| May on 5 Live 10:44 - Jul 13 with 16764 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
Even in this, her most humane interview for months, it still doesn't resonate with me. Who were you crying for? Yourself or the millions destined for worse living conditions?
I thought she won the election? |  | | |  |
| May on 5 Live on 14:14 - Jul 13 with 4343 views | Darth_Koont |
| May on 5 Live on 14:10 - Jul 13 by giant_stow |
Exposed to debt and deficit and a commitment to run up more of the same. Eventually, our lenders will have had enough. Aren't the repayments each year already an enourmous chunk of the govt's overall budget? And thats with low interest rates - if the markets lose confidence, things could spriral quickly and we all know it would be the porest who'd pay that price.
Also exposed in the sense that who would be on our side exactly? Not Europe - Jez wants out innit and they're hardly a bunch of lefties in any case. Certianly not the USA especially if we shoot off left and dump trident. Without support there, who's that leave effectively? China? Why would they help?
I'm honestly open to reasurrence, but name some countries who might be friendly in this scenario, please! Explain how we can roll back globalisation too if poss. |
Conservatives (on both sides of the pond) generally run up more debt. Plus the money goes to the private sector rather than being used to improve lives, develop public services or build/maintain infrastructure.
The myth of the "Fiscally responsible conservative" is one of the biggest lies ever told. |  |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:17 - Jul 13 with 4336 views | giant_stow |
| May on 5 Live on 14:14 - Jul 13 by Darth_Koont |
Conservatives (on both sides of the pond) generally run up more debt. Plus the money goes to the private sector rather than being used to improve lives, develop public services or build/maintain infrastructure.
The myth of the "Fiscally responsible conservative" is one of the biggest lies ever told. |
You could be right or wrong about that, but what do you think will happen to our debt costs if/when Corbyn takes charge? |  |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:19 - Jul 13 with 4318 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 14:14 - Jul 13 by Darth_Koont |
Conservatives (on both sides of the pond) generally run up more debt. Plus the money goes to the private sector rather than being used to improve lives, develop public services or build/maintain infrastructure.
The myth of the "Fiscally responsible conservative" is one of the biggest lies ever told. |
Not this time, the manifesto was independently analysis and was shown to saddle the UK with the biggest burden since 1950. It didn't even have costings for the renationalisation of the water companies and certainly nothing on the new "nice to have" cancelling of all student debt.
You can say that generally conservatives run up more debt but we are talking specifically here and specifically about one particular manifesto.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:21 - Jul 13 with 4320 views | Darth_Koont |
| May on 5 Live on 14:13 - Jul 13 by giant_stow |
But Corbyn appears to support brexit, so no more safeguards surely?
I don;t like the choice in your second para - why can't we have a middle option? |
Yes, that's what I meant. Brexit will cover decades so even if Corbyn et al are committed to social policies it leaves the door wide open for the next ideological feckwits who think equality and justice are somehow impinging on our liberty.
The only middle option is if the country rejects the current government and/or the Brexit deal. Maybe the latter is what Labour still might consider? With no clear deal on the table, they perhaps feel they currently have to support the "democratic mandate" for Brexit but I doubt they want to be tied in to supporting a crap deal. | |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:24 - Jul 13 with 4311 views | giant_stow |
| May on 5 Live on 14:21 - Jul 13 by Darth_Koont |
Yes, that's what I meant. Brexit will cover decades so even if Corbyn et al are committed to social policies it leaves the door wide open for the next ideological feckwits who think equality and justice are somehow impinging on our liberty.
The only middle option is if the country rejects the current government and/or the Brexit deal. Maybe the latter is what Labour still might consider? With no clear deal on the table, they perhaps feel they currently have to support the "democratic mandate" for Brexit but I doubt they want to be tied in to supporting a crap deal. |
Fair enough and fingers crossed. | |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:25 - Jul 13 with 4307 views | eireblue |
| May on 5 Live on 14:19 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
Not this time, the manifesto was independently analysis and was shown to saddle the UK with the biggest burden since 1950. It didn't even have costings for the renationalisation of the water companies and certainly nothing on the new "nice to have" cancelling of all student debt.
