General Election 2019

GE Outcome?


  • Total voters
    322
  • Poll closed .

Robme

LE
Is it just me or is anybody annoyed at the sums be bandied about re money and how much will be borrowed by the winning party? We all laughed yesterday at the Green figures, but McDonnell is taking the wee wee. After borrowing, who is going to pay it off?
Government borrowing is not simply a matter of ownership, it’s made up of several factors and as such it has different ways of paying it back. The most significant indicator of debt is its relationship between GDP and the amount we owe. Even then it’s a bit more complex than simply factoring one against the other. You also have to split how much real money is in existence and stuff like printing money to bail out the banks, which we did quite a lot of around 2008, and we didn’t crash Zimbabwean style.

Also Gideon Osbourne borrowed more money than every single chancellor since 1900 put together (£0.7tn became £1.4tn under his ‘austerity’ rules and Hammond topped that up to £2tn (approx Nov 2019 figure)). And didn’t crash the country, why? Because the overall GDP was a healthy figure during his time as he set about sorting out the housekeeping aka Thatcher style. And that is the really important aspect, National debt is the total amount the government owe, and balancing the books is about what the government spend on running the country on a daily/weekly basis.

Politico’s will always deliberately confuse balancing the books with the overall national debt, because they are afraid that the public will get wind that they are simple minded (MP’s that is) barstewards.

So turning now to planned government borrowing, first of all the taxpayer will pay back the debt through various forms of taxation. Particularly as the Government don’t run manufacturing or make anything for sale.
However there is a limit to just how much a even a government can borrow, and there is a cracking article about how to work out how much a country can borrow, but as luck would have it I can’t find it. never mind.

Turning now to spending plans, naturally the Conservatives have limited there spending plans (currently £25-50bn) to the GDP, which is an expression of the value of the country and the governments take. Currently the U.K. Plc is worth around £72tn, so an additional £50bn isn’t going to make any real impact on the rump of things. In fact Jarvid is being extremely cautious and could quite easily push that to £75bn, with no real hiccup on the economy. It is worth remembering that interest rates are currently .75% and governments can borrow at less than that. Currently Japanese bonds are 0% for 10 year bonds, that means you can borrow from the Japanese Government for 10 years and it won’t cost you anything but they won’t pay any interest of the money they borrow from you.

Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Magic Grandpa and his erstwhile Marxist lunatic who have planned to borrow £650bn over 10 years, this is the first 10 years of their government. And given that they are legally required to hold a general election every 5 years, is this an indication of a few gulags and JCZFD refusing to give up the keys to No 10? Of course as with all Labour Governments maths isn’t there best subject? Wilson, the last sensible Labour leader (for what it’s worth) actually borrowed over 30times the amount he said he would borrow. I can only assume building then scrapping TSR2 was a tad more costly than they planned for.
the problem with the dynamic nutters Is that they are planning to pass all this wealth from the bottom up rather than is normal the top down. Heaven knows what will happen when labour local councils get large amounts of money to play with (one-legged lesbian chicken loving anti-war cabels anybody?) the point is and given that interest rates are so low, that Labour could given everybody £1m and nobody would notice the difference in either national debt or day to day spending.

if you got this far, we’ll done and have you ever considered a career in economics?
 
Last edited:
Government borrowing is not simply a matter of ownership, it’s made up of several factors and as such it has different ways of paying it back. The most significant indicator of debt is its relationship between GDP and the amount we owe. Even then it’s a bit more complex than simply factoring one against the other. You also have to split how much real money is in existence and stuff like printing money to bail out the banks, which we did quite a lot of around 2008, and we didn’t crash Zimbabwean style.

Also Gideon Osbourne borrowed more money than every single chancellor since 1900 put together (£0.7tn became £1.4tn under his ‘austerity’ rules and Hammond topped that up to £2tn (approx Nov 2019 figure)). And didn’t crash the country, why? Because the overall GDP was a healthy figure during his time as he set about sorting out the housekeeping aka Thatcher style. And that is the really important aspect, National debt is the total amount the government owe, and balancing the books is about what the government spend on running the country on a daily/weekly basis.

Politico’s will always deliberately confuse balancing the books with the overall national debt, because they are afraid that the public will get wind that they are simple minded (MP’s that is) barstewards.

So turning now to planned government borrowing, first of all the taxpayer will pay back the debt through various forms of taxation. Particularly as the Government don’t run manufacturing or make anything for sale.
However there is a limit to just how much a even a government can borrow, and there is a cracking article about how to work out how much a country can borrow, but as luck would have it I can’t find it. never mind.

