BREGZIT (GE 2019) - Judgement Day.....I'll be back.

1131213131315131713181334

Posts

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    In response to your title Goo.

    Have already posted the thoughts of Chris Dillow who feels Labour's policy is sustainable in the sense that they won't do Brexit and the Tory's isn't, for the reason they will.

    Here's Simon Wren-Lewis professor at oxford. He's been very critical of Tory policy in the last 10 years FWIW, particularly of austerity.

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-differences-between-labour-and.html

    The Conservatives have learnt the lesson of 2017, and have ditched austerity in order to offer higher spending to the electorate.They hope voters decide that there isn't much difference between the two parties on this score. But voters would be wrong to do so. In Labour's case the extra spending is sustainable, whereas for the Tories it will not be. There are two reasons for this.
    Ah it got approved a day later.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    In response to your title Goo.

    Have already posted the thoughts of Chris Dillow who feels Labour's policy is sustainable in the sense that they won't do Brexit and the Tory's isn't, for the reason they will.

    Here's Simon Wren-Lewis professor at oxford. He's been very critical of Tory policy in the last 10 years FWIW, particularly of austerity.

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-differences-between-labour-and.html

    The Conservatives have learnt the lesson of 2017, and have ditched austerity in order to offer higher spending to the electorate.They hope voters decide that there isn't much difference between the two parties on this score. But voters would be wrong to do so. In Labour's case the extra spending is sustainable, whereas for the Tories it will not be. There are two reasons for this.
    Ah it got approved a day later.
  • rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    mr_goo said:

    mr_goo said:

    I love the Lib Dems £10k giveaway for adult education. So well thought out.....
    ...if we work to whole numbers and assume every adult takes this up the cost is £35bn which I believe adds about 10% to the national debt. What a great idea.


    What’s wrong with government supporting education ?
    Nothing wrong at all. I myself would love to retrain for something that would take me into retirement and beyond. However I don't think that Jo Swinson and co are going to pay my mortgage and utilities as well.
    It's a grand idea/gesture but like all of them it will not get off the ground.

    Note. Didn't know UK debt was that much. Jeez. And Labour want to borrow hundreds of billions more.

    Btw. Where does this money come from? I'm intrigued, not being versed in financial matters of the corporate/gov kind.
    https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/what-about-the-national-debt/
    that is hundreds of billions more on top of the planned tens of billion more (a year) that is already in the pipeline.

    I am currently walking in the shoes of somebody who thinks that debt does not matter. It is very liberating - all economic problems instantly disappear.
    What about the current gilt rates has you worried?

    The fact that they are ludicrously low and yet our borrowing costs are £46m a year. Come the next recession and a return to historic gilt rates the borrowing costs could well match spending in the NHS.

    But the new me does not think that any of that matters because we can borrow more to pay the interest.
    Come the next recession? Did you miss this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-uk-avoids-recession-after-20858355. ? £46bn to borrow £1,800bn. 94% of government spending is not on borrowing costs.
    I am with you, we could, and should, double it and double it again and it will still only be 24% of Govt spending
    No it wouldn’t as the borrowing would be for spending. At current rates it might even reduce given how low rates are.

    Meanwhile, here is the economist this week on inflation:
    I had to read that five times but that is genius - you keep debt interest as a manageable % of Govt spending by spending more, paid for with borrowed money
    Well yes it all hinges on lower rates right?
    so you keep borrowing more money to get lower rates? how much lower do you want them to go?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    mr_goo said:

    mr_goo said:

    I love the Lib Dems £10k giveaway for adult education. So well thought out.....
    ...if we work to whole numbers and assume every adult takes this up the cost is £35bn which I believe adds about 10% to the national debt. What a great idea.


    What’s wrong with government supporting education ?
    Nothing wrong at all. I myself would love to retrain for something that would take me into retirement and beyond. However I don't think that Jo Swinson and co are going to pay my mortgage and utilities as well.
    It's a grand idea/gesture but like all of them it will not get off the ground.

    Note. Didn't know UK debt was that much. Jeez. And Labour want to borrow hundreds of billions more.

    Btw. Where does this money come from? I'm intrigued, not being versed in financial matters of the corporate/gov kind.
    https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/what-about-the-national-debt/
    that is hundreds of billions more on top of the planned tens of billion more (a year) that is already in the pipeline.

    I am currently walking in the shoes of somebody who thinks that debt does not matter. It is very liberating - all economic problems instantly disappear.
    What about the current gilt rates has you worried?

