LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

sungod

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

When you go shopping are you spending your employer's money?

hardly an appropriate analogy:

employees don't get to take whatever they like from the employer and spend it on whatever they fancy including to the direct disadvantage of the employer

government takes whatever it likes from me, lies at elections about not taking more, squanders large amounts (ppe, hs2, tetra-esn, etc. and ad nauseam), directly disadvantages me and most other citizens (brexit, fptp electoral system etc.), enriches it's chums (privatisation of utilities/nhs, oursourcing, subsidies, outright bungs), the list can go on and on

rjsterry

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

Theirs.

When it's in your account it's yours and when you transfer it to that account in Cumbernauld it becomes theirs. It's no longer yours. It doesn't belong to you any more. You have no say in it's use beyond expressing a view every five years or becoming an MP.

rjsterry

sungod said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

When you go shopping are you spending your employer's money?

hardly an appropriate analogy:

employees don't get to take whatever they like from the employer and spend it on whatever they fancy including to the direct disadvantage of the employer

government takes whatever it likes from me, lies at elections about not taking more, squanders large amounts (ppe, hs2, tetra-esn, etc. and ad nauseam), directly disadvantages me and most other citizens (brexit, fptp electoral system etc.), enriches it's chums (privatisation of utilities/nhs, oursourcing, subsidies, outright bungs), the list can go on and on

Yes. That's the deal.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

Why didn’t they just ask the Party at national level to change its policy? A u-turn by the Government is always more likely than winning a court case.

rick_chasey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtoM9x-Bfu8

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

Why didn’t they just ask the Party at national level to change its policy? A u-turn by the Government is always more likely than winning a court case.

It is not true that central government insisted on an expansion of ULEZ to the whole of London.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

Why didn’t they just ask the Party at national level to change its policy? A u-turn by the Government is always more likely than winning a court case.

It is not true that central government insisted on an expansion of ULEZ to the whole of London.

Strongly encouraged as part of the TfL bailout with few alternative options if you prefer

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

The Conservative councils have lost their high court challenge against ULEZ expansion. No doubt that was a prudent use of taxpayers' money.

Why didn’t they just ask the Party at national level to change its policy? A u-turn by the Government is always more likely than winning a court case.

It is not true that central government insisted on an expansion of ULEZ to the whole of London.

Strongly encouraged as part of the TfL bailout with few alternative options if you prefer

The expansion that happened in 2021 was, but in last year's funding settlement, the expansion to the whole of London only had this line about it:

You have decided to consult on proposals for the introduction of a London-wide Ultra Low Emission Zone for introduction in 2023, to improve air quality in London. TfL have estimated this will cost £250m in capital infrastructure costs. HMG grant funding in this settlement should not be used to cover the costs of your policy decisions to charge road users, and therefore if you choose to implement this scheme or other road user charging options, you must fund them through alternative sources available to you.

Which I don't think you can describe as encouraging.

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

Jezyboy

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

To go back to one of the original points, I think this oversimplifies it to the point of being silly. It's not like the Tory party have made significant savings (significant as in, start to do real progress in reducing govt debt), yet as you point out, they seem to have managed to undo this good work.

New Labour seem to have got better bang for their buck.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

yep, otherwise we're nothing but slaves

successive uk governments have spent too long and too much enriching themselves and their backers with our money

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

briantrumpet

Just in case we were in any doubt...

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684900221866622977

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

Just in case we were in any doubt...

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684900221866622977

Well the world population is still growing, yet JRM and PP and SV all don't want incommers, but still see the shortfall of people in the UK.

So one can only conclude that it is the type or race or nationality of people that is the problem.

That is one or other of racism, nationalism, or fascism.

Which one do you want, folks?

First.Aspect

#voteconservative

#vilepeople

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

Just in case we were in any doubt...

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684900221866622977

Well the world population is still growing, yet JRM and PP and SV all don't want incommers, but still see the shortfall of people in the UK.

So one can only conclude that it is the type or race or nationality of people that is the problem.

That is one or other of racism, nationalism, or fascism.

Which one do you want, folks?

I think he wants English women to breed more.

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684841887121670144

First.Aspect

Yes. More roses.

wallace_and_gromit

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

The government is made up of our representatives. They are acting on our behalf. They have a right to levy taxes for “the greater good” as we elect our representatives on the basis that that is what they will do. But by definition, they are spending our money as they are spending it on our behalves.

If you want to believe that you are a servant of the government then that’s your look out!

wallace_and_gromit

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

To go back to one of the original points, I think this oversimplifies it to the point of being silly. It's not like the Tory party have made significant savings (significant as in, start to do real progress in reducing govt debt), yet as you point out, they seem to have managed to undo this good work.

New Labour seem to have got better bang for their buck.

I wasn’t defending the Tories. Just disagreeing with Rick that we were lucky to have Brown. The reality is that we were lucky to survive his tenure as Chancellor.

Jezyboy

wallace_and_gromit said:

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

To go back to one of the original points, I think this oversimplifies it to the point of being silly. It's not like the Tory party have made significant savings (significant as in, start to do real progress in reducing govt debt), yet as you point out, they seem to have managed to undo this good work.

New Labour seem to have got better bang for their buck.

I wasn’t defending the Tories. Just disagreeing with Rick that we were lucky to have Brown. The reality is that we were lucky to survive his tenure as Chancellor.

I feel like that is overly dramatic. The likely alternative to a New Labour chancellor would be a Conservative one, would they be likely to have encouraged a stricter regulatory environment?

Jezyboy

briantrumpet said:

Just in case we were in any doubt...

