UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Huehuecoyotl]

...or maybe the markets simply aren't as confident in the ability of the wannabe Labour government to manage public finances responsibly, which is why they make it more expensive to borrow...

Not everything is an evil Tory bankster conspiracy theory.

The Tories have got to the point where they have racked up 1.7 TRILLION pounds of debt. They have added more debt than every Labour government in history. They have consistently increased debt when they have been in power, when historically Labour have reduced it. Still the markets lend them money at low rates. If they are suddenly deciding that they don't want to lend to Labour, it is nothing to do with who can manage public finances properly.

[Valerean]

The Tories have got to the point where they have racked up 1.7 TRILLION pounds of debt. They have added more debt than every Labour government in history. They have consistently increased debt when they have been in power, when historically Labour have reduced it. Still the markets lend them money at low rates. If they are suddenly deciding that they don't want to lend to Labour, it is nothing to do with who can manage public finances properly.

And yet, despite adding £1.7 Trillion to the national debt, they have kept the economy growing, unemployment at historic lows, wages up, population up, private spending up.

Like it or not, the Conservatives have a solid track record in Government, which is why they can borrow on the cheap.

The idea of port-faced Lancelots in their City board rooms chortling as they hit "deny" on Labour borrowing requests is just plain silly if you've worked anywhere near the industry.

[Kalis]

The Tories have got to the point where they have racked up 1.7 TRILLION pounds of debt. They have added more debt than every Labour government in history. They have consistently increased debt when they have been in power, when historically Labour have reduced it. Still the markets lend them money at low rates. If they are suddenly deciding that they don't want to lend to Labour, it is nothing to do with who can manage public finances properly.

As per my previous reply to you...

This picture, gives an indication as to why the borrowing took place...



If you look at the dips following a major economic crisis, i.e. 1991/2 and 2008, then you will see that borrowing goes up before coming down again, this is expected. The worst Chancellors we have had in the period shown have been Lamont, Darling and Brown, though Brown was a decent Chancellor early on, the second half of his reign was dreadful as he did not stick to his own economic principles.

The Tories have followed the downward curve on borrowing since 2010, Labour would have had no option but to borrow at a similarly high level if they had won the 2010 GE and their plans actually called for more borrowing than the Tories did.

To use arguments like "the latest Tory government has borrowed more than all Labour governments in history" is to completely ignore that they had no choice in the matter. They cannot have not borrowed, they had to finance the majority of existing public spending requirements somehow.

We need to cut the deficit in order to start cutting into the debt, which the Tories are doing, albeit slower than anticipated. In comparison the policies of a Labour led administration would have had even greater borrowing and been even further away from reducing the deficit.

[Huehuecoyotl]

As per my previous reply to you...

Take out 2008 and 2009, since as you well know those were exceptional years as a result of the socialist bailout of that most capitalist of systems; the banks. We can even ignore the Tory figures after that (even though their activities slowed down the economy, slowing the deficit fall as well). Then even for the reduced period that you have decided to cherry pick, it shows that Labour governments actually ran surpluses more often, and were responsible for smaller deficits. And that is even allowing for the fact that the Tories were, over those time-frames, selling off assets to boost their numbers.

If you look at figures for governments going further back, you will see the pattern repeat. The Tories have this reputation as the fiscally prudent party, but it is entirely undeserved.

So your answer is still wrong. But I suspect you know that very well.

[Kalis]

Take out 2008 and 2009, since as you well know those were exceptional years as a result of the socialist bailout of that most capitalist of systems; the banks. We can even ignore the Tory figures after that (even though their activities slowed down the economy, slowing the deficit fall as well). Then even for the reduced period that you have decided to cherry pick, it shows that Labour governments actually ran surpluses more often, and were responsible for smaller deficits. And that is even allowing for the fact that the Tories were, over those time-frames, selling off assets to boost their numbers.

If you look at figures for governments going further back, you will see the pattern repeat. The Tories have this reputation as the fiscally prudent party, but it is entirely undeserved.

So your answer is still wrong. But I suspect you know that very well.

You cannot take those years out, they are the reason that the Tories have had to increase the debt. If they had started at zero deficit, then they would have created significant surplus and been able to pay down the debt, but they did not start at zero.

Are you being disingenuous, or do you genuinely not understand how the deficit relates to the debt? A lot of people do not get the connection, including some politicians whose job it is to know these things.

[rogueMatthias]

You cannot take those years out, they are the reason that the Tories have had to increase the debt. If they had started at zero deficit, then they would have created significant surplus and been able to pay down the debt, but they did not start at zero.

Are you being disingenuous, or do you genuinely not understand how the deficit relates to the debt? A lot of people do not get the connection, including some politicians whose job it is to know these things.

Don't blame him, He learnt his maths from Corbyn and Abbott.

[Slant]

So, I've lost track. Did the UK finally decide what they want or are we still holding our breaths?

[Kalis]

So, I've lost track. Did the UK finally decide what they want or are we still holding our breaths?

The election is on the 8th June.