You can say that generally conservatives run up more debt but we are talking specifically here and specifically about one particular manifesto.
SB |
So, in other words one party tends to more open, but a little bit optimistic, the other party relies on perception and runs up more debt with no mandate. |  | | |
| May on 5 Live on 14:25 - Jul 13 with 4307 views | Darth_Koont |
| May on 5 Live on 14:17 - Jul 13 by giant_stow |
You could be right or wrong about that, but what do you think will happen to our debt costs if/when Corbyn takes charge? |
I'd expect they could be just as much on a par with the current debt/deficit but with more to show for it.
After the records of the last 20 years the idea that Corbyn is suddenly the cripplingly expensive option is laughable. | |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:28 - Jul 13 with 4293 views | giant_stow |
| May on 5 Live on 14:25 - Jul 13 by Darth_Koont |
I'd expect they could be just as much on a par with the current debt/deficit but with more to show for it.
After the records of the last 20 years the idea that Corbyn is suddenly the cripplingly expensive option is laughable. |
If hes planning on spending far more than anyone else, how's it laughable? I don;t understand... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| May on 5 Live on 14:29 - Jul 13 with 4281 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 14:17 - Jul 13 by giant_stow |
You could be right or wrong about that, but what do you think will happen to our debt costs if/when Corbyn takes charge? |
Most of my adult life has been debt / deficit and empty promises of eradicating it. A lot of us have had enough of being told that's the reason communities and services are continuing to fall apart with no alternative of hope.
I'm not saying Macron, Merkel and co. are more Corbyn than they are May, but JC's approach compared to alternative has to be the best representation of what we as a nation need right now doesn't it? I trust him, Starmer, Gardiner, Thornberry, McDonnell etc. to do what is right for us on the international stage.. | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 14:35 - Jul 13 with 4264 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 14:19 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
Not this time, the manifesto was independently analysis and was shown to saddle the UK with the biggest burden since 1950. It didn't even have costings for the renationalisation of the water companies and certainly nothing on the new "nice to have" cancelling of all student debt.
You can say that generally conservatives run up more debt but we are talking specifically here and specifically about one particular manifesto.
SB |
If you knew anything about what you're talking about and weren't just regurgitating sound bites, you would realise any amount borrowed in order to renationalise water (or anything else) is not a debt in the same sense as the rest of the manifesto's coatings. IT PAYS FOR ITSELF.
You are a blind mouse if you can't see the only people that benefit from a privatised water company are Damien Green and the other Tories that are directors of these companies.
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 14:47 - Jul 13 with 4241 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 14:35 - Jul 13 by BelvedereBrunswick |
If you knew anything about what you're talking about and weren't just regurgitating sound bites, you would realise any amount borrowed in order to renationalise water (or anything else) is not a debt in the same sense as the rest of the manifesto's coatings. IT PAYS FOR ITSELF.
You are a blind mouse if you can't see the only people that benefit from a privatised water company are Damien Green and the other Tories that are directors of these companies.
BB |
It's pretty rich to say "if you knew anything" and then spout an economically ignorant argument like you've just done. In fact all you seem to be doing is regurgitating sound bites.
The initial borrowing required to buy the water companies can be given by (in extremely basic terms):
C = (share price * shares issues) + premium (as they don't want to sell)
D = C + (N * interest payments) where N is the length of bond issued
So you've now borrowed say 50bn and at an interest rate of 1.5% over 20 years that's actually 67bn over the length of the bond issuance.
Now Labour have clearly said that the profits made by the water company will be ploughed straight back into infrastructure (I agree this is a good thing). However how are they going to pay off the initial debt if they are doing that? Even if they wanted to pay it all off they would have to put 3.4bn worth of water company profits into the debt each year. Water companies make less than a combined 2bn profit so how do they plan to pay off the debt and ploughing profits into the infrastructure?
