G7 growth rates compared to UK.
UK economic growth within the G7
was Keynes around when there was a global financial crisis caused by a sub prime lending which nearly bust a significant
number of banks (that we’re holding all of our money) ?!
ps As I mentioned earlier investing in infrastructure projects etc is sensible during a normal recession. I also mentioned the fact that if you are willing to encourage significant borrowing during recession, how can you condone significant borrowing during strong growth periods ?! When would you ever pay anything back ?!
You are wasting your time. Evidence isn't accepted on here if it doesn't agree with what certain people say.G7 growth rates compared to UK (I suppose the G7s performance was the Tories fault)
UK economic growth within the G7
Also, was Keynes around when there was a global financial crisis caused by a sub prime lending which nearly bust a significant
number of banks (that we’re holding all of our money) ?!
ps As I mentioned earlier investing in infrastructure projects etc is sensible during a normal recession. I also mentioned the fact that if you are willing to encourage significant borrowing during recession, how can you condone significant borrowing during strong growth periods ?! When would you ever pay anything back ?!
I was saying to show what evidence I came out with was wrong. And I say it yet again.
You just make comments and accusations though.
Literally posted graphs from the ONS in my replies dude. Try harder.
And for about the 7th time. What evidence did I link that was wrong like you accused me of?Literally posted graphs from the ONS in my replies dude. Try harder.
G7 growth rates compared to UK (I suppose the G7s performance was the Tories fault)
UK economic growth within the G7
Also, was Keynes around when there was a global financial crisis caused by a sub prime lending which nearly bust a significant
number of banks (that we’re holding all of our money) ?!
ps As I mentioned earlier investing in infrastructure projects etc is sensible during a normal recession. I also mentioned the fact that if you are willing to encourage significant borrowing during recession, how can you condone significant borrowing during strong growth periods ?! When would you ever pay anything back ?!
About right for you. A stuck recording when the truth proves you wrong.
It was a worldwide financial ‘crisis’....labour had left nothing in reserve to deal with it and as I’ve said if there hadn’t been attempts to control public expenditure (which was by then out of control - see Liam Byrne ‘there’s no money left’) you could forget borrowing at sensible rates. This would had led to immediate and far deeper cuts (see Ireland and Greece)
what did you expect them to do in 2010 ? If you say spend their way out of it...I’ll give up now ; )
G7 growth rates compared to UK (I suppose the G7s performance was the Tories fault)
UK economic growth within the G7
Also, was Keynes around when there was a global financial crisis caused by a sub prime lending which nearly bust a significant
number of banks (that we’re holding all of our money) ?!
ps As I mentioned earlier investing in infrastructure projects etc is sensible during a normal recession. I also mentioned the fact that if you are willing to encourage significant borrowing during recession, how can you condone significant borrowing during strong growth periods ?! When would you ever pay anything back ?!
What are you going
G7 growth rates compared to UK (I suppose the G7s performance was the Tories fault)
UK economic growth within the G7
Also, was Keynes around when there was a global financial crisis caused by a sub prime lending which nearly bust a significant
number of banks (that we’re holding all of our money) ?!
ps As I mentioned earlier investing in infrastructure projects etc is sensible during a normal recession. I also mentioned the fact that if you are willing to encourage significant borrowing during recession, how can you condone significant borrowing during strong growth periods ?! When would you ever pay anything back ?!
We can still borrow at record low rates. The rates are that low sometimes that we have to pay back less than we borrow when money doesn't look safe.Despite their being "no money left" which was a flippant comment that's been used by the Tories as some sort of hard evidence, when Labour left office Britain could borrow at record low rates and had its treble A rating. What happened to it?
There were numerous attempts to control public expenditure under new labour. The Gershon review was the biggest and that cut thousands and thousands of public sector jobs.
From your link:
The UK had one of the largest falls in economic output among the G7, and for the first few years recovered slowly.
Emphasis mine
Why aren't we doing it then? You're agreeing that its pure ideologyWe can still borrow at record low rates. The rates are that low sometimes that we have to pay back less than we borrow when money doesn't look safe.
From your link:
The UK had one of the largest falls in economic output among the G7, and for the first few years recovered slowly.
Emphasis mine
Ps propaganda ? ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever | Liam Byrne
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
also useful to remind ourselves that Labour has drawn up similar significant cutting/austerity plans. Fair play to Byrne for holding his hands up though...shame many would rather sweep it under the carpet
Despite their being "no money left" which was a flippant comment that's been used by the Tories as some sort of hard evidence, when Labour left office Britain could borrow at record low rates and had its treble A rating. What happened to it?
There were numerous attempts to control public expenditure under new labour. The Gershon review was the biggest and that cut thousands and thousands of public sector jobs.
We do with bonds. The rates constantly move.Why aren't we doing it then? You're agreeing that its pure ideology
come on shmmeee, you’re better than that. What do they say about 2013 - 2016 ?
Again, from your own link:
Into my head came the phrase I’d used to negotiate all those massive savings with my colleagues: “I’m afraid there is no money.” I knew my successor’s job was tough. I guess I wanted to offer them a friendly word on their first day in one of government’s hardest jobs by honouring an old tradition that stretched back to Churchill in the 1930s and the Tory chancellor Reginald Maudling, who bounced down the steps of the Treasury in 1964 to tell Jim Callaghan: “Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old cock.”
So exactly what I said then.
How about my links you keep saying were wrong?Im not talking about that. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about 2010-2012 when Osborne inherited a slowly recovering economy and nearly pushed us back into recession.
