This has always been an unfair criticism of the Cameron/Clegg coalition in particular - they took over the running of the UK economy at a time when it was not true simply to say (as Liam Byrne did?) "there is no money left" - the incoming government was immediately stuck with a deficit (extra borrowing) of over £100bn per year. "Austerity" could not in any way simply halt that excessive borrowing - it's like trying to turn an out-of-control oil tanker around. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39897498 Various estimates of the borrowing implications of the Labour party's grand plans are that it could add more than £500bn in extra borrowing, which over a 5 year term would amount to more than £100bn a year extra, so back to 2010, or of course much worse.
They wouldn't stay low for long - if you try to sell government bonds and the potential purchasers smell a rat (we'll never get out money back, or when we do it will be worth nothing due to fall in value of the £) then the effective rate shoots up. Who'd like to buy some Argentinian, Zimbabwean or Venzuelan government debt?
What is £1Trillion plus divided by ten years? A bonus point for any of that borrowing that has brought a return...
gowd, another one attempting to tell us the poorer had to get poorer and the welthier needed to get welthier to bring the deficit down. man o man.
It depends on what you mean by a "return" but it will have helped to pay for: - The NHS - Welfare/benefits - Education - Defence - Foreign aid and so on...
As I recall we had all those and before, and allocated borrowing to pay for them. The last ten years have seen massive cuts in the first three so they were not the cause of additional spending/borrowing. What about all the additional cash the government (£1Trillion plus over ten year / the increase in national debt) has spaffed up the wall? The last ten years have seen corporate taxes slashed and the borrowing maintained, thus transferring the debt onto the ordinary people including you (everyone except super wealthy) as the tax income plumetted.
I don't know what that means, but "spaffing" of money is something that was certainly going on under Gordon Brown's management. Tax revenues have in fact risen considerably since the 2008 "financial crisis" and recession when there was a major drop in government revenue (bank failures creating a black hole in their tax contributions, recession reducing GDP, etc). There's no getting away from it, the Blair government inherited a satisfactory balance between government revenue, borrowing and spending, and left the country on the brink of disaster. It is true that the public have taken on a lot more personal debt too (the national debt is always "owned by everyone" I suppose) but the reasons for that are complex (vehicle ownership via PCP being one).
Here is the actual financial position dates and amounts clearly shown Here is proof that the NHS were not the cause of additional excessive borrowing by the Tories over the last ten years. Frankly I don't care what LAB did ten years ago. I expect any government that has a TEN years in office to have resolved most if not all their inherited problems. Otherwise why would you expect the same party to improve anything over the next five? There is no getting away from the facts. Public services have been massively cut Corporation/ business taxes have been slashed Borrowing (increasing National Debt is up by £1Trillion) In summary the public's benifits (roads/ infrastructure/ housing/ leisure education/ health) are worse than 2010. The income into the HM coffers is massively reduced due to tax cuts. The spending/ borrowing continued apace. £1Trillion additional National Debt replaces the income from Business, which the public carries instead the corporations. Your grandchildren will be forever grateful as will shareholders in Apple & Banking/ Finance etc.
Nobody is compelled to give any money to Apple unless they want to. Your total debt graph does not make a useful point aside from the fact that debt has grown, as it clearly will if there's a deficit, which we can see shot up from 2008 onwards. The health spending "increase" graph is confusing and appears to have been cooked up by the BBC, but it tends to mask the fact that actual health service spending only ever gets larger (it has not been cut) and is a much greater proportion of GDP than it was back at the start of the graph. As the BBC graph is based on IFS figures, these too are relevant: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 "Tax receipts to reach highest share of national income since 1980s Total tax receipts in 2017–18 are forecast to be £690 billion. " "Tax receipts set to rise under current plans" "Income tax very top heavy: top 1% pay 27%, top 50% pay 90%, 2016–17"
Of course not, its mainly investors looking for the largest returns (why not) which are made so in part by slashed taxation on profits. There was a worldwide financial crash in 2008. What was the excuse for every year since? LAB weren't doing too badly before '08 especially when compared to the level of services & the recent decade? Personally I found the BBC graph perfectly clear. It clearly shows massive extra debt cannot be blamed on NHS spending amongst other things. All major westernised countries have similar percentages regarding Income taxes & HMRC revenue. The UK is worse than many partly due to how little the lower paid earn - it hard to pay much tax on £20K or less. Theres also a huge disparity between the lower paid and the super rich (of which there are many).
BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg breaks election rule https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...stal-votes-labour-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson
The Tories were elected in 2010 and since then national debt has increased from 65% GDP to 85%. Austerity has reduced investment / manpower in services and infrastructure nurses police roads etc. Add them together = national borrowing funding tax cuts for high earners. Some might say the lions share of the tax burden has fallen on low income earners. Tax cuts equals more tax receipts seems to be a myth. TB