All that will happen is the debt won't be paid and in 20 years we will need to roll the debt at a probably higher interest rate. Either that or another government will come in and be forced to pay it off, probably via cuts.
Of course McDonnell has said that they can determine the purchase cost without considering market value, something which will be seen by the rest of the world as a massive banana republic move.
SB [Post edited 13 Jul 2017 14:49]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 14:50 - Jul 13 with 4240 views | Darth_Koont |
| May on 5 Live on 14:28 - Jul 13 by giant_stow |
If hes planning on spending far more than anyone else, how's it laughable? I don;t understand... |
Because the costings may be lower for the others but they always end up spending significantly more and adding to the debt.
Also how much of that spending is investment in our future rather than plugging gaps/feathering certain nests/wasting it on vanity "defence" projects?
Now those are the "budgeted" manifestos that don't add up. [Post edited 13 Jul 2017 15:02]
| |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 15:02 - Jul 13 with 4220 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 14:47 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
It's pretty rich to say "if you knew anything" and then spout an economically ignorant argument like you've just done. In fact all you seem to be doing is regurgitating sound bites.
The initial borrowing required to buy the water companies can be given by (in extremely basic terms):
C = (share price * shares issues) + premium (as they don't want to sell)
D = C + (N * interest payments) where N is the length of bond issued
So you've now borrowed say 50bn and at an interest rate of 1.5% over 20 years that's actually 67bn over the length of the bond issuance.
Now Labour have clearly said that the profits made by the water company will be ploughed straight back into infrastructure (I agree this is a good thing). However how are they going to pay off the initial debt if they are doing that? Even if they wanted to pay it all off they would have to put 3.4bn worth of water company profits into the debt each year. Water companies make less than a combined 2bn profit so how do they plan to pay off the debt and ploughing profits into the infrastructure?
All that will happen is the debt won't be paid and in 20 years we will need to roll the debt at a probably higher interest rate. Either that or another government will come in and be forced to pay it off, probably via cuts.
Of course McDonnell has said that they can determine the purchase cost without considering market value, something which will be seen by the rest of the world as a massive banana republic move.
SB [Post edited 13 Jul 2017 14:49]
|
I think you need to look at the bigger picture rather than trying to pick apart individual policies with your redundant way of thinking. When you talk about the debt that will need to be paid off, I think you're failing to take into account the current state of affairs. Nationalisation in these areas needed to happen yesterday, not today. Wake up.
John McDonnell:
"Almost three decades after water was sold-off, share ownership is now largely in the hands of a small group of international investors — many of them based in tax havens. Meanwhile, prices have increased by 40 per cent and over a quarter of the amount consumers pay on bills goes towards servicing debt interest and paying out dividends.
New investment has been financed by borrowing rather than by shareholders. When water was privatised, the Government generously took on the outstanding debts of the sector — all £4.9bn of them — leaving the new owners debt free. The private owners have taken advantage, ratcheting up a breathtaking £46bn of debt between them by 2016.
While racking up debt at taxpayers’ expense, the water firms have paid out billions to shareholders in dividends. Out of a combined total post-tax profit of £18.8bn over the last 10 years, all but £700m of it was paid out in dividends to shareholders. That’s more than £18bn flowing into the pockets of shareholders instead of being used to bring down bills and improve services. Three companies even paid out more money in dividends than their total pre-tax profits. This is simply unsustainable."
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 15:35 - Jul 13 with 4198 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 15:02 - Jul 13 by BelvedereBrunswick |
I think you need to look at the bigger picture rather than trying to pick apart individual policies with your redundant way of thinking. When you talk about the debt that will need to be paid off, I think you're failing to take into account the current state of affairs. Nationalisation in these areas needed to happen yesterday, not today. Wake up.
