Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

It's published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but splitting hairs about whether it is or isn't a UN report is missing the point. Why is it harsh for future generations to pay for services that their predecessors use? I'm paying the pensions of current OAPs. That's how it works.

The point is that cutting spending - which will almost always hit those on lower incomes more - is only one way to reduce borrowing. It is a political decision to focus just on this and not also look at ways of raising revenue.

If you don't want to be mocked don't leave yourself open to it

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

It's published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but splitting hairs about whether it is or isn't a UN report is missing the point. Why is it harsh for future generations to pay for services that their predecessors use? I'm paying the pensions of current OAPs. That's how it works.

The point is that cutting spending - which will almost always hit those on lower incomes more - is only one way to reduce borrowing. It is a political decision to focus just on this and not also look at ways of raising revenue.

If you don't want to be mocked don't leave yourself open to it

But we are living beyond our means and leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

History would suggest that there is limit to how far you can sustainably increase revenue and that spending almost always grows faster.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But we are living beyond our means and leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

History would suggest that there is limit to how far you can sustainably increase revenue and that spending almost always grows faster.

All governments throughout the world are basically running Ponzi schemes.
It won't end well, best you can hope for is to be gone when it goes wrong.

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

It's published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but splitting hairs about whether it is or isn't a UN report is missing the point. Why is it harsh for future generations to pay for services that their predecessors use? I'm paying the pensions of current OAPs. That's how it works.

The point is that cutting spending - which will almost always hit those on lower incomes more - is only one way to reduce borrowing. It is a political decision to focus just on this and not also look at ways of raising revenue.

If you don't want to be mocked don't leave yourself open to it

But we are living beyond our means and leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

History would suggest that there is limit to how far you can sustainably increase revenue and that spending almost always grows faster.

Ahh! History..

The 1930s were an era of hunger marches, most famous being the 'Jarrow Crusade' from Tyneside to London, 1936. Like today it was a time when the extreme right were on the rise, especially of course in Italy and Germany but also in Britain. The march was one of many, somewhat late in the day and it was ineffective in changing government policy.

What did change government policy in due course was the rise of Adolf Hitler who re-armed Germany and forced the UK government to start its own re-armament program and re-open heavy industries closed for structural reasons as long ago as the mid 1920s.

The war years were remarkable for bringing together parts of the population who would never otherwise have dreamt of the conditions each part lived in. Almost certainly the government that gave us the NHS would never otherwise have gained power. By the time Maggie Thatcher arrived, that generation was slipping from view and the way the other half lived could be safely ignored once more, as it is today. Is it coincidence that the far right are once more rearing their ugly heads? Ripe for harvesting by the likes of Trump and Farage?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

It's published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but splitting hairs about whether it is or isn't a UN report is missing the point. Why is it harsh for future generations to pay for services that their predecessors use? I'm paying the pensions of current OAPs. That's how it works.

The point is that cutting spending - which will almost always hit those on lower incomes more - is only one way to reduce borrowing. It is a political decision to focus just on this and not also look at ways of raising revenue.

If you don't want to be mocked don't leave yourself open to it

But we are living beyond our means and leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

History would suggest that there is limit to how far you can sustainably increase revenue and that spending almost always grows faster.

Governments have borrowed for as long as they have been able to, at least as far back as the Middle Ages. Those that have money to invest - formerly banking families and latterly pension funds - require that they do. Unless the borrowing is over a very short term, it will always be 'future generations' who pick up the bill just as we are paying off debt from previous borrowing. We only finished paying off our WW2 borrowing 12 years ago. Can you explain what you think the problem is with future generations paying off current borrowing?

I'd be interested to see the evidence that there is a ceiling to the amount of revenue that can be raised as distinct from the overall taxation rates that are politically sustainable. There is more than one way to raise revenue.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

You don't see any link between age, number of children and need? You need to accept that some of the decisions are political rather than fiscal. Many of the cuts - for example removing housing benefit for those under 21 - have saved next to nothing in the scheme of things, as the problems are just pushed onto other services. In some cases the 'cuts' have increased costs.

Obviously the potential revenue is not infinite, but what evidence do you have to back up your assumption that we are reaching some sort of ceiling?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

Economies grow so it’s not quite as finite.

But that aside, it’s where the spending is. You mention people who are on benefit - they are significantly less than the pension expenditure and the retired generation literally earns more than the generation working.

It also seems that, on a local level, councils with areas with high deprevation have had to make the most cuts.

I think generally the level of deprevation is massively under reported and the human cost of austerity is often lost in the debate.

shirley_basso

Party because retirees have the highest voter turnout so politicians pander to them.

The youth turnout is particularly low and get what they deserve, as awful as that is, and presumably partly why the LDs can't really get off the ground and will hopefully be the reason JC won't get into nunber 10.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

Economies grow so it’s not quite as finite.

But that aside, it’s where the spending is. You mention people who are on benefit - they are significantly less than the pension expenditure and the retired generation literally earns more than the generation working.

It also seems that, on a local level, councils with areas with high deprevation have had to make the most cuts.

