We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Not Paying Down Deficit-Cons Think Voters Cant Understand Sums
Comments
-
A sensible use of the word MAY and seems to convey they same message as my my post.
Not exactly. My point is that the facts are under Labour spending would have been (even) higher & that whether GDP would have been better or worse is unknown.
Which is not what you said - you simply said it might have been better. A technique often used by Balls etc to frame the debate on a false premise - that the argument is lower spending + lower GDP versus higher spending + higher GDP.
In fact the argument is lower spending + known GDP versus known higher spending & unknown GDP.0 -
Not exactly. My point is that the facts are under Labour spending would have been (even) higher & that whether GDP would have been better or worse is unknown.
Which is not what you said - you simply said it might have been better. A technique often used by Balls etc to frame the debate on a false premise - that the argument is lower spending + lower GDP versus higher spending + higher GDP.
In fact the argument is lower spending + known GDP versus known higher spending & unknown GDP.
I'm not sure even George has a crystal ball that can let him know what the future GDP is going to be.0 -
DecentLivingWage wrote: »Cons themselves have likened it to an overdraft! cutting,paying off,back,down,up - terminology matters less than actually doing it, which osborne said he would and for all that pain for the least able to carry it - he hasnt,its grown.
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/index.html
Dilnot's latest letter to Reeves explains it quite well and also has a nice graphic on the last page of the UK's deficit reducing in each year under this government.
I do find it quite amusing that you obviously don't understand your own party's angle of attack on this issue which is that the Tories stated that they were paying down debts which is not true (the correct position being that the deficit is reducing whilst net borrowing is still increasing -- because there is still a (smaller) deficit.0 -
Not exactly. My point is that the facts are under Labour spending would have been (even) higher & that whether GDP would have been better or worse is unknown.
Which is not what you said - you simply said it might have been better. A technique often used by Balls etc to frame the debate on a false premise - that the argument is lower spending + lower GDP versus higher spending + higher GDP.
In fact the argument is lower spending + known GDP versus known higher spending & unknown GDP.
It is fair to say that we don't know what GDP would be under a labour govt but since Darling's spending plans were to cut only fractionally less than the Tories are currently doing it seems rather unlikely that GDP would have been meaningfully impacted (esp. Given the margin for error in the calculation).
GDP is not income however - it might be that tax revenues would be higher under labour even if GDP was about the same - but as all they are advocating on tax is taxing bankers bonuses for a bit of small change whilst cutting VAT by 2.5% it seems unlikely that they'd be raising much more in tax revenues.0 -
Good, so you're agreeing with me then.
No what I am saying is that we do not know yet if the George's plan is working as deficit is increasing and we don’t know what the GDP would be if a different approach had been taken. I believe growth is less than George predicted so the GDP figure he based his calculations on was wrong. As I said it’s to soon to say if George’s plan is working or not we will see over the coming months / years. We will never know if Labours plan would have worked.0 -
No what I am saying is that we do not know yet if the George's plan is working as deficit is increasing and we don’t know what the GDP would be if a different approach had been taken. I believe growth is less than George predicted so the GDP figure he based his calculations on was wrong. As I said it’s to soon to say if George’s plan is working or not we will see over the coming months / years. We will never know if Labours plan would have worked.
That is true.
All one can say is that given Labour's abject mis-management of the economy and of public finances and the shambles that they left behind in 2010, why would we be inclined to give them any benefit of the doubt that they could have done better since then ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »That is true.
All one can say is that given Labour's abject mis-management of the economy and of public finances and the shambles that they left behind in 2010, why would we be inclined to give them any benefit of the doubt that they could have done better since then ?
Because the Tories would have left the same mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r00 -
They certainly would not have thrown huge amounts of public money at layabouts on welfare, nor creation of swathes of non-jobs in the public sector, nor on bribing the Scots and Welsh. There is no reason to believe they would have created the hopeless hapless FSA, nor given up a chunk of the EU rebate. So the perception that they would have left the public finances in such a dire state is based purely on prejudicial opinion and not on any objective analysis of what did happen and what would be likely to have happened.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »They certainly would not have thrown huge amounts of public money at layabouts on welfare, nor creation of swathes of non-jobs in the public sector, nor on bribing the Scots and Welsh. There is no reason to believe they would have created the hopeless hapless FSA, nor given up a chunk of the EU rebate. So the perception that they would have left the public finances in such a dire state is based purely on prejudicial opinion and not on any objective analysis of what did happen and what would be likely to have happened.
That said they would match Labour spending0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards