Prior to this referendum, any further treaty change was the trigger for an automatic referendum. I guess that now that we’re having one, that no longer applies to us.
It’s a good point though, one which probably feeds into the legally binding problem. Cameron’s agreement isn’t being enshrined in treaty as far as I know, which means that any other countries rocking a similar trigger are free from the committment of having to have a referendum.
My Mrs isn’t even an ardent leftie but seeing the education systen carved up, fucked up and dismantled means she wants out.
It’ll be like that for 4 yrs or whatever, then the other bros would get back in, claim Corbyns overspent, and use that as justification for cutting back services & benefits to pay back debts, and to lower taxes for the City bros. I.e. the same endless cycle 4eva
Basically gove was saying that the ECJ is bound only by the Treaties that are in force. DC is saying that the ECJ would have to take the deal into account, however the ECJ is by no way bound to follow that agreement until such time as it becomes enshrined in the treaties.
Basically, the little he did get don’t mean spit if the ECJ decide otherwise.
Originally posted by @Bearsy
It’ll be like that for 4 yrs or whatever, then the other bros would get back in, claim Corbyns overspent, and use that as justification for cutting back services & benefits to pay back debts, and to lower taxes for the City bros. I.e. the same endless cycle 4eva
I’ve got a longer post in the tank for this which I’m considering whacking into longer form for one of my “essays”.
What you say is true, but it’s also not the whole picture. We’ve had chats before about the damage people do when getting into government and being driven by a particular ideology, so I completely acknowledge that in the event of a Corbyn victory, the next government will attempt to reverse his reforms. Looking it from that perspective, it does seem like an endless cycle.
Thing is though, there’s always a longer game which dictates direction of travel for any government that happens to be in charge. From 1945 to 1979, the direction of travel was paternalistic building. From Thatcher onwards, we’ve had the neo-liberal market-led consensus.
I can accept that short term, the cycle can look endless. The longer term cycles are more interesting, and I do think we’re close to the end of our current cycle.
Worth noting, this current crop of Tories have created more debt than any other govt in history.
Growth is minimal, wages are down and social inequality is at an all time high.
Economic geniuses.
This soundbite always irritates me. In a literal sense it is true - there is more debt that ever before. However it is the direct result of a thumping great deficit that they were given. They only way they could avoid that was to stop spending £150bn pa overnight and they couldn’t do that.
Even if they had adopted the non-austerity policies that were being advocated by Balls et al, the total debt would still have been greater than any time in history.
That’s not worth noting, because it is due to the deficit that it has happened. The one run up during the last Labour government.
Growth has been pretty good over the last 3 years, and consistent, wages are now outstripping inflation.
Social inequality is high, as it’s always tends to be under a Tory government.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
That’s not worth noting, because it is due to the deficit that it has happened. The one run up during the last Labour government.
The deficit that they were going to eliminate by the end of the last Governement?
Why hold the current government to account for their inadequacies when you can still blame the previous government 6 years later.
Let’s say your parents left you a house with a £500,000 mortgage on it that you can’t sell, that costs you £2000 a month. You earn £3000 a month and have current costs of £2000 a month.
When would you stop blaming your parents for the fact that you have a £1000 deficit every month?
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
Originally posted by @KRG
**Worth noting, this current crop of Tories have created more debt than any other govt in history. **
Growth is minimal, wages are down and social inequality is at an all time high.
Economic geniuses.
This soundbite always irritates me. In a literal sense it is true - there is more debt that ever before. However it is the direct result of a thumping great deficit that they were given. T hey only way they could avoid that was to stop spending £150bn pa overnight and they couldn’t do that.
Yeah, this is a myth as well and it is equally annoying.
Economics on the scale of nations don’t work like a household budget. You can’t cut your way out of recession.
Governments create money, more or less out of nothing. Happens all the time. Cutting away when the economy goes bad is a poor choice, in economic terms.
Most economists agree that in hard times the best option is to run a deficit, spend and create demand when it is low. Then when things are looking better you get your house back in order.
This government is shifting wealth from the poor, to the rich for ideological reasons and loading the country with debt as an added bonus.
6 years in governement, still blaming the previous lot is a crap argument.
National economies are not the same as household budgets.
Well you say that, but what you’re proposing is that you invest money in that property, get yourself into debt in the hope that it will enable you to sell the property for value, and then you can start cutting the deficit. That’s fine, as long as the banks (or IMF) don’t come knocking…
Originally posted by @KRG
Yeah, this is a myth as well and it is equally annoying.
Economics on the scale of nations don’t work like a household budget. You can’t cut your way out of recession.
Governments create money, more or less out of nothing. Happens all the time. Cutting away when the economy goes bad is a poor choice, in economic terms.
Most economists agree that in hard times the best option is to run a deficit, spend and create demand when it is low. Then when things are looking better you get your house back in order.
This government is shifting wealth from the poor, to the rich for ideological reasons and loading the country with debt as an added bonus.
6 years in governement, still blaming the previous lot is a crap argument.
Upvoted for many reasons, chief amongst them being one of the few people talking about the economy with a clue about where money comes from.
What, the IMF? The size of the deficit left us in a precarious position, both economically and fiscally. We were at serious risk of credit rating downgrades, which makes the interest on the money we owed higher, and the availability of money to ‘invest’ our way out of trouble harder to obtain.
There was a reason that the IMF backed the Governments plan in 2010, and a reason why they also do now.
To say that most economists opposed the uk’s plans for deficit reduction in 2010 is utter bunkum. Where and when was this far reaching poll of economists done, as I’d like to read it?
Originally posted by @KRG
Most economists agree that in hard times the best option is to run a deficit, spend and create demand when it is low. Then when things are looking better you get your house back in order.
The economist bros are also prob consensus that when times is good, when ur non-recession and world economy is boyant, that is the time to reduce deficit, but we didn’t do that cos we had Labours at the time.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Well you say that, but what you’re proposing is that you invest money in that property, get yourself into debt in the hope that it will enable you to sell the property for value, and then you can start cutting the deficit. That’s fine, as long as the banks (or IMF) don’t come knocking…
The fundamental difference is a national government can create money.
In your scenario I could not create money to get out of the situation.
The current government is taking money out of the economy, and has been doing so continually when the economy needs it most. This is why this analogy does not stack up.
But, if we want to carry on blaming Labour. Do we also blame Labour for the **GLOBAL financial crisis? ** Did Labour crash Wall Street? Are they responsible for the crisis in countries like Greece?
To quote Dave, fix the roof while the sun is shining…
The point I was making was that reducing outgoings to less than incoming was the only way to stop the debt mountain getting any bigger. I didnt say it was the solution - in fact I said “they couldn’t do that”.
You said that the creation of more debt by the Tories was bad, however in your third paragraph you advocate continuing to run a deficit, which would have made the debt mountain worse. You can’t have it both ways.
I dont pretend to know what the right solution to our problems are. For every economist who says one thing, there is usually another saying the complete opposite. Ultimately history will show if the course set by this government is the right one or not. What we will never know is whether an anti auserity policy would have made things better or worse.
The system as I understand it, is that Labour bros say when times are good you need to spend because you can afford it, and when times are bad you need to spend to encourage growth, while the Tory bros say when times are good you need to cut to reduce deficit, and when times are bad you need to cut because you can’t afford it. It’s a good system.