I think generally the level of deprevation is massively under reported and the human cost of austerity is often lost in the debate.

the pensioner lobbying machine has got to you. Why do they have entitlements and everybody else scrounges benefits. A good few billion in winter fuel allowance, free travel and TV licence before you start hacking away at the triple lock.

Genuine question - why does it not bother you that we spend £46bn a year servicing existing debt? interest rates are at historically low levels so after the next recession that could have doubled.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

Economies grow so it’s not quite as finite.

But that aside, it’s where the spending is. You mention people who are on benefit - they are significantly less than the pension expenditure and the retired generation literally earns more than the generation working.

It also seems that, on a local level, councils with areas with high deprevation have had to make the most cuts.

I think generally the level of deprevation is massively under reported and the human cost of austerity is often lost in the debate.

the pensioner lobbying machine has got to you. Why do they have entitlements and everybody else scrounges benefits. A good few billion in winter fuel allowance, free travel and TV licence before you start hacking away at the triple lock.

Genuine question - why does it not bother you that we spend £46bn a year servicing existing debt? interest rates are at historically low levels so after the next recession that could have doubled.

In the same way that it doesn't bother me that part of my monthly mortgage payment is interest. I could of course save up and buy the house with cash after living in a tent for 25 years, keeping myself warm with the thought of how much money I have saved.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Curious the numbers get more debate than the impact the numbers have on people.

How many people could follow a debate about the impact of rising debt levels?

That UN report at the top of this page is pretty easy to read, SC.

Even by your standards!

I assumed it was claptrap and did not bother - is it worth reading?

So you are fine with living beyond your means and impoverishing future generations?

Is there a real difference between impoverishing current and future generations?

Here's the actual report if you can muster the attention span.

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ ... ov2018.pdf

The key point is that the effects of austerity measures have been disproportionately imposed on those on the lowest incomes. It's not a question of whether as a country we should live within our means, but which bit of society should bear the burden of that. It has been a political rather than a fiscal decision to reduce public spending in certain areas rather than others, and not to place more emphasis on raising revenue.

i started reading it and got frustrated with the emotive language

As said before it is not a UN report

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual - do you not think it would have been useful in para one to define poverty?

Seems a bit harsh to chose to let future generations pick up the tab for our excess spending

Alright then the UN high comission for Human Rights. Jeez.

I suspect your “meh, it has to happen” response would have been different had the austerity fallen on you.

There are ways to deal with a deficit and which way you chose is political.

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

Oh you want to play austerity one upmanship? How much do I have to donate to have an opinion?

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

Am I allowed an opinion if I believe people should get benefits based on need rather than age or how many kids they have

Economies grow so it’s not quite as finite.

But that aside, it’s where the spending is. You mention people who are on benefit - they are significantly less than the pension expenditure and the retired generation literally earns more than the generation working.

It also seems that, on a local level, councils with areas with high deprevation have had to make the most cuts.

I think generally the level of deprevation is massively under reported and the human cost of austerity is often lost in the debate.

the pensioner lobbying machine has got to you. Why do they have entitlements and everybody else scrounges benefits. A good few billion in winter fuel allowance, free travel and TV licence before you start hacking away at the triple lock.

Genuine question - why does it not bother you that we spend £46bn a year servicing existing debt? interest rates are at historically low levels so after the next recession that could have doubled.

In the same way that it doesn't bother me that part of my monthly mortgage payment is interest. I could have course save up and buy the house with cash after living in a tent for 25 years, keeping myself warm with the thought of how much money I have saved.

how about being on interest only with no vehicle for paying it back and then upping the mortgage every year?

rjsterry

All seems a bit emotive to me; how about some facts? An interest only mortgage is not the correct analogy? The capital value of gilts is repaid when they mature. Also, all that interest is propping up our pensions.

Plenty of people add to their mortgage to build an extension.

And I think that might have extended that analogy to breaking point

FishFish

[quote="Surrey Commuter"

Mock me all you want but I need something more factual [/quote]


I think you are in the wrong forum if factual is what you want - as well as for more obvious reasons too.

TheBigBean

We've done all this before.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You have to accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised. Assuming we are close to it then the political choice is where you spend it.

There are plenty of countries with higher and lower tax/GDP ratios implying that there is scope to move the tax burden in both directions. There may not be the political appetite to do it, but that is a different thing.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Genuine question - why does it not bother you that we spend £46bn a year servicing existing debt? interest rates are at historically low levels so after the next recession that could have doubled.

A chunk of which is paid to the Bank of England on behalf of the treasury.

robert88

In a world a long way from Surrey, the effects from austerity through police cuts:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46261480/hartlepool-the-town-where-police-don-t-come-out

I'd some investments in a Hartlepool company, had a good future IMO, high tech stuff. It's been taken over by a Surrey company. I'm betting they won't stay in Hartlepool very long; I wouldn't. Post Brexit the Surrey company might be a nice opportunity for the US disaster capitalists. It's the way things are.

rick_chasey

Worth checking out Yvette Cooper's drive by shooting of Caroline Noakes.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/ho ... humiliated

Chat sh!t get banged - fiiinaly.