[Huehuecoyotl]

You cannot take those years out, they are the reason that the Tories have had to increase the debt. If they had started at zero deficit, then they would have created significant surplus and been able to pay down the debt, but they did not start at zero.

Are you being disingenuous, or do you genuinely not understand how the deficit relates to the debt? A lot of people do not get the connection, including some politicians whose job it is to know these things.

You're accusing me of being disingenuous? We were talking about which party, historically, was responsible for running more deficits and creating more debt. And I explained how, even in the shorter time-frame you focused on, it showed that historically the Tories are responsible for the greater deficits, which lead to greater debt.

Go back earlier than that and you will see the same things. Surpluses happen more often under Labour than the Tories. Deficits tend to be smaller. Which means that the Tories have done more to increase our national debt than Labour. They aren't the party of fiscal prudence, and they never have been. Suggesting that they are is simply repeating a lie so often until its believed to be true, despite the evidence.

Oh, and I understand debt and deficit just fine thanks. But nice attempt to undermine my argument by trying to insinuate that I'm debating from ignorance.

So, to summarise. If we look at the period prior to 2008, the Tories are responsible for increasing the national debt more per year in power than Labour. If you look at the period from 2008 onwards they are STILL responsible for increasing the debt more per year than Labour were for 2008/2009. If you combine all the years they are worse. Any way you look at it, they run worse deficits, have a worse impact on the national debt and by any sane measure are less fiscally prudent than Labour.

But sure, keep repeating the same lies. Sadly there are enough people that believe them, especially when the MSM trumpets them as well.

[Fleuria]

You're accusing me of being disingenuous? We were talking about which party, historically, was responsible for running more deficits and creating more debt. And I explained how, even in the shorter time-frame you focused on, it showed that historically the Tories are responsible for the greater deficits, which lead to greater debt.

Go back earlier than that and you will see the same things. Surpluses happen more often under Labour than the Tories. Deficits tend to be smaller. Which means that the Tories have done more to increase our national debt than Labour. They aren't the party of fiscal prudence, and they never have been. Suggesting that they are is simply repeating a lie so often until its believed to be true, despite the evidence.

Oh, and I understand debt and deficit just fine thanks. But nice attempt to undermine my argument by trying to insinuate that I'm debating from ignorance.

So, to summarise. If we look at the period prior to 2008, the Tories are responsible for increasing the national debt more per year in power than Labour. If you look at the period from 2008 onwards they are STILL responsible for increasing the debt more per year than Labour were for 2008/2009. If you combine all the years they are worse. Any way you look at it, they run worse deficits, have a worse impact on the national debt and by any sane measure are less fiscally prudent than Labour.

But sure, keep repeating the same lies. Sadly there are enough people that believe them, especially when the MSM trumpets them as well.

I would love to live in your fantasy land of just being able cut a deficit to 0 and run a surplus after a year but I guess you follow the same basic principle as any one that attended the Abbott school of economics, the forecast for this year is ~50bn which given the shit hole darling left it in isn't extremely terrible and sure they were slow about it but at least they are getting there. Rather not have a Labour government dumpster it trying to cover all the gaps they have in spending that isn't to do with the social welfare plans which even then is so basic on expenses that that will probably add too.

I mean you can go on about Labour having a better track record than Tories running a deficit but when they've only ever held power 20 years in the last 60 and they claimed the 2 worse points in British history financially, one of which is why people reject left labour totally and you wonder why people question you?

[Huehuecoyotl]

I would love to live in your fantasy land of just being able cut a deficit to 0 and run a surplus after a year but I guess you follow the same basic principle as any one that attended the Abbott school of economics, the forecast for this year is ~50bn which given the shit hole darling left it in isn't extremely terrible and sure they were slow about it but at least they are getting there. Rather not have a Labour government dumpster it trying to cover all the gaps they have in spending that isn't to do with the social welfare plans which even then is so basic on expenses that that will probably add too.

I mean you can go on about Labour having a better track record than Tories running a deficit but when they've only ever held power 20 years in the last 60 and they claimed the 2 worse points in British history financially, one of which is why people reject left labour totally and you wonder why people question you?

I don't actually believe in running a zero deficit. It has so rarely been achieved historically, yet here we still are with a functioning economy. The party that sold itself on the notion that we HAD to clear the deficit is the party responsible for running larger ones, more often. The party that said we needed 5 years to clear it 7 years ago, and continually fails to hit their self-imposed target. Of course we need to keep it manageable, but ask any economist about the possibility of actually running a surplus long term, and clearing the national debt, and they will tell you that a) it's impossible and b) any attempt to do it would be wildly damaging to the economy.

But sure, you keep up with the notion that Labour is the party with the poor track record on the economy, while ignoring the facts that history teaches us. And I'm the one living in a fantasy? Made me chuckle.

[Fleuria]

But sure, you keep up with the notion that Labour is the party with the poor track record on the economy, while ignoring the facts that history teaches us. And I'm the one living in a fantasy? Made me chuckle.