Turning now to spending plans, naturally the Conservatives have limited there spending plans (currently £25-50bn) to the GDP, which is an expression of the value of the country and the governments take. Currently the U.K. Plc is worth around £72tn, so an additional £50bn isn’t going to make any real impact on the rump of things. In fact Jarvid is being extremely cautious and could quite easily push that to £75bn, with no real hiccup on the economy. It is worth remembering that interest rates are currently .75% and governments can borrow at less than that. Currently Japanese bonds are 0% for 10 year bonds, that means you can borrow from the Japanese Government for 10 years and it won’t cost you anything but they won’t pay any interest of the money they borrow from you.

Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Magic Grandpa and his erstwhile Marxist lunatic who have planned to borrow £650bn over 10 years, this is the first 10 years of their government. And given that they are legally required to hold a general election every 5 years, is this an indication of a few gulags and JCZFD refusing to give up the keys to No 10? Of course as with all Labour Governments maths isn’t there best subject? Wilson, the last sensible Labour leader (for what it’s worth) actually borrowed over 30times the amount he said he would borrow. I can only assume building then scrapping TSR2 was a tad more costly than they planned for.
the problem with the dynamic nutters Is that they are planning to pass all this wealth from the bottom up rather than is normal the top down. Heaven knows what will happen when labour local councils get large amounts of money to play with (one-legged lesbian chicken loving anti-war cabels anybody?) the point is and given that interest rates are so low, that Labour could given everybody £1m and nobody would notice the difference in either national debt or day to day spending.

if you got this far, we’ll done and have you ever considered a career in economic?
In Wilson's first spell as PM he couldn't go mental with borrowing as the UK was part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Basically, we were on the gold standard, with a fixed exchange rate, so printing money or excessive borrowing wasn't possible, although changing the exchange rate was. The Americans left Bretton Woods in 1971 to enable them to print money to finance the Vietnam war, and the system collapsed.

Wilson's second spell as PM was a period of high spending and high taxes (top rate income tax at 83%, and 98% on "unearned" income). He bailed out just before the brown stuff hit the fan so Callaghan was the poor sod who had to go cap in hand to the IMF.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
In Wilson's first spell as PM he couldn't go mental with borrowing as the UK was part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Basically, we were on the gold standard, with a fixed exchange rate, so printing money or excessive borrowing wasn't possible, although changing the exchange rate was. The Americans left Bretton Woods in 1971 to enable them to print money to finance the Vietnam war, and the system collapsed.

Wilson's second spell as PM was a period of high spending and high taxes (top rate income tax at 83%, and 98% on "unearned" income). He bailed out just before the brown stuff hit the fan so Callaghan was the poor sod who had to go cap in hand to the IMF.
Ah yes in November 1967, Harold Wilson famously claimed that this did not mean the “pound here in Britain, in your pocket” had been devalued, despite the fact that this raised import prices.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Government borrowing is not simply a matter of ownership, it’s made up of several factors and as such it has different ways of paying it back. The most significant indicator of debt is its relationship between GDP and the amount we owe. Even then it’s a bit more complex than simply factoring one against the other. You also have to split how much real money is in existence and stuff like printing money to bail out the banks, which we did quite a lot of around 2008, and we didn’t crash Zimbabwean style.

Also Gideon Osbourne borrowed more money than every single chancellor since 1900 put together (£0.7tn became £1.4tn under his ‘austerity’ rules and Hammond topped that up to £2tn (approx Nov 2019 figure)). And didn’t crash the country, why? Because the overall GDP was a healthy figure during his time as he set about sorting out the housekeeping aka Thatcher style. And that is the really important aspect, National debt is the total amount the government owe, and balancing the books is about what the government spend on running the country on a daily/weekly basis.

Politico’s will always deliberately confuse balancing the books with the overall national debt, because they are afraid that the public will get wind that they are simple minded (MP’s that is) barstewards.

So turning now to planned government borrowing, first of all the taxpayer will pay back the debt through various forms of taxation. Particularly as the Government don’t run manufacturing or make anything for sale.
However there is a limit to just how much a even a government can borrow, and there is a cracking article about how to work out how much a country can borrow, but as luck would have it I can’t find it. never mind.

Turning now to spending plans, naturally the Conservatives have limited there spending plans (currently £25-50bn) to the GDP, which is an expression of the value of the country and the governments take. Currently the U.K. Plc is worth around £72tn, so an additional £50bn isn’t going to make any real impact on the rump of things. In fact Jarvid is being extremely cautious and could quite easily push that to £75bn, with no real hiccup on the economy. It is worth remembering that interest rates are currently .75% and governments can borrow at less than that. Currently Japanese bonds are 0% for 10 year bonds, that means you can borrow from the Japanese Government for 10 years and it won’t cost you anything but they won’t pay any interest of the money they borrow from you.

Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Magic Grandpa and his erstwhile Marxist lunatic who have planned to borrow £650bn over 10 years, this is the first 10 years of their government. And given that they are legally required to hold a general election every 5 years, is this an indication of a few gulags and JCZFD refusing to give up the keys to No 10? Of course as with all Labour Governments maths isn’t there best subject? Wilson, the last sensible Labour leader (for what it’s worth) actually borrowed over 30times the amount he said he would borrow. I can only assume building then scrapping TSR2 was a tad more costly than they planned for.
the problem with the dynamic nutters Is that they are planning to pass all this wealth from the bottom up rather than is normal the top down. Heaven knows what will happen when labour local councils get large amounts of money to play with (one-legged lesbian chicken loving anti-war cabels anybody?) the point is and given that interest rates are so low, that Labour could given everybody £1m and nobody would notice the difference in either national debt or day to day spending.

if you got this far, we’ll done and have you ever considered a career in economic?
Labour gain power on Friday the thirteenth December, 2019.(What an unlucky day).

Friday the twentieth December, 2019, Sterling closes at the end of the week lower than both the US Dollar and the Euro.

Rampant inflation follows, along with widespread strikes. Borrowing costs, measured in Dollars or Euro go through the roof.

By mid-year with unemployment north of 5 million, and Sterling further devalued, riots break out in major cities.

Where from there, bankruptcy, military coup, direct intervention by the EU?. Anyone's guess.
 
Labour gain power on Friday the thirteenth December, 2019.(What an unlucky day).

Friday the twentieth December, 2019, Sterling closes at the end of the week lower than both the US Dollar and the Euro.

Rampant inflation follows, along with widespread strikes. Borrowing costs, measured in Dollars or Euro go through the roof.

By mid-year with unemployment north of 5 million, and Sterling further devalued, riots break out in major cities.

Where from there, bankruptcy, military coup, direct intervention by the EU?. Anyone's guess.
Calm yourself man.........

Only the Conservatives can win this election, the only unkown is with what size of majority.
 
Calm yourself man.........

Only the Conservatives can win this election, the only unkown is with what size of majority.
I hope you're right, old boy!.

The polls predicted a Conservative majority in 2017, but were wrong.

The track record of the pollsters over the last few years has not been that brilliant.
 
Labour gain power on Friday the thirteenth December, 2019.(What an unlucky day).

Friday the twentieth December, 2019, Sterling closes at the end of the week lower than both the US Dollar and the Euro.

Rampant inflation follows, along with widespread strikes. Borrowing costs, measured in Dollars or Euro go through the roof.

By mid-year with unemployment north of 5 million, and Sterling further devalued, riots break out in major cities.

Where from there, bankruptcy, military coup, direct intervention by the EU?. Anyone's guess.
I want to give you a like but I not risking re-education
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
1573248748281.png
 
Not really. She's a colleague.
Typical BBC. Can't share **** stories about a colleague just because she's objectively feckable. It's political madness gone correct I tell you! Probably in a handcart!

Edit to add : the only language they understand is far too good for them!
 
Labour gain power on Friday the thirteenth December, 2019.(What an unlucky day).

Friday the twentieth December, 2019, Sterling closes at the end of the week lower than both the US Dollar and the Euro.

Rampant inflation follows, along with widespread strikes. Borrowing costs, measured in Dollars or Euro go through the roof.

By mid-year with unemployment north of 5 million, and Sterling further devalued, riots break out in major cities.

Where from there, bankruptcy, military coup, direct intervention by the EU?. Anyone's guess.
Have you got a predicted date for the UK being declared Judenfrei?
 
This is going to be interesting. The Liberals are now proposing that child care be extended to those reaching 9 Months so that Parents can concentrate on going back to work. My Grand daughter who is now 3 and a bit is starting nursery but I doubt whether her mum would have permitted her going at 9 months. Apparently it's all fully costed. One is returning to arguments of twenty years ago under the Blairites of hijacking Kids after birth so that the parents needn't worry about parenting skills and the children become the property of the state. Rather Illiberal all in all and of course a lot more fat checks for child care providers. Social engineering eh. But just as interesting is the proposal to extend Maternity leave for parents. So if Maternity leave is extended, what would be the point of sending children to kindergarden at 9 months.
 

Latest Threads

Top