Stevo_666

Meanwhile the Guardian goes full on leftiebollox, claiming that Corbyn is the answer rather then the EU's 'neoliberal' agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/austerity-corbyn-eu-brexit-peoples-vote

john80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile the Guardian goes full on leftiebollox, claiming that Corbyn is the answer rather then the EU's 'neoliberal' agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/austerity-corbyn-eu-brexit-peoples-vote

What is interesting about this argument is that it ignores Labours stated policy objectives regarding the EU. Their 6 tests are pretty funny in that no one in the EU would agree to them without all 4 freedoms remaining in tact and essentially us not leaving the EU. Whilst I do enjoy watching those like Emily Thornbury talk around the issue on TV it is somewhat cringe worthy.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile the Guardian goes full on leftiebollox, claiming that Corbyn is the answer rather then the EU's 'neoliberal' agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/austerity-corbyn-eu-brexit-peoples-vote

are you sure it is not a parody?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile the Guardian goes full on leftiebollox, claiming that Corbyn is the answer rather then the EU's 'neoliberal' agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/austerity-corbyn-eu-brexit-peoples-vote

are you sure it is not a parody?

I particularly enjoyed the line, "Corbyn has promised a jobs-first Brexit". Has he now?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Meanwhile the Guardian goes full on leftiebollox, claiming that Corbyn is the answer rather then the EU's 'neoliberal' agenda:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/austerity-corbyn-eu-brexit-peoples-vote

are you sure it is not a parody?

I particularly enjoyed the line, "Corbyn has promised a jobs-first Brexit". Has he now?

Maybe he means that if he gets in, you won't be able to fire anyone however heinous the crime or regardless of circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_62Nk8KiQaU

tailwindhome

Watching Yvette Cooper question Theresa May.

Labour members voted more than 3 to 1 in for Corbyn as leader over her.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t think this report exists in a vacuum. Growing numbers of people having to use food banks is a fact. Tories talk a lot about employment but a lot less about working poor. There is plenty of evidence around, from the places you normally go to, that illustrate all this.

I see and hear this regularly and whilst I don't doubt it's true I can't help thinking that one of the main reasons it is happening is that the publicity around food banks means more people have heard of them and that there is also possibly a reduction in any stigma people may have previously felt about using them. I know of one person who was considering using one just before Christmas a few years ago but mainly so that she could continue her lifestyle choices and not have to increase her work hours above the 16 she was doing. OK, that's a one of anecdote and there will be people with a real and genuine need to use them but is the sort of attitude that can skew things. Offer people something for free and make it feel socially acceptable and they are likely to take it (I'm aware that you would have to demonstrate a need to use the food bank and that it isn't as simple as turning up and getting free food).

tangled_metal

It's usually a referral from the jobcentre when you're already getting state aid / benefits. So you're likely to be in a situation of need.

Maybe your friend read thinking of going to a food bank but that doesn't mean she'll get anything from them. If her hours were a lifestyle choice then I'm sure someone would question that before giving a ticket to go to the food bank, or whatever document gets you served.

Pross

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's usually a referral from the jobcentre when you're already getting state aid / benefits. So you're likely to be in a situation of need.

Maybe your friend read thinking of going to a food bank but that doesn't mean she'll get anything from them. If her hours were a lifestyle choice then I'm sure someone would question that before giving a ticket to go to the food bank, or whatever document gets you served.

There are quite a few agencies that refer as well as the job centre. My main point though is that the usage of food banks is likely to have gone up, at least in part, due to people being more aware of their existence. I'd never even heard of them until the last recession so the increased use isn't necessarily entirely due to the impact of austerity as it is often portrayed as being. My example was more to show how some people would be quite happy to use the facilities if they can whereas in the past there was a stigma to accepting 'handouts' (I was on free school dinners for a while as a kid when my dad had to go to a 3 day week and hated looking 'poor').

tangled_metal

Undoubtedly. There's a very common mentality about getting something because you can not because you need it. We were eligible for tax credits, got the forms and everything. We decided that we didn't need them so threw the forms away. I'm not saying they wouldn't have been a great help financially but we were managing without it. JAM I think they would call us. Things are better now.

I think there's at least a full generation who's had state safety net their whole life now. It's become expected so I suspect the old ways of doing whatever you had I to get by with your own efforts has gone. My gran was born in 20s iirc. She wasn't quite in the poorhouse / workhouse era but it was drummed into her as a kid the fear of needing aid. It made her a hardworking employee and driven. She never claimed anything and was proud of it. There's still some like that now but it's the minority I fear.

rjsterry

Never claimed her state pension?

tangled_metal

Not while working. And after retirement (and the ten years of working after retirement age) the state pension was so small compared to what they arranged for themselves that it just went into a bank account and probably ended up inheritance.

Of course they did claim it but put bluntly of they didn't have to pay into through their working life they'd probably have put it into more productive investments. However isn't state pension not affected by your work history as in how long you pay into it? So in a way it's less a benefit than a state investment for the future?