Osborne, £1.5 Trillion, worse debt since world wars

[I1L2T3]

Why not just say thankyou for providing a link and sorry for getting it wrong, instead of the veiled accusation that I and unbeliever are the same person.

 

Apologies. That was a genuine mistake

[exxon]

You've not in any way answered the questions.

 

What would you have cut and/or taxed in 2010 or even 2015 to eliminate a £153billion or £90billion deficit?

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Resources-LSP2629MUK-Play-Money/dp/B008CPBCKM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1448722518&sr=8-4&keywords=play+money+pounds

You can buy these on Amazon. You get about 10 grand for £5.95. So for a couple of hundred million quid you can pay off the deficit.

 

You can get the £200 million by buying these from Amazon.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Learning-Resources-LSP2629MUK-Play-Money/dp/B008CPBCKM/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1448722518&sr=8-4&keywords=play+money+pounds

 

That seems to be McDonnell's plan anyhow.

[I1L2T3]

My "game" is just fine. So far I've completely disproven the central premise of your case. That's a pretty good start by any standard.

 

Ignoring your neo-Keynesian clap-trap for a moment.

 

You've not in any way answered the questions.

 

What would you have cut and/or taxed in 2010 or even 2015 to eliminate a £153billion or £90billion deficit?

 

On the contrary, you've completely misunderstood the premise of my case. My case is that Osborne is the worst chancellor we've had for a long time. His policies are dangerous. They are made without full scrutiny and are reactive, tactical and not in the strategic economic interests of this country.

 

Whether you think he doubled the debt already or not, he is going to do so. He plans to do it.

 

As for what could have been cut from 2010, well pretty much everything year on year for 5 years in a plan that made sure everybody knew what was going to happen. Nobody can pretend across the board cuts wouldn't have happened whichever party gained power and I'm not going to.

 

The difference is really the approach to growth. Osborne did nothing believing it would just happen. We know it didn't and it was his biggest mistake.

 

I would have also borrowed to invest in growth, in proper strategic infrastructure. Osborne only truly realised that infrastructure investment was needed about 3-4 years in: rank idiocy.

 

As for taxes there was no need to raise any, just to increase the collection rate.

 

As for Osborne, you can't pretend he's a tax cutter:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3335458/CITY-FOCUS-Stealth-Chancellor-George-Osborne-hit-Britain-91bn-tax-bombshell.html

[exxon]

On the contrary, you've completely misunderstood the premise of my case. My case is that Osborne is the worst chancellor we've had for a long time. His policies are dangerous. They are made without full scrutiny and are reactive, tactical and not in the strategic economic interests of this country.

 

Whether you think he doubled the debt already or not, he is going to do so. He plans to do it.

 

As for what could have been cut from 2010, well pretty much everything year on year for 5 years in a plan that made sure everybody knew what was going to happen. Nobody can pretend across the board cuts wouldn't have happened whichever party gained power and I'm not going to.

 

The difference is really the approach to growth. Osborne did nothing believing it would just happen. We know it didn't and it was his biggest mistake.

 

I would have also borrowed to invest in growth, in proper strategic infrastructure. Osborne only truly realised that infrastructure investment was needed about 3-4 years in: rank idiocy.

 

As for taxes there was no need to raise any, just to increase the collection rate.

 

As for Osborne, you can't pretend he's a tax cutter:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3335458/CITY-FOCUS-Stealth-Chancellor-George-Osborne-hit-Britain-91bn-tax-bombshell.html

 

I see you continue to blame the clean up crew and not the ones who caused the pile up. It is good that the Labour party keep pushing this line because they lose elections by denying they wrecked the economy. And until they regain that trust they will remain in opposition. The longer the better.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/uk-britain-politics-labour-idUKKCN0PA0P720150630

 

Britain's Labour Party faces a lost decade out of power unless it can convince voters it can run the world's fifth largest economy properly, Labour leadership candidate Liz Kendall said on Tuesday.

After Prime Minister David Cameron defeated Labour's Ed Miliband May 7 election, the opposition party is searching a new leader as it grapples with the reasons for its worst election loss since 1987.

 

"Any political party that wants to be elected must be trusted with people’s money," Kendall said in a speech at Reuters in Canary Wharf. "Labour does not have that trust – and this must change."

 

Calling for a "renewal of Labour’s tradition of fiscal responsibility", Kendall said she would pledge to bring debt down as a proportion of gross domestic product and deliver surpluses.

 

In what amounted to a dissection of the Labour party's strategy over the past five years, Kendall said Labour faced "ten years at least" out of power unless it won back the trust of voters by recognising their economic aspirations.

[betterman]

Apologies. That was a genuine mistake

Thank you.

Apology accepted.

[I1L2T3]

I see you continue to blame the clean up crew and not the ones who caused the pile up. It is good that the Labour party keep pushing this line because they lose elections by denying they wrecked the economy. And until they regain that trust they will remain in opposition. The longer the better.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/uk-britain-politics-labour-idUKKCN0PA0P720150630

 

Britain's Labour Party faces a lost decade out of power unless it can convince voters it can run the world's fifth largest economy properly, Labour leadership candidate Liz Kendall said on Tuesday.

After Prime Minister David Cameron defeated Labour's Ed Miliband May 7 election, the opposition party is searching a new leader as it grapples with the reasons for its worst election loss since 1987.

 

"Any political party that wants to be elected must be trusted with people’s money," Kendall said in a speech at Reuters in Canary Wharf. "Labour does not have that trust – and this must change."

 

Calling for a "renewal of Labour’s tradition of fiscal responsibility", Kendall said she would pledge to bring debt down as a proportion of gross domestic product and deliver surpluses.

