UK returns to budget surplus

I think a better comparison would be if someone got really drunk and then ran over someone. Sure, they weren't meaning too but ultimately is that a whole lot better than if you had intended to? Is being reckless to the point you are putting people at risk that much better?

Your avoiding the question and shifting the goal posts. Stop and answer the question. You lefties always obfuscate like this.


But fine, yes being drunk and accidentally hitting someone is morally better than deliberately targeting someone although not as morally innocent as someone who accidentally hit them through no reasonable fault of their own.

I'm not avoiding any question. I'm making the point that from the victim's angle if makes no difference. If someone ends up homeless because their benefits are taken away, it's not going to matter to them while they're freezing to death whether or not it was the intention of the Tories is it?

If the fit to work schemes are declaring seriously ill people fit to work (as they have been) then again, it matters little to them whether that was the intention.

So no, I don't think intention matters when your policies have such an impact.

I think a better comparison would be if someone got really drunk and then ran over someone. Sure, they weren't meaning too but ultimately is that a whole lot better than if you had intended to? Is being reckless to the point you are putting people at risk that much better?

You are avoiding my question.


For the last time, I will answer yours until you extend the courtesy otherwise I shall have to assume that as a presumably rational person you can see there is a clear moral difference between the 2.

As per your example re sanctions.

It matters for a number of reasons. The largest being the concern of justice: if intentions don’t matter then the state is effectively trying to kill him. This is why McDonnel et al tend to be in favour of terrorists because they are engaging in a justified war against an oppressive state. Morally he has a duty to seek redress from the wrongs inflicted on him.

Another example.

A minority applies for a job for 2 diffeeent companies. Both reject him. One does it because they hate that minority. The other does it because they don’t have any vacancies. By your logic, he should hate both equally.

oh yes momentum who love New Labour....
They were right to run, which was at the time, a historically insignificant deficit. Our country's infrastructure needed upgrading. We needed new schools, roads, hospitals and general infrastructure. PFI was wrong, I'm glad you agree. The only problem was the financial crash. Had that not occurred we would not be talking about Labour's spending.

What's your question?

Well momentum and new Labour are both overwhelming europhiles, so they want unelected European Commissioners to increasingly decide our future so in effect they want exactly the same thing. If Corbyn and McDonnell had stuck to their eurosceptic principles I would respect them and probably vote for them.


You couldn't respond to any of my points about spending or the banking crisis, just repeated yourself as I predicted, so not much point continuing.

Lol momentum aren't europhiles. I'm not even sure why you brought them up, or the EU.

Austerity is no where near as respected in the economics community as the mainstream media and poeple like @L i b let on. It's arguable a largely discredited position and those that do sing its praises are a minority.

Just am example from a professor of economics who is a mainstream economist so you can be assured this isn't just hard left wingbattery or heterodox bias.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/austerity-will-only-end-when-our.html
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/how-did-uk-austerity-mistake-happen.html

Austerity, by which I mean cutting public services and privatasing will not stop under the Tories as it is an ideological mission. The notion that it is neutral sound economics is just good politics to get the public to vote fot them. If "austerity" goes out of fashion and becomes a poltcial liability they will try and come up with another framing for and justfication of it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/austerity-and-mortality.html

If it makes you sleep easier at night you can refuse to consdier it if you like. Actions have consequences, and so do economic policies. Maybe it was worth the sacrfice. But the least you can do is acknolegde those who died as a result as opposed to pretending they don't exist.

Actually, although Corbyn and his inner circle are all closest brexiters, the bulk of momentum membership are very pro EU.

So if the economy is doing well (I know budget surplus is not everything but it is certainly good) "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES SO BAD AT RUNNING A COUNTRY"

If the economy is doing bad "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES CANNOT EVEN GET A BUDGET SURPLUS THEY ARE SO BAD"
This is only some people but is hilarious

RE if you were hit by a driver, either A) who did it because he hates you or B) who did it because he lost control over his vehicle somehow, would you be equally angry with both of them and want both to serve the same amount of prison time.

I have said that I would want A to go to jail but not B. Would you?

Well no but I don't get why we are using this analogy rather than using the actual topic at hand.
If I was made homeless I wouldn't care whether it was the intention of them or not.

Dealing in hypotheticals here but I think you would care whether it was a deliberate policy to make you homeless or not.

Well momentum and new Labour are both overwhelming europhiles, so they want unelected European Commissioners to increasingly decide our future so in effect they want exactly the same thing. If Corbyn and McDonnell had stuck to their eurosceptic principles I would respect them and probably vote for them.


You couldn't respond to any of my points about spending or the banking crisis, just repeated yourself as I predicted, so not much point continuing.

Everything is going to be much better when we are ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Whitehall rather than unelected bereaucrats in Brussels...

Ignoring any economic benefit for a second a budget surplus is a political hand grenade with no pin.

The government is esse totally going to be sitting on a big pile of cash, refusing to spend it. How well do you think that is going to play to the public when the NHS needs investment, when schools, education, local government, the military are all desperately asking for more investment?