John McDonnell:
"Almost three decades after water was sold-off, share ownership is now largely in the hands of a small group of international investors — many of them based in tax havens. Meanwhile, prices have increased by 40 per cent and over a quarter of the amount consumers pay on bills goes towards servicing debt interest and paying out dividends.
New investment has been financed by borrowing rather than by shareholders. When water was privatised, the Government generously took on the outstanding debts of the sector — all £4.9bn of them — leaving the new owners debt free. The private owners have taken advantage, ratcheting up a breathtaking £46bn of debt between them by 2016.
While racking up debt at taxpayers’ expense, the water firms have paid out billions to shareholders in dividends. Out of a combined total post-tax profit of £18.8bn over the last 10 years, all but £700m of it was paid out in dividends to shareholders. That’s more than £18bn flowing into the pockets of shareholders instead of being used to bring down bills and improve services. Three companies even paid out more money in dividends than their total pre-tax profits. This is simply unsustainable."
BB |
So, in summary:
- You've ignored my post because it's inconvenient and instead re-framed the discussion into "the bigger picture"
- Your saying we shouldn't look at individual policies when you wanted to discuss this individual policy yourself
- You've thrown away the economic argument you were pushing and instead turned it into an ideological argument.
You've done well.
I have no problem with nationalisation if it makes sense. The only way it makes sense in this case is if you accept the debt involved.
SB [Post edited 13 Jul 2017 15:39]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 15:42 - Jul 13 with 4185 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 15:35 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
So, in summary:
- You've ignored my post because it's inconvenient and instead re-framed the discussion into "the bigger picture"
- Your saying we shouldn't look at individual policies when you wanted to discuss this individual policy yourself
- You've thrown away the economic argument you were pushing and instead turned it into an ideological argument.
You've done well.
I have no problem with nationalisation if it makes sense. The only way it makes sense in this case is if you accept the debt involved.
SB [Post edited 13 Jul 2017 15:39]
|
No, I responded to your point (if you can call it that). What I meant by the bigger picture is that you're defending a party that gives away the figures your talking about in tax cuts and even deals to keep them in power.
The John McDonnell quote I put forward IS the economic argument on this individual policy, but of course that's the part you decided to ignore. A bit rich after you've just accused me of ignoring your point. Why don't you try to be a bit less condescending and try to understand he reality of the situation?
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 15:46 - Jul 13 with 4175 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 15:42 - Jul 13 by BelvedereBrunswick |
No, I responded to your point (if you can call it that). What I meant by the bigger picture is that you're defending a party that gives away the figures your talking about in tax cuts and even deals to keep them in power.
The John McDonnell quote I put forward IS the economic argument on this individual policy, but of course that's the part you decided to ignore. A bit rich after you've just accused me of ignoring your point. Why don't you try to be a bit less condescending and try to understand he reality of the situation?
BB |
I haven't defended any party. What I have done is pick apart your point about the nationalisation paying for itself. Nothing more.
The McDonnell quote is his economic argument. Don't forget we are talking about a man who said that issuing bonds wasn't debt and that he could determine how much to pay for the water companies rather than market value.
Bit rich to call me condescending when in the last three posts you've said:
"if you can call it that" about my point
"If you knew anything about what you're talking about"
"with your redundant way of thinking"
"Wake up. "
Who is being condescending exactly?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 15:52 - Jul 13 with 4164 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 15:46 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
I haven't defended any party. What I have done is pick apart your point about the nationalisation paying for itself. Nothing more.
The McDonnell quote is his economic argument. Don't forget we are talking about a man who said that issuing bonds wasn't debt and that he could determine how much to pay for the water companies rather than market value.
Bit rich to call me condescending when in the last three posts you've said:
"if you can call it that" about my point
"If you knew anything about what you're talking about"
"with your redundant way of thinking"
"Wake up. "
Who is being condescending exactly?
SB |
You are being condescending mate. You're not listening and think you have some kind of superior knowledge of bonds and borrowing.
All you've picked apart is how flawed your own argument is.