    The fact that they are ludicrously low and yet our borrowing costs are £46m a year. Come the next recession and a return to historic gilt rates the borrowing costs could well match spending in the NHS.

    But the new me does not think that any of that matters because we can borrow more to pay the interest.
    Come the next recession? Did you miss this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-uk-avoids-recession-after-20858355. ? £46bn to borrow £1,800bn. 94% of government spending is not on borrowing costs.
    I am with you, we could, and should, double it and double it again and it will still only be 24% of Govt spending
    No it wouldn’t as the borrowing would be for spending. At current rates it might even reduce given how low rates are.

    Meanwhile, here is the economist this week on inflation:
    I had to read that five times but that is genius - you keep debt interest as a manageable % of Govt spending by spending more, paid for with borrowed money
    Well yes it all hinges on lower rates right?
    so you keep borrowing more money to get lower rates? how much lower do you want them to go?
    I mean borrowing for borrowing's sake isn't right, but I can see plenty of room in the UK for decent capital investment, and if rates are next to zero or negative you're a mug to not take advantage of that.

    I don't know why this is massively controversial. If the return on your investment is greater than the rate at which you borrowed to invest, then you're quids in. When rates are zero or negative, that's a really low bar.

    It's not like the UK is an economy that's on the brink of overheating.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    edited 14 November
    Ah, the reason why Tories are banging on about immigration is the NHS waiting times are the worst they've been since they were recorded in 2004.

    Good effort, lads.

    *waits for the immigration puts strain on services chat, ignoring the rather more obvious issue that the NHS wouldn't function without it*.
  • rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    mr_goo said:

    mr_goo said:

    I love the Lib Dems £10k giveaway for adult education. So well thought out.....
    ...if we work to whole numbers and assume every adult takes this up the cost is £35bn which I believe adds about 10% to the national debt. What a great idea.


    What’s wrong with government supporting education ?
    Nothing wrong at all. I myself would love to retrain for something that would take me into retirement and beyond. However I don't think that Jo Swinson and co are going to pay my mortgage and utilities as well.
    It's a grand idea/gesture but like all of them it will not get off the ground.

    Note. Didn't know UK debt was that much. Jeez. And Labour want to borrow hundreds of billions more.

    Btw. Where does this money come from? I'm intrigued, not being versed in financial matters of the corporate/gov kind.
    https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/what-about-the-national-debt/
    that is hundreds of billions more on top of the planned tens of billion more (a year) that is already in the pipeline.

    I am currently walking in the shoes of somebody who thinks that debt does not matter. It is very liberating - all economic problems instantly disappear.
    What about the current gilt rates has you worried?

    The fact that they are ludicrously low and yet our borrowing costs are £46m a year. Come the next recession and a return to historic gilt rates the borrowing costs could well match spending in the NHS.

    But the new me does not think that any of that matters because we can borrow more to pay the interest.
    Come the next recession? Did you miss this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-uk-avoids-recession-after-20858355. ? £46bn to borrow £1,800bn. 94% of government spending is not on borrowing costs.
    I am with you, we could, and should, double it and double it again and it will still only be 24% of Govt spending
    No it wouldn’t as the borrowing would be for spending. At current rates it might even reduce given how low rates are.

    Meanwhile, here is the economist this week on inflation:
    I had to read that five times but that is genius - you keep debt interest as a manageable % of Govt spending by spending more, paid for with borrowed money
    Well yes it all hinges on lower rates right?
    so you keep borrowing more money to get lower rates? how much lower do you want them to go?
    I mean borrowing for borrowing's sake isn't right, but I can see plenty of room in the UK for decent capital investment, and if rates are next to zero or negative you're a mug to not take advantage of that.

    I don't know why this is massively controversial. If the return on your investment is greater than the rate at which you borrowed to invest, then you're quids in. When rates are zero or negative, that's a really low bar.

    It's not like the UK is an economy that's on the brink of overheating.
    but you are not borrowing on a fixed rate for a fixed period.

    why is the borrowing always for productive investment - how come with all that govt expenditure it is not paying pensions.

    That is like gambling away your monthly salary then justifying borrowing because the kids need to eat
  • I thought that gilts were exactly borrowing at a fixed rate for a fixed period.
    and then the next thing you know
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    It’s called fixed income for a reason.
  • It’s called fixed income for a reason.

    I am talking about refinancing
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    mr_goo said:

    mr_goo said:

    I love the Lib Dems £10k giveaway for adult education. So well thought out.....
    ...if we work to whole numbers and assume every adult takes this up the cost is £35bn which I believe adds about 10% to the national debt. What a great idea.


