Labour goes back to its roots.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The opposite! You wouldn't see pay freezes for nurses or teachers, or their pensions slashed. You wouldn't see tax cuts for the well off. You wouldn't see wholesale cuts in frontline public services, or prioritising paying off debt over absolutely every other priority.

And who is going to pay for it all?

"Borrow Borrow Borrow"

That's the mantra you sing everyday. Britain's finances are the worst mess of any G7 country, doesn't that worry you at all?

cogito

Exactly. Just what percentage of GDP would a labour government need to pay for all this? They already spend nearly half of GDP and look what we get for it. The biggest financial crisis anyone can remember. And all their supporters want is more of the same. It's like letting an alcoholic loose in a brewery.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Given the increasing gap between rich and poor that has happened under the Labour administration not really that comfortable with calling them socialists imo

Rochdale_Pioneers

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Given the increasing gap between rich and poor that has happened under the Labour administration not really that comfortable with calling them socialists imo

A gap caused solely by the very rich getting a great deal richer, not because of any drop in incomes of the bottom tenth percentile. We could see a large increase in the gap between rich and poor by having Buffet or Gates come live in the UK. Wouldn't make anyone any poorer except statistically.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

A gap caused solely by the very rich getting a great deal richer, not because of any drop in incomes of the bottom tenth percentile. We could see a large increase in the gap between rich and poor by having Buffet or Gates come live in the UK. Wouldn't make anyone any poorer except statistically.

maybe - but the rich getting a great deal richer not really sounding much like socialism to me tbh. think socialism has a redistributive function - not really seeing that so much over the last decade

Wookster

You keep on avoiding the question - who's going to pay for it all Rochdale?

cogito

Wookster wrote: »

You keep on avoiding the question - who's going to pay for it all Rochdale?

People earning more than £150k per annum.

Oh, er, hang on...........

dylansmum

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

A gap caused solely by the very rich getting a great deal richer, not because of any drop in incomes of the bottom tenth percentile. We could see a large increase in the gap between rich and poor by having Buffet or Gates come live in the UK. Wouldn't make anyone any poorer except statistically.

How are you measuring this gap?

Labour chose to measure relative poverty by placing the poverty line at 60% of the median. This replaced the 50% median. Therefore, while there was, in Labour's first term, a decline in relative poverty (among households with kids - the sampling choice), the use of the 60% is why. Thus, the 50%, if it had been used, would have shown less of a decline.

The reason this makes people poorer is this is how the government predicated poverty decreases and hence used tax redistribution to try to counter poverty. This is also complicated by the relations between tax reform (using this median as a predictive tool) and a very low unemployment forecast. This is why child poverty has not decreased at the rate first predicted. Hence, people are poorer in terms of how rich have got richer due to the 60% being tied to tax reforms. It would take a huge hike in benefits for relative poverty to delcine on target and for the gap to shrink. And the sample would need to include single people to get a beter measure - espcailly under 25s who are hit time and time again by lack of housing benefit, tax credits - and childless couples/people. (FI - I have a kiddie so this isn't a have a go at families post).

However, I find the quoted article rather bizarre!

dylansmum

I might also add that measuing absolute incomes, rather than relative poverty would give a very different picture.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

You keep on avoiding the question - who's going to pay for it all Rochdale?

I already answered it. The obsession with paying down debt in record time is how you pay for it. Don't slash public services, you don't dump a load of people on the dole, don't delay the recovery and therefore get back to growth quicker. That generates higher tax revenues that allow you to do both.

Its simple. Either you take a pragmatic look at debt, realise we're not about to go bust, that we have comparitively low debt vs the few countries with bigger economies than ours, and get on with the job of running the country. Yes we need to reduce it, but it can be done gradually until things pick up enough to run the kind of big budget surplus we had in 88-90 and 95-01.