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 16:02 - Jul 13 with 4152 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 15:52 - Jul 13 by BelvedereBrunswick |
You are being condescending mate. You're not listening and think you have some kind of superior knowledge of bonds and borrowing.
All you've picked apart is how flawed your own argument is.
BB |
Well you've offered no actual reasoning for your argument, just that they will pay for themselves. That's not an argument. I've listen but you've not backed up a single statement and just posted a quote from McDonnell. What should I be listening to? What if someone listens and disagrees with you? You don't seem to like people having a different opinion.
Enjoy your day.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 16:12 - Jul 13 with 4140 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 16:02 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
Well you've offered no actual reasoning for your argument, just that they will pay for themselves. That's not an argument. I've listen but you've not backed up a single statement and just posted a quote from McDonnell. What should I be listening to? What if someone listens and disagrees with you? You don't seem to like people having a different opinion.
Enjoy your day.
SB |
They will pay for themselves. What better back up than a direct quote from the person who created the policy you're trying to debate? You sound like a politically lost individual who just argues for the sake of arguing.
You don't have to be alt-everything you know.
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 16:19 - Jul 13 with 4134 views | StokieBlue |
| May on 5 Live on 16:12 - Jul 13 by BelvedereBrunswick |
They will pay for themselves. What better back up than a direct quote from the person who created the policy you're trying to debate? You sound like a politically lost individual who just argues for the sake of arguing.
You don't have to be alt-everything you know.
BB |
Sigh.
If someone makes a quote about a policy saying they will pay for themselves that's not evidence. Just because it's their idea it doesn't make it right. The whole point of debate is to highlight where these things are wrong or inconsistent.
Essentially you are saying that anyone who creates a policy is implicitly correct. Would you say that if it was a Tory policy? By your own words every May policy must be correct because it's a direct quote from the person who created it.
It's one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen to justify a policy. I'm starting to think you're just a troll which is fine, knock yourself out.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 16:36 - Jul 13 with 4123 views | BelvedereBrunswick |
| May on 5 Live on 16:19 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
Sigh.
If someone makes a quote about a policy saying they will pay for themselves that's not evidence. Just because it's their idea it doesn't make it right. The whole point of debate is to highlight where these things are wrong or inconsistent.
Essentially you are saying that anyone who creates a policy is implicitly correct. Would you say that if it was a Tory policy? By your own words every May policy must be correct because it's a direct quote from the person who created it.
It's one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen to justify a policy. I'm starting to think you're just a troll which is fine, knock yourself out.
SB |
That's an interesting interpretation of what I said.
Renationalisation is a better option that the current pocket lining approach. It's that simple. It sounds like you've been conditioned to shout "DEBT! WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT!" to every anti-austerity policy. As I said before - wake up.
BB | | | |
| May on 5 Live on 19:29 - Jul 13 with 4101 views | connorscontract |
| May on 5 Live on 11:21 - Jul 13 by xrayspecs |
Kier Starmer for Labour
Tories is less obvious |
Or Clive Lewis. |  | | |
| May on 5 Live on 19:36 - Jul 13 with 4096 views | Swansea_Blue |
| May on 5 Live on 14:19 - Jul 13 by StokieBlue |
Not this time, the manifesto was independently analysis and was shown to saddle the UK with the biggest burden since 1950. It didn't even have costings for the renationalisation of the water companies and certainly nothing on the new "nice to have" cancelling of all student debt.
You can say that generally conservatives run up more debt but we are talking specifically here and specifically about one particular manifesto.
SB |
A manifesto which won't be implemented. So it still holds true that the Tories borrow more. You can't compare their record against something that won't happen. |  |
| |
| May on 5 Live on 19:41 - Jul 13 with 4085 views | jaykay |
| May on 5 Live on 14:25 - Jul 13 by eireblue |
So, in other words one party tends to more open, but a little bit optimistic, the other party relies on perception and runs up more debt with no mandate. |
this sums it up beautifully for me. |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
