Shameless labour

IronWolf

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Indeed, and the bond market wants Economic Growth more than it wants to see the deficit falling!

The quickest way to a bond crisis is to put the UK into another recession.

Not true at all, you only have to look at Greek bonds before they were bailed out and after (with the severe spending cuts).

Graham_Devon

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Cutting less would have meant we didn't go into a recession. In a recession the government receive less tax and pays out more unemployment benefit, therefore they have LESS money to pay back the public debt.

Under the Tory led coalition we will end up owing MORE not less.

Absolute unstatiated rubbish.

As per your usual standard.

"This would have happened under labour, we would have done this, they would have done that, and we wouldn't have ended up in any trouble".

There is no debate here. It's all hypotetical what if's and major blinkers. The only talent being shown on this thread is blind ignorance.

IronWolf

Ok, lets debunk this myth of plummeting tax revenues. Since the 2008 financial crisis, tax revenue has fallen a total of £30bn, out of £549bn.

Since 1964, this is the ONLY time that tax revenue has fallen year on year. How many recessions have we had since then? How many budget cuts? How many periods of economic stagnation have we had? The truth is we've been through it all, and still, tax revenues have never plummeted.

So stop with this ridiculous notion that tax revenues will plummet because of spending cuts, because the worst we have seen in the last half a century is a £30bn drop, which is FAR outweighed by the £120bn budget deficit which the government is reducing.

Also its worth noting that Tax revenue is forecast to grow over the next few years, even with spending cuts.





SOURCE HM TREASURY Years in
DATALINK http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm

TheMoneySpider

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Don't know if this is true or not - after all it is from The Daily Mail, but apparently Ed Balls mugged up (I use this phrase advisedly) for his Shadow Home Secretary role by reading crime novels.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351825/Ed-Balls-novel-approach-political-research-frontbench-role.html

I'm just not seeing an adequate, let alone, great shadow government with this lot. Which is not good for the Country.

Oh dear, come on....did you actually make a judgement on the man based on that? Surely you didn't.

ILW

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

IF WE GO INTO RECESSION WE WILL HAVE TO BORROW MORE THAN WE WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER LABOUR'S SPENDING PLANS.

Under the Tories our debts will be bigger!!!!

Chucking more money at the public sector does not avoid recession.

Constantly overspending does eventually.

Jennifer_Jane

TheMoneySpider wrote: »

Oh dear, come on....did you actually make a judgement on the man based on that? Surely you didn't.

Ha Ha! No, of course not. That would be silly, as you suggest.

No. I watch Parliament Live every day. I am basing my judgments on the Labour Party on that, and on watching QuestionTime, and other programmes when I manage to catch them.

I just thought that this was an interesting thing to mention here in a thread about 'Shameless Labour'.

But interesting that you actually thought that I might make a complete judgment on Labour based on that. You did, didn't you? No, surely you couldn't have.

Jennifer_Jane

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But not at her employer's apparent fleecing of the taxpayer?

Of course she did. She described it with horror at the possibility that had the contract not have been taken up the Trust would still have been committed to paying the £500,000 - and described the incident to me as having potentially saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

Why are people being so daft around here at the moment.

PS - just to quibble - I wouldn't describe the Trust as being her 'Employer', of course, although she did receive a small amount for being a non-exec Director.

StevieJ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

But interesting that you actually thought that I might make a complete judgment on Labour based on that. You did, didn't you? No, surely you couldn't have.

I did well may be not Labour but Balls for sure.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

Growth will come from freeing up businesses to make things happen. (Less regulation, less red tape, lower corporate taxes etc.) Bunging billions at the public sector is what has been happening over the last decade and is part of the reason for the state we are in.

Lower wages?

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

Lower wages?

Possibly, labour is a commodity like any other. Some may fall and other srise.