    What’s wrong with government supporting education ?
    Nothing wrong at all. I myself would love to retrain for something that would take me into retirement and beyond. However I don't think that Jo Swinson and co are going to pay my mortgage and utilities as well.
    It's a grand idea/gesture but like all of them it will not get off the ground.

    Note. Didn't know UK debt was that much. Jeez. And Labour want to borrow hundreds of billions more.

    Btw. Where does this money come from? I'm intrigued, not being versed in financial matters of the corporate/gov kind.
    https://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/what-about-the-national-debt/
    that is hundreds of billions more on top of the planned tens of billion more (a year) that is already in the pipeline.

    I am currently walking in the shoes of somebody who thinks that debt does not matter. It is very liberating - all economic problems instantly disappear.
    What about the current gilt rates has you worried?

    The fact that they are ludicrously low and yet our borrowing costs are £46m a year. Come the next recession and a return to historic gilt rates the borrowing costs could well match spending in the NHS.

    But the new me does not think that any of that matters because we can borrow more to pay the interest.
    Come the next recession? Did you miss this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-uk-avoids-recession-after-20858355. ? £46bn to borrow £1,800bn. 94% of government spending is not on borrowing costs.
    I am with you, we could, and should, double it and double it again and it will still only be 24% of Govt spending
    No it wouldn’t as the borrowing would be for spending. At current rates it might even reduce given how low rates are.

    Meanwhile, here is the economist this week on inflation:
    I had to read that five times but that is genius - you keep debt interest as a manageable % of Govt spending by spending more, paid for with borrowed money
    Well yes it all hinges on lower rates right?
    so you keep borrowing more money to get lower rates? how much lower do you want them to go?
    I mean borrowing for borrowing's sake isn't right, but I can see plenty of room in the UK for decent capital investment, and if rates are next to zero or negative you're a mug to not take advantage of that.

    I don't know why this is massively controversial. If the return on your investment is greater than the rate at which you borrowed to invest, then you're quids in. When rates are zero or negative, that's a really low bar.

    It's not like the UK is an economy that's on the brink of overheating.
    but you are not borrowing on a fixed rate for a fixed period.

    why is the borrowing always for productive investment - how come with all that govt expenditure it is not paying pensions.

    That is like gambling away your monthly salary then justifying borrowing because the kids need to eat
    I've already pointed out that borrowing for consumption isn't great. But there is more gov't spending than just consumption.

    I think we can all agree there has been nationwide under investment in an awful lot of things that are within the gov't remit.
  • do you think that the concept of excessive borrowing exists?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    do you think that the concept of excessive borrowing exists?

    Yes, but I think in the macro world things don't work in such a linear way and the answer to what constitutes excessive is highly relative and context specific.

    In the current environment I can't really see evidence to suggest that the UK is anywhere near that point of excessive.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    It also is contingent on what the borrowing is for.
  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.
    and then the next thing you know
  • do you think that the concept of excessive borrowing exists?

    Yes, but I think in the macro world things don't work in such a linear way and the answer to what constitutes excessive is highly relative and context specific.

    In the current environment I can't really see evidence to suggest that the UK is anywhere near that point of excessive.
    I am not disagreeing with any of those points.

  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    You should worry about unfunded pension commitments if you want a true number.

    Say you sold gilts to pay for the first phase of HS2 - what term would you place on them so that you knew you were paying it back with money and not refinancing at the prevailing (potentially much higher) gilt rate?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here

    What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    You should worry about unfunded pension commitments if you want a true number.

    Say you sold gilts to pay for the first phase of HS2 - what term would you place on them so that you knew you were paying it back with money and not refinancing at the prevailing (potentially much higher) gilt rate?
    Would that not depend on the profile of expected RoI?
  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    I readily admit my lack of knowledge. I missed that the government announced that it would not use it a year ago. Have all private methods of financing been ditched, or just PFI?
    and then the next thing you know
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    edited 14 November
    I think the big point in the analysis that's missing is Brexit in the Johnson agreement form blows a bigger hole in the finances than anything else.

    There is a good reason why the tories would rather take the heat for not publishing the economic forecasts derived from the new WA than publish them.


    Rather like the Russian interference investigation, which it turns out involves a whole bunch of Tory donors (WHO KNEW).
  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    You should worry about unfunded pension commitments if you want a true number.

    Say you sold gilts to pay for the first phase of HS2 - what term would you place on them so that you knew you were paying it back with money and not refinancing at the prevailing (potentially much higher) gilt rate?
    300 years?

    and then the next thing you know
  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    You should worry about unfunded pension commitments if you want a true number.