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684900221866622977

Is that actually true, it certainly doesn't seem like a slam dunk
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

I can't believe people actually elect JRM.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

Then why tax people when they could just create the money they need?

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

Just in case we were in any doubt...

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1684900221866622977

Is that actually true, it certainly doesn't seem like a slam dunk
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

I can't believe people actually elect JRM.

The whole premise is moronic. Climate change kills people. At best JRM will be forgotten, at worst an example of a historical idiot. A racist flat earther of our times.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

wallace_and_gromit

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

To go back to one of the original points, I think this oversimplifies it to the point of being silly. It's not like the Tory party have made significant savings (significant as in, start to do real progress in reducing govt debt), yet as you point out, they seem to have managed to undo this good work.

New Labour seem to have got better bang for their buck.

I wasn’t defending the Tories. Just disagreeing with Rick that we were lucky to have Brown. The reality is that we were lucky to survive his tenure as Chancellor.

I feel like that is overly dramatic. The likely alternative to a New Labour chancellor would be a Conservative one, would they be likely to have encouraged a stricter regulatory environment?

Fair point, but having been in power since 1997, Brown et al have to take responsibility for everything that went relatively more wrong post-GFC than it did in similar countries. Most of Europe escaped relatively unscathed from the banking crisis. The U.K., Ireland and Iceland were the three outliers in Europe. And Australia and Canada weren’t too badly affected either. Not was the US, though its sheer size caused knock-on effects globally.

The Labour narrative that the U.K. was an innocent victim of factors beyond their control is just as incorrect as the Tory narrative that Labour caused the GFC.

Jezyboy

wallace_and_gromit said:

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Jezyboy said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure, he [Brown] didn't run it [the economy] perfectly...

That is some understatement!

You really think so? I mean, rhetoric about boom or bust aside, what's your problem with the economic track record there? Looks pretty rosy to me.

Vast amounts of children lifted out of poverty. Real wage growth, consistently. What more do you want?

The problem is that per my earlier comment, you need to exclude the period when the consequences of Brown's hubris emerged post-GFC to conclude consistent real wage growth during the Labour years. Or indeed consistency in most good economic metrics. There were 10/11 years of steady "good things" followed 2 years of an almighty sh*t show in terms of economic measures.

I'll grant you that his heart was in the right place and that he supported a lot of public spending on social issues. This is definitely an area where the Tories undid a lot of good work. But even so, all lifting children out of poverty really requires is the political will to spend a lot of other people's money. You don't need any great skill to do that.

To go back to one of the original points, I think this oversimplifies it to the point of being silly. It's not like the Tory party have made significant savings (significant as in, start to do real progress in reducing govt debt), yet as you point out, they seem to have managed to undo this good work.

New Labour seem to have got better bang for their buck.

I wasn’t defending the Tories. Just disagreeing with Rick that we were lucky to have Brown. The reality is that we were lucky to survive his tenure as Chancellor.

I feel like that is overly dramatic. The likely alternative to a New Labour chancellor would be a Conservative one, would they be likely to have encouraged a stricter regulatory environment?

Fair point, but having been in power since 1997, Brown et al have to take responsibility for everything that went relatively more wrong post-GFC than it did in similar countries. Most of Europe escaped relatively unscathed from the banking crisis. The U.K., Ireland and Iceland were the three outliers in Europe. And Australia and Canada weren’t too badly affected either. Not was the US, though its sheer size caused knock-on effects globally.

The Labour narrative that the U.K. was an innocent victim of factors beyond their control is just as incorrect as the Tory narrative that Labour caused the GFC.

Possibly, I think that's more the supporter narrative than the party narrative. As someone who perhaps is more of a Lib Dem, I've often thought Labours defence of their performance to be very weak. It feels like they have meekly conceded anything GFC related to the Conservatives. I do think there's probably a communication strategy where they take a little responsibility, put a lot of the blame on bankers and defend their spending record.

Unfortunately for Labour they have just conceded the ground and it feels that the narrative is that Labour caused the global financial crisis by giving public service workers decent wages. (Slight exaggeration on my part).

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

There is so little connection between government spending decisions and the amount of tax I pay that it's completely meaningless to talk about the government spending my money.

So whose money are they spending then?

I think its fair to say rather without people and businesses the government would have no money, so what we give them is reasonably described as our money.

This is back to front. Money doesn't originate from the general public. It is issued by a central bank - part of the state. If you have no say in how it is spent and it isn't in your possession, describing it as your money is a fairy story. It only used to be yours.

And without people and businesses they would have nothing to issue. We fund the state, it is reliant on us for that.

What?!

A central bank literally creates money from nothing. It doesn't come from taxes. People and businesses create goods and services that they can exchange for money but they don't create money for the central bank to issue.

Unless you are forging pound coins in your spare time.

People and businesses create wealth. The state printing money is not wealth creation, its allowing economic exchanges that create wealth. Then we donate some of that wealth to that state.

I mean, QE is literally creating money out of thin air and then using it to buy government and corporate bonds. A huge chunk of that money ended up in private hands so in a very real sense the state does create wealth. From the BoE website:

One of the consequences of QE is it increases the value of assets such as shares. That increases the wealth of the people who own them

Not exclusively of course. Corporations create things or services which they can exchange for money. Hopefully more money than it cost to create them => wealth. I would agree that the state collects some of that wealth as taxes, although donations are not usually compulsory. Once you have donated to Battersea Dogs Home, that's their money to do with as they see fit. It's no longer yours.

Not exclusively but mainly. My point still stands.