Corbynomics: A Dystopia

DiggerUK

Government borrowing, is an institutional activity that has been going on since the foundation of the Bank of England in the 17th century. Calm down dears, it's normal.
B!tch!ng about the subject is a non issue, just play with the various charts and data provided by this well used site, and you will see that national debts and deficits are a normal function of government.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history

What is worth arguing about, is what the government spends its revenues on.
Is it to be spent benefiting the few, or the many? Seems to me that the coalition of millionaires, and their supporters, faced with the prospect of the great unwashed getting a larger portion, are a bit p!ssed off..._

Fella

Tromking wrote: »

The question is how you reduce the deficit not whether you reduce it.

That's not correct. The Tories are reducing the deficit & Corbyn's manifesto would have massively increased it. So the question is very much whether you reduce it.

Tromking wrote: »

In fact the first Tory plan on the deficit was to balance the books by 2015!..... how's that going?

Literally every single cut that the Tories proposed from 2010-2015 (and since) has been opposed by Labour and all of their supporters. Do you not find it just the tiniest bit hypocritical to oppose every cut AND carp about how long it's taking to reduce the deficit?

Tromking wrote: »

Government has a responsibility to balance the books of course, it also a responsibility to run our public services properly and in a sustainable manner that doesn't affect delivery to the people of the UK.

The only possible way to do that is to balance the books, as the Tories are at least trying to do. If you spend more than you have, as an individual, as a company, or as a country, the outcome is always the same. Eventually you run out of money and out of credit & the resulting mess is always much much worse than it would have been if you'd lived within your means from the start.

The problem is that every attempt to do that is met with deafening criticism from Labour, from every Trade Union, and from people like yourself, none of whom are prepared to accept that we simply don't have the money to spend on what you want it to be spent on.

Fella

DiggerUK wrote: »

Is it to be spent benefiting the few, or the many?

Oh dear, use of that phrase is a bit of a giveaway. Ironic that it was coined by somebody who by every possible definition is one of the hated "few". I must admit if I was going to allow myself to be brainwashed into hating rich old men who went to private school, earnt six-figure salaries & owed million-pound plus homes, I'd at least want the person doing the brainwashing to not be......er......a rich old man who went to private school, earns a six-figure salary & owned a million-pound plus home.

DiggerUK wrote: »

Seems to me that the coalition of millionaires, and their supporters, faced with the prospect of the great unwashed getting a larger portion

How's that working out in Venezuela?

Tromking

Fella wrote: »

That's not correct. The Tories are reducing the deficit & Corbyn's manifesto would have massively increased it. So the question is very much whether you reduce it.
Literally every single cut that the Tories proposed from 2010-2015 (and since) has been opposed by Labour and all of their supporters. Do you not find it just the tiniest bit hypocritical to oppose every cut AND carp about how long it's taking to reduce the deficit?
The only possible way to do that is to balance the books, as the Tories are at least trying to do. If you spend more than you have, as an individual, as a company, or as a country, the outcome is always the same. Eventually you run out of money and out of credit & the resulting mess is always much much worse than it would have been if you'd lived within your means from the start.

The problem is that every attempt to do that is met with deafening criticism from Labour, from every Trade Union, and from people like yourself, none of whom are prepared to accept that we simply don't have the money to spend on what you want it to be spent on.

While you seem keen to say that cuts are entirely necessary to bring the deficit down, you seem reluctant to acknowledge the negative effects of those cuts on our public services and the people who work for them and access them. Why is that?
The method, speed and depth of cuts are always a political choice, a fact that is at last beginning to dawn on the Tories, hence what was supposed to be coronation for TM at the GE ended up going slightly awry.

antrobus

DiggerUK wrote: »

Government borrowing, is an institutional activity that has been going on since the foundation of the Bank of England in the 17th century. ...

Well before that. Back in the 14th C the English crown borrowed money from various Florentine bankers. I think there was even a sovereign default in there somewhere.

The Bank of England was founded in 1694. Post the Glorious Revolution. It was part of the scheme that removed the government from the control of the crown and gave it to parliament.

DiggerUK wrote: »

...Calm down dears, it's normal.
B!tch!ng about the subject is a non issue, just play with the various charts and data provided by this well used site, and you will see that national debts and deficits are a normal function of government.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history
...

Well, yes it is. It's also perfectly normal for individuals to borrow money. A number of them overdo it, hence the regular stream of bankruptcies etc.

Governments sometimes overdo it as well. See Greece for a recent example. The fact that is is 'normal' for a government to have a national debt and run a deficit, doesn't change the fact that running too large a deficit and building up too much debt can be a big problem.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just plain silly.

DiggerUK wrote: »

...What is worth arguing about, is what the government spends its revenues on....

No, the real questions are; what should the government be spending money on, how much is it going to cost, and where is the money going to come from?

DiggerUK wrote: »

..Is it to be spent benefiting the few, or the many? Seems to me that the coalition of millionaires, and their supporters, faced with the prospect of the great unwashed getting a larger portion, are a bit p!ssed off..._

Oh, I don't know, let's have a look at that website shall we?
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year2018_UK.html

Look like most of the money is being spent on stuff like Pensions, Health Care, Education, and Welfare. At least that's about two-thirds of it.

Spouting rhetoric about a "coalition of millionaires" is no substitute for economic or fiscal analysis.:)

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

Spouting rhetoric about a "coalition of millionaires" is no substitute for economic or fiscal analysis.:)

You were doing so well up to that point....no one has ever won an election by being realistic about policy choices whereas identifying some small group and demonising them whilst simultaneously implying that by doing so everyone else will be better off has always been a route to electoral success.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

And some people who think he ran a much better campaign than the tories are Tory too so not Corbin supporters

A group of people coordinated Corbyn's campaign. In the same way as a good actor speaks the script and plays the part.

May rightly sacked hers.

StevieJ

Tromking wrote: »

While you seem keen to say that cuts are entirely necessary to bring the deficit down, you seem reluctant to acknowledge the negative effects of those cuts on our public services and the people who work for them and access them. Why is that?
The method, speed and depth of cuts are always a political choice, a fact that is at last beginning to dawn on the Tories, hence what was supposed to be coronation for TM at the GE ended up going slightly awry.

Why is it always about cuts? What about tax increases, Scandinavia seems to have much better public services paid for by higher taxes.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

Why is it always about cuts? What about tax increases, Scandinavia seems to have much better public services paid for by higher taxes.

Higher taxes won't resolve the issue. What's required is a fundamental rethink. Unfortunately that will never happen. As access to public money is now viewed as a right by one group of people or another. Those in the public sector also need to understand the fact that they need are accountable for the manner in which public money is used.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

You were doing so well up to that point....no one has ever won an election by being realistic about policy choices whereas identifying some small group and demonising them whilst simultaneously implying that by doing so everyone else will be better off has always been a route to electoral success.

Yes, politics plays by it's own rules. It's perfectly possible to win an election by demonising the "coalition of millionaires" or whatever, and making all sorts of promises about the benefits that will flow to the "great unwashed".

The trouble is, once you've won the election, you then have to deal with economic reality. And you are forced to be realistic about those policy choices.

We have the example of Syriza, elected in Greece on the promise of bring an end to austerity. Now in government, they have been busy doing the exact opposite and have imposed even harsher austerity. Rhetoric is one thing, hard cash is something else. Governments need hard cash to pay the bills.