Im not talking about that. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about 2010-2012 when Osborne inherited a slowly recovering economy and nearly pushed us back into recession.
What's your point Steve? £40bn drop in tax receipts and you blame Labour for profligacyPs propaganda ? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
also useful to remind ourselves that Labour has drawn up similar significant cutting/austerity plans. Fair play to Byrne for holding his hands up though...shame many would rather sweep it under the carpet
Im not talking about that. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about 2010-2012 when Osborne inherited a slowly recovering economy and nearly pushed us back into recession.
How about my links you keep saying were wrong?
The point remains the same, how he says he meant it is almost irrelevant (if you believe him). As I say it’s also interesting to remind ourselves of the significant cutting labour had also planned ! (Often forgotten)
What's your point Steve? £40bn drop in tax receipts and you blame Labour for profligacy
The problem you have here is some don't want to admit that Labour spend too much meaning we need austerity to stop our finances going totally out of control.No Fernando, you’ll need to read back. My point was that the Tories inherited a mess (I’ve acknowledged it was due to financial crisis ie not labours doing, but also said there was nothing in reserve following years of strong growth and no recession - labours problem)
The fact is Tories get blamed for that initial austerity when the fact is that labour were going to implement a similar plan. They could barely keep public sector going !!!
No Fernando, you’ll need to read back. My point was that the Tories inherited a mess (I’ve acknowledged it was due to financial crisis ie not labours doing, but also said there was nothing in reserve following years of strong growth and no recession - labours problem)
The fact is Tories get blamed for that initial austerity when the fact is that labour were going to implement a similar plan. They could barely keep public sector going !!!
The Labour government’s 2010 Budget set out the size of its planned tightening in each year. It aims to withdraw the temporary fiscal stimulus package this year, start tightening in 2011–12 and finish the job in 2016–17, with the pain front-loaded in the earlier years. The Liberal Democrats have informally endorsed this tightening profile.
The Conservatives want to start tightening earlier and proceed more quickly. They plan an additional £6 billion tightening this year and would aim to get almost all the repair job done a year earlier than Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 2015–16.
The Conservatives’ greater ambition would make a relatively modest difference to the long- term outlook for government borrowing and debt. The Conservative plans imply total borrowing of £604 billion over the next seven years, compared with £643 billion under Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Assuming no further change in borrowing beyond 2017–18, we project that the Conservative plans would return government debt below 40% of national income in 2031–32, the same year as it would under Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
Differences between the parties are much more pronounced with regards to the composition of the tightening. Labour favours a 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises (£47 billion and
£24 billion, respectively), the Liberal Democrats a 21⁄2:1 ratio (£51 billion and £20 billion) and the Conservatives a 4:1 ratio (£57 billion and £14 billion). Measured as shares of national income, the Labour and Liberal Democrat plans would reduce public spending to a level last seen in 2004–05 and increase tax revenues to their highest since the peak of the late 1980s boom in 1989–90. The Conservatives would reduce total spending to the level seen in 2003–04 and increase revenues to the level seen in 2006–07.
Measured as a share of national income and converting into 2010–11 terms, Labour has already put a £17 billion tax increase into the pipeline for the coming Parliament. We estimate that its goals for borrowing and the overall composition of the fiscal tightening would require it to announce further tax increases worth around £7 billion. The Conservatives have announced a £6 billion net tax cut on top of what is in the pipeline from Labour, but their goals would probably require them to reverse about half of it. The Liberal Democrats have announced a £3 billion tax increase on top of what is in the pipeline and would not need to do anything further. The rise in the tax burden by 2016–17 would be largest under Labour and lowest under the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats in the middle.
Far more significant is the gap in the parties’ plans for reducing public spending. None has announced plans for significant cuts to social security spending and, without them, their plans would require deep cuts to spending on public services. Over the four years starting in April 2011, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cut to spending on public services since the four years from April 1976 to March 1980. Starting this year, the Conservative plans imply cuts to spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War.
Once we take into account their various pledges to protect spending in certain areas, in real terms the Conservatives would need to cut public services spending in their unprotected areas by £63.7 billion, Labour by £50.8 billion and the Liberal Democrats by £46.5 billion between April 2011 and March 2015. Of these, the Conservatives have announced measures that would bring about 17.7% of the total cuts they need, leaving a shortfall of £52.4 billion. Labour has announced measures that would bring about 13.1% of what it would need, leaving a shortfall of £44.1 billion. The Liberal Democrats have announced measures that would bring about 25.9% of what they would need, leaving a shortfall of £34.5 billion.
Ps propaganda ? ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever | Liam Byrne
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
also useful to remind ourselves that Labour has drawn up similar significant cutting/austerity plans. Fair play to Byrne for holding his hands up though...shame many would rather sweep it under the carpet
From: https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/ebn_summary.pdf
The tax rises to cuts ratio is important there as is the pace. The Tories were planning much deeper cuts than Labour, not “about the same”.
I should again point out that I’m more radical in my economics than Brown was (I suspect fernando would say the same), so there’s some blurring here between my views and what Labour has planned.
Austerity was and always has been a political choice.
ZzzzzzzzThe problem you have here is some don't want to admit that Labour spend too much meaning we need austerity to stop our finances going totally out of control.
The problem is that the austerity years can be so bad that we do need to give a lot back to the public.
I’ll refer you to the link as well
Ian (which indicates labour were going to make significant cuts if they’d won the 2010 election and that it was 100% needed)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?