Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    • Debt


    in 1945 the debt was three times as high as it is today. The Labour government of 1945-51 nationalised 20% of the economy including setting up the NHS in 1948. In 1951 Labour recorded their highest EVER number of votes. The liberals decided not to contest many conservative seats so as not to split the vote resulting in Churchill winning the election, standing on a platform of stopping the nationalisation of further companies rather than the previous stance of re-privatisation.



    http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...ent%20Of%20GDP


    • Deficit


    Wasn't considered a problem until 2008 - the year of the global financial collapse and subsequent recession. The cost of the bailout of the banks as well as the increased unemployment (less tax revenue and increased welfare payments) are the main reasons for this sudden leap.



    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277

    • Tories before the crash


    The Conservatives had announced that they would match labour spending pound for pound. George Osbourne wrote an article explaining this in The Times entitled 'Tories cutting services? Thats a pack of lies'

    In the same paper, Osbourne also told us to 'Look and learn from across the Irish sea' praising the Irish government for its long term economic policy making.

    • Labour before the crash


    Gordon Brown had triumphantly declared that he had eliminated boom and bust.


    • The current situation


    Unemployment is increasing. Its currently at a 17-year high of 2.53m or 8%. Young people (16-24) are at an all time high of 974,000. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...a-half-million

    Inflation is increasing RPI - 5.5% CPI - 4.4%. This basically means things are getting more expensive.


    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192


    • Deep, fast cuts OR slower, less deep cuts OR no cuts?


    Tories and liberals are saying cuts are neccessary and offering hard and fast cuts - deeper than Thatcher.

    Labour are are saying cuts are neccessary and offering slower cuts over a longer period in time - deeper than Thatcher.

    TUSC are offering no cuts in jobs and services - instead creating jobs, building houses and collecting tax.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sure...but one has to accept these things and just get on with life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Debt was 3 times as high as today in 1945? Really? Maybe something like, I don't know, WW2, had something to do with that? :lol:

    Still, as you can see, it remains significant :



    The same figures (short term external gross debt/GDP), contrasted to the rest of the G7:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    But we must cut all that is good and increase tuition fees etc because of the previous government. We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for labour. End standard response.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Debt was 3 times as high as today in 1945? Really? Maybe something like, I don't know, WW2, had something to do with that? :lol:
    You read my mind.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its the Deficit, not the debt that is the problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Its the Deficit, not the debt that is the problem.
    It's both. We're paying £150 million in interest per day on our debt. Reducing the deficit is key to reducing this, but our debt is the main problem and threat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilzman)
    It's both. We're paying £150 million in interest per day on our debt. Reducing the deficit is key to reducing this, but our debt is the main problem and threat.
    Exactly, I wonder if the OP thinks an annual payment of £54.8bn just to service a debt is a worthy investment? That could be going into the NHS or education.

    In fact, that figure is high enough to pay the annual university tuition fees (at the current rates) of 16.2 million students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Exactly, I wonder if the OP thinks an annual payment of £54.8bn just to service a debt is a worthy investment? That could be going into the NHS or education.

    In fact, that figure is high enough to pay the annual university tuition fees (at the current rates) of 16.2 million students.
    Labour also knew about the ballooning deficit even before the recession began, and still did nothing about it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7153480.stm)

    And that's fiscal responsibility?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Its the Deficit, not the debt that is the problem.
    rubbish. draw a venn diagram, deficit is part of the debt
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Wilzman)
    Labour also knew about the ballooning deficit even before the recession began, and still did nothing about it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7153480.stm)

    And that's fiscal responsibility?
    They were fiscally responsible, pre-recession debt never when above 37% under the labour government and went as low at 27%. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit, and the way in which we were going it was very controlled. FI I remember the government announced a deficit fo around 3% for the next few years and it stayed at 3%, it only starting ballooning when external shocks starting hitting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    .
    Sure, but the point is with high debt you can invest you're way out. With deficit it is clear from the graph that it only went out of control in 2008 - the year of the global financial crash. Are you with me so far?

    if people are in work they pay more in tax you spend less on welfare and the money in their pocket stimulates the economy. does that make sense?

    So to invest your way out of this situation you need to create jobs which will lead to a reduced deficit and debt and economic growth.

    You could also collect the annual 123bn tax gap. that is not to raise tax but to just collect what we set!

    If you nationalised the banks and big companies this would be a rather simple task.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Its the Deficit, not the debt that is the problem.
    when did the deficit become a problem? the graph clearly shows it was 2008

    Why was that? a global economic crises......... 'rooted in the financial sector' according to Mervyn king, governor of the bank of england.