 

In what amounted to a dissection of the Labour party's strategy over the past five years, Kendall said Labour faced "ten years at least" out of power unless it won back the trust of voters by recognising their economic aspirations.

 

Thanks for the effort but I don't support Labour

[exxon]

Thanks for the effort but I don't support Labour

 

I can tell that. :hihi:

[unbeliever]

Thanks for the effort but I don't support Labour

 

No. As far as I can tell from our previous discussions you don't support anybody.

You have no alternative proposals. Only criticism.

 

On the contrary, you've completely misunderstood the premise of my case. My case is that Osborne is the worst chancellor we've had for a long time. His policies are dangerous. They are made without full scrutiny and are reactive, tactical and not in the strategic economic interests of this country.

 

Whether you think he doubled the debt already or not, he is going to do so. He plans to do it.

 

As for what could have been cut from 2010, well pretty much everything year on year for 5 years in a plan that made sure everybody knew what was going to happen. Nobody can pretend across the board cuts wouldn't have happened whichever party gained power and I'm not going to.

 

The difference is really the approach to growth. Osborne did nothing believing it would just happen. We know it didn't and it was his biggest mistake.

 

I would have also borrowed to invest in growth, in proper strategic infrastructure. Osborne only truly realised that infrastructure investment was needed about 3-4 years in: rank idiocy.

 

As for taxes there was no need to raise any, just to increase the collection rate.

 

As for Osborne, you can't pretend he's a tax cutter:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3335458/CITY-FOCUS-Stealth-Chancellor-George-Osborne-hit-Britain-91bn-tax-bombshell.html

 

Uncollected tax revenue is a fraction of the deficit and to suggest that the government can change the law and suddenly make it all go away is the stuff of fantasy. Every state has uncollected tax revenue. Many a lot more than the UK.

 

I've already proven beyond doubt that the debt is well short of having doubled even in straight cash terms since 2010. Now you're trying to move the goal posts.

 

I have my criticisms too, but your extreme rhetoric about Osbourne is not credible as you refuse to quantify or even make clear proposals.

 

One of the first things Osbourne did when he became chancellor was to reverse infrastructure spending cuts planned by the previous administration. I agree that more infrastructure spending can sometimes boost growth, but it's a complicated business and you have to get into specifics. Just throwing tax payers' money blindly at big projects doesn't work.

 

Even then, the UK's growth rate during Osbourne's tenure has been impressive. How much more growth do you think infrastructure investment could have achieved under ideal conditions?

Edited November 28, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

No. As far as I can tell from our previous discussions you don't support anybody.

You have no alternative proposals. Only criticism.

 

 

 

Uncollected tax revenue is a fraction of the deficit and to suggest that the government can change the law and suddenly make it all go away is the stuff of fantasy. Every state has uncollected tax revenue. Many a lot more than the UK.

 

I've already proven beyond doubt that the debt is well short of having doubled even in straight cash terms since 2010. Now you're trying to move the goal posts.

 

I have my criticisms too, but your extreme rhetoric about Osbourne is not credible as you refuse to quantify or even make clear proposals.

 

One of the first things Osbourne did when he became chancellor was to reverse infrastructure spending cuts planned by the previous administration. I agree that more infrastructure spending can sometimes boost growth, but it's a complicated business and you have to get into specifics. Just throwing tax payers' money blindly at big projects doesn't work.

 

Even then, the UK's growth rate during Osbourne's tenure has been impressive. How much more growth do you think infrastructure investment could have achieved under ideal conditions?

 

The growth rate did not match the projected rates that Osborne's plan was predicated on.

 

The reason it did not match the plan was because Osborne's voodoo economics guaranteed it wouldn't.

 

I suggest you read this:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Osbornes-Economic-Experiment-William-Keegan/dp/1907720782

 

I remember Keegan in 2010 describing Osborne as the most dangerous chancellor ever. Trust me he was right as we are all going to find out.

 

I'm not moving the goal posts. I've explained the central thrust of my argument about Osborne and that hasn't changed for years - I've posted numerous times in the same vein on here.. He will double the debt soon enough - its part of his plans - and I just use comments around that as a bit of bunting really. The central argument is the same: he's dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2015 at 18:09 ----------

 

I can tell that. :hihi:

 

Well done because I don't. Hell will freeze over first.

[unbeliever]

 

I'm not moving the goal posts. I've explained the central thrust of my argument about Osborne and that hasn't changed for years - I've posted numerous times in the same vein on here.. He will double the debt soon enough - its part of his plans - and I just use comments around that as a bit of bunting really. The central argument is the same: he's dangerous.

 

 

This where the goal posts were.

i.e. This is you being rude to somebody for daring to question your emphatic assertion that the debt had doubled since Osbourne became chancellor.

 

Took me 5 minutes to find the documentary evidence to prove you wrong.

 

Even though Osborne has reduced the deficit he still missed his targets. He still doubled the debt when he never planned to.

 

The thing about the debt being caused by Labour spending is a tired old argument for people who wilfully ignore the facts.

 

This of course leads on to a reiteration of the fact that Osborne has doubled the debt. We are servicing interest on a pile of debt he created by spending too much.

 

Your a debt-doubling denier.

 

You want to convince me (and I suspect anybody else) of anything, then be specific and back it up with primary source quantitative fact.

 

Your only real criticism of Osbourne seems to amount to the idea that he's successfully fixing the problem more slowly than he'd hoped. Wow! Surely he should be in prison or something. How can his conscience bear it. He was over-optimistic. The monster!

Edited November 28, 2015 by unbeliever