    Say you sold gilts to pay for the first phase of HS2 - what term would you place on them so that you knew you were paying it back with money and not refinancing at the prevailing (potentially much higher) gilt rate?
    300 years?

    Your problem is that you will be refinancing at an unknown, but almost certainly higher rate.
  • What's the number if you include PFI? I have very limited understanding, but it would seem more sensible to take advantage of low gilt rates rather than government guaranteed private financing.

    I was not aware that they still do PFI.

    You should worry about unfunded pension commitments if you want a true number.

    Say you sold gilts to pay for the first phase of HS2 - what term would you place on them so that you knew you were paying it back with money and not refinancing at the prevailing (potentially much higher) gilt rate?
    300 years?

    Your problem is that you will be refinancing at an unknown, but almost certainly higher rate.
    You also don't think it's going to be making money even then?
    and then the next thing you know
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    pross said:

    The other big issue with Labour's promised spending on infrastructure in particular is that even if it is affordable we just don't have the resources to deliver the projects. Where are the factories and workers to build wind farm components for this massive upsurge? Where are the engineers to design everything and the builders to construct it especially when European workers have probably gone home? Are they going to streamline planning so that projects get approved more quickly and easily (apparently so people aren't keen on wind farms in locations they can see)?

    This seems to be bang on. Was just reading about wage growth in construction. 6%! Materials inflation at 3% vs 1.5% for the rest of the economy. Imagine the issue here as you point out is probably not the financing of it but the actual real world.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,827 Lives Here
    edited 15 November
    Am quite annoyed by the title as most third party analysis points to labour’s spending being more sustainable than the Tory’s as they illustrate where the money will come from and aren’t blowing a Brexit hole in the bottom and still spending more with no further taxes raised.

    Either way Corbyn and labour have managed to win the economic argument that spending is the answer. Tory campaign is an admission as such.

  • Ten years of tories, the country in a complete state of disarray with no direction. A failing NHS, massive hidden unemployment figures (or do we class no contract workers as ‘employed’?), wage stagnation, food banks at incredibly high levels, increasing child poverty every day, homelessness.....yet it’s all Labour fault!?

    People still believe anything that comes from CCHQ and will vote for Bungling Boris.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,829
    Remember the days of “Strong and stable”? 😂😂😂
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,324

    Ten years of tories, the country in a complete state of disarray with no direction. A failing NHS, massive hidden unemployment figures (or do we class no contract workers as ‘employed’?), wage stagnation, food banks at incredibly high levels, increasing child poverty every day, homelessness.....yet it’s all Labour fault!?

    People still believe anything that comes from CCHQ and will vote for Bungling Boris.

    Maybe most people realise that that alternative is worse.

    Out of interest I saw an article then other day saying that Germany has as many food banks as we do.

    PS: you'll fit into Cake Stop just fine with views like that.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666 said:

    Ten years of tories, the country in a complete state of disarray with no direction. A failing NHS, massive hidden unemployment figures (or do we class no contract workers as ‘employed’?), wage stagnation, food banks at incredibly high levels, increasing child poverty every day, homelessness.....yet it’s all Labour fault!?

    People still believe anything that comes from CCHQ and will vote for Bungling Boris.

    Maybe most people realise that that alternative is worse.

    Out of interest I saw an article then other day saying that Germany has as many food banks as we do.

    PS: you'll fit into Cake Stop just fine with views like that.
    How do we know the alternative is worse? I’m no Corbyn fan but what I will do is look at what works in the manifestos for my family, my career & how long term it will effect my lifestyle. What I won’t do is believe everything that is printed about a politician or political party that if you scratch away at what is said is predominately lies & misinformation.

    Do you agree with me that Germany has their own problems and has no effect on uk food banks? I’d think that Germany also has a better run economy for their workers where a lot of nationalization works for them. So why not here?

    Lastly I’d not surmise that you know about someone. Mainly because A) you’re wrong, and B ) it makes you look stupid.

    It’s been enlightening.
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,050
    I always find the argument that the upsurge in food banks is a sign of increased poverty a bit of a red herring.

    Firstly, they didn't really exist until fairly recently or, if they did, there weren't many and very few people knew about them. Now everyone knows about them so more people are aware to access them.

    Secondly, up until recently people were generally too proud to accept what they saw as charity even from family and friends. When I was in school and my dad had to go on a 3 day week my parents avoided me having free school meals and clothing vouchers until they had to accept them. Now people will often take anything available (not sure if that's good or bad).
Sign In or Register to comment.