    Who should pay for the crisis? the people that caused it.

    Who is paying for it? Virtually everyone else.

    is that moral? is that logical?

    Further debt and the deficit are related because the interest on the debt forms part of the deficit. do you accept that or not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Exactly, I wonder if the OP thinks an annual payment of £54.8bn just to service a debt is a worthy investment? That could be going into the NHS or education.

    In fact, that figure is high enough to pay the annual university tuition fees (at the current rates) of 16.2 million students.
    i think a system that to 'work' requires debt is a system we can do without.

    There is wealth of around 4.5trn belonging to the richest 10%. These people could pay the debt off if they wished or if they were forced to. Its either that or ordinary people pay for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilzman)
    Labour also knew about the ballooning deficit even before the recession began, and still did nothing about it. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7153480.stm)

    And that's fiscal responsibility?
    Labour are a joke....congrats on working that out!

    the tories were going to match their spending POUND FOR POUND. This information coming from Osbourne in an article entitled 'Tories cutting services? thats a pack of lies.' What do you think about that?

    The graph clearly shows the deficit only got out of control in 2008 which was the year of the global financial crisis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    They were fiscally responsible, pre-recession debt never when above 37% under the labour government and went as low at 27%. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit, and the way in which we were going it was very controlled. FI I remember the government announced a deficit fo around 3% for the next few years and it stayed at 3%, it only starting ballooning when external shocks starting hitting.
    they were not fiscally responsible. You are correct in what you are saying however that is not a definition of being fiscally responsible for this reason.....capitalism IS boom and bust. Labour convinced themselves that they had eliminated boom and bust. And if you think like that then you are going to be in for a shock. Maintaining the capitalist system is not fiscally responsible because it always means there will be a crisis - and the ordinary people of the country will pick up the tab.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    Labour are a joke....congrats on working that out!

    the tories were going to match their spending POUND FOR POUND. This information coming from Osbourne in an article entitled 'Tories cutting services? thats a pack of lies.' What do you think about that?

    The graph clearly shows the deficit only got out of control in 2008 which was the year of the global financial crisis.
    The article you are referencing to was written BEFORE the 2008 crisis. When a situation drastically changes, one must reassess his position. That is what the Tories did.

    I'm not saying they were right in doing so, I'm just saying that you can't hold someone to that after the situation changed so dramatically. In fact, it would probably be foolish to not re-strategise after the 2008 crisis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only fact is that facts have been lost in this debate:

    George Osbourne uses the words deficit and national debt interchangeably even though they're two separate things. The Con'Dem propaganda is pretty obvious on this matter, and the only people unwilling to accept is are those who benefit from cuts, and those too stupid to understand that it's f*cking them over. Maybe even those who simply support the tories like a football team, and believe they're infallible.

    Likewise Labour are propagating *******s too. Even if their spending before the crash was good (which I'm fairly inclined to believe is true), they are largely to blame for further de-regulating the banks which is one of the reasons we got into this mess.

    Overall this debate is a decoy from the fact the way we're using capitalism simply isn't working well, and if we're too fix things it isn't down to cutting things back, or growing what we have. Positive change will come from reforming Capitalism into to system that offers prosperity, gets rid of waste, offers productive growth as opposed to just more fastfood/factory jobs. This is where the real problem lies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anon1212)
    Sure...but one has to accept these things and just get on with life.
    if one of your mates is in an NHS hospital because they cant afford to go private, and due to cuts in the NHS budget there isnt the sufficient care for your friend they become seriosuly ill, or die are you going to 'just accept it and move on' when it could have been prevented.....if theres a fire and the response time from the fireservice is too slow....if the police don't show up.....if youth centres close and crime goes up.....if people skilled people are unemployed.......the list goes on. The rich would not put up this - why should you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i.am.lost)
    The article you are referencing to was written BEFORE the 2008 crisis. When a situation drastically changes, one must reassess his position. That is what the Tories did.

    I'm not saying they were right in doing so, I'm just saying that you can't hold someone to that after the situation changed so dramatically. In fact, it would probably be foolish to not re-strategise after the 2008 crisis.
    of course it was written before. Osbourne didnt see the crises coming nor did brown. But for some reason you don't let labour off the hook. Labour and the tories were agreeing on spending they were matched POUND FOR POUND until the crisis. Now whist you grant the tories a chance to change course you still blame labour pre-crisis! you should be consistant. I am - i think they were both lunatic parties and policies but they're you go.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.