As said the 2 worse points in British economy and life fell under Labour which is quite an achievement given they've only held power for 20 out of the last 60 years, every one apart from early-mid years Blair/Brown was a total disaster but you can keep ignoring history apart from as said early-mid years Blair/Brown that were extremely good.

You at least know what you get with the Tories as they don't really re-brand themselves all to often, where as every proposed Labour government is a total gamble it either could possibly be good or be utter trench tier, with history saying the latter but then again after 1-2 generations die off who knows what'll happen.

Even Len McCluskey has thrown in the towel now according to BBC which will probably only hurt Labour more as it was Unite bank rolling their campaign.

[Deleted]

As said the 2 worse points in British economy and life fell under Labour which is quite an achievement given they've only held power for 20 out of the last 60 years, every one apart from early-mid years Blair/Brown was a total disaster but you can keep ignoring history apart from as said early-mid years Blair/Brown that were extremely good.

yes, everyone know how the 2008 banking crash was masterminded by Labour.
also, @Kalis and @Huehuecoyotl You are forgeting how the deficit was induced by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - Hardly a case for 'labour spending on wellfare'.

[Fleuria]

yes, everyone know how the 2008 banking crash was masterminded by Labour.
also, @Kalis and @Huehuecoyotl You are forgeting how the deficit was induced by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - Hardly a case for 'labour spending on wellfare'.

Never claimed it was they just handled the subsequent fall out, poorly at best.

Personally never had a problem with them wanting to boost social welfare spending, it has always been everything else they try to include which tends to be the money gobbler and makes people worry.

[Deleted]

Never claimed it was they just handled the subsequent fall out, poorly at best.

Personally never had a problem with them wanting to boost social welfare spending, it has always been everything else they try to include which tends to be the money gobbler and makes people worry.

Yeah, all those stupid numbers touted by labour - Good job our current government have a 2bn black hole in our last budget, and still HS2 in the pipeline for 56bn. Bright future!

[Kalis]

Oh, and I understand debt and deficit just fine thanks. But nice attempt to undermine my argument by trying to insinuate that I'm debating from ignorance.

Your argument makes no sense if you understand how deficit relates to debt, so you either do not understand it, or you are being disingenuous.

[Deleted]

Your argument makes no sense if you understand how deficit relates to debt, so you either do not understand it, or you are being disingenuous.

Strictly speaking they don't.
The interest payments do impact the deficit, but not to any large degree.

[Kalis]

Strictly speaking they don't.
The interest payments do impact the deficit, but not to any large degree.

The argument was "The Tories have got to the point where they have racked up 1.7 TRILLION pounds of debt. They have added more debt than every Labour government in history", yet ignored the fact that any government would have had to run up the largest debt in history in the same position.

[draykorinee]

And yet, despite adding £1.7 Trillion to the national debt, they have kept the economy growing, unemployment at historic lows, wages up, population up, private spending up.

Like it or not, the Conservatives have a solid track record in Government, which is why they can borrow on the cheap.

The idea of port-faced Lancelots in their City board rooms chortling as they hit "deny" on Labour borrowing requests is just plain silly if you've worked anywhere near the industry.

wages up...Wages in real terms fell by 1%, although as a nurse mine was dramatically more, the only developed country with slower wage growth was Greece...Greece.

The economy grew less than any other G7 , austerity sucked and it wasn't even successful.

Unemployment up...because of zero hour contracts, but that's actually a global trend and not really something exciting. It's also not close to a historic low.

Population up because of continued failures on immigration that was part of their manifesto, not something to celebrate its actually a negative, the UK birth rate is static.

And all that nothing while adding to the debt.

Solid track record...I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but I'll guess the daily mail...

[Huehuecoyotl]

The argument was "The Tories have got to the point where they have racked up 1.7 TRILLION pounds of debt. They have added more debt than every Labour government in history", yet ignored the fact that any government would have had to run up the largest debt in history in the same position.

And the Tories followed an austerity process to clear the deficit that most economists agreed would actually damage attempts to clear the deficit by choking back on spending in the economy. They have overseen an extended period of money movement from the poor (who tend to spend their income, helping to drive the economy and increase tax revenue, which would reduce the deficit) to the rich (who tend to bank their income in ways that minimise their tax, rather than spending it to help drive the economy). Then they doubled down on that by reducing the tax levels for the rich, which meant their income was pushed down even more.

Their primary activities were always going to result in the deficit going down more slowly, which results in the debt going up more quickly. Hey look, it's almost as if I understand the relationship between the two, despite your sad efforts to suggest that I don't. And they put a man in charge of sorting out the economy who had no experience in the field, no qualifications in the field and gave every impression of having no aptitude for it either.

So no, not every government would have run up the same level of debt. A government that had an understanding of how economies function wouldn't have followed policies that depressed the economy, stalling their own efforts to reduce the deficit. And they wouldn't be staring at such a mind-boggling level of debt today. But that's what happens when you decide that the way to handle an economic disaster caused by rich people is to screw all the poor people. Or to put it another way, that's what happens when you follow a philosophical approach to the problem, rather than an economic one, when your philosophy is basically "take money from the poor and give it to our rich friends".