about tax growth as well, the constant increase to keep just ahead of the debts. We all know this comes down to INCREASE TAX or DECREASE CARE. What do you mean finally? Of course immigration leads to growth - if you increase the size of the economy then it has grown. What immigration does not do - and this is what you cannot bring yourself to admit - is lead to growth in GDP per capita. So you can double the size of the economy through growth but if nobody is better off what is the point. As for your idea that higher taxes lead to higher growth... well the highest tax burden in 7 decades has not lead to any higher growth yet.. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 14, 2023 8:36:44 GMT
Currently the Tories are importing over 1 million people a year - the only difference between them and Labour is that Labour want more. So finally you agree that immigration is about growth. Next you can work out its about tax growth as well, the constant increase to keep just ahead of the debts. This notion puts your recent appeals to increase our national debt into perspective. The more debt a population has, the more limited the choices available to it. Debt is dis-empowering. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 14, 2023 8:54:34 GMT
Zany, back when Labour were last in, they practically did away with most forms of savings and encouraged borrowing.
High levels of personal debt included student loans.
They introduced tuition fees. Top up fees.
They put the whole economy on tick and got large parts of the public doing the same.
Gordon Brown ignored the warnings.
By the end of the New Labour era the high interest payday loans companies had started.
Everything went to shit.
You cannot run an economy based on soaring debts forever, it will go bust. Debts have to be repaid.
Government debt soared. That has to be repaid.
We haven't repaid the debts of 2001 yet.
There's more strife to come and neither party can be trusted. Labour will likely get in next year, but they haven't learned a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 14, 2023 9:06:05 GMT
So finally you agree that immigration is about growth. Next you can work out its about tax growth as well, the constant increase to keep just ahead of the debts. We all know this comes down to INCREASE TAX or DECREASE CARE. What do you mean finally? Of course immigration leads to growth - if you increase the size of the economy then it has grown. What immigration does not do - and this is what you cannot bring yourself to admit - is lead to growth in GDP per capita. So you can double the size of the economy through growth but if nobody is better off what is the point. As for your idea that higher taxes lead to higher growth... well the highest tax burden in 7 decades has not lead to any higher growth yet.. Well growth is pointless if its not growth per capita. But then I've never claimed it did increase growth per capita. I would say as you well know. Only I realise you don't and recognise your inability to understand the things I have explained several times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2023 10:20:04 GMT
View AttachmentI believe that Pacifico is mixing up "Public Debt" with "National Debt" Public Debt is the deficit or Budget Deficit, whereas National Debt is the total of accumulated debt for which the deficit adds to. I accept that it is confusing I'm not mixing up anything. You made a fool of yourself and now cannot admit it. Google 'UK Public Debt' and the first link you get is: UK government debt and deficit: March 2023I have at no time ever intended to discuss "National Debt" or sometimes simply refered to as "Debt", I have only refered to "Government Borrowing" or otherwise known as "The Budget Deficit" which is something completely different to "National Debt". The origions of this discussion are based on your false statement that "the Blair government made massive improvements to the NHS through excessive borrowing". A statement which is NOT TRUE The budget Deficit ( government borrowing ) was low throughout Tony Blairs term, meaning that it (The Deficit) was not adding unsustainable sums to The National Debt. Whilst you are correct that National Debt was 60% in 2010, the Budget Deficit at the time was 10%, which had risen sharply DURING GORDON BROWN'S TERM and due entirely to the Banking Crisis and World Recession. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2023 10:27:51 GMT
I repeat what I stated earlier - Government borrowing throughout the premiership of Tony Blair was low, and at no time during his time in office was government borrowing as high as during John Majors time in office.
A remarkable fact is that the Blair government at the same time made colossal and visible improvements to the NHS.
|
|
