I fully understood your point but there were many reasons the leave side won. They voted to stop paying large sums to the EU to squander, proper immigration control, ability to do trade deals with non EU countries and the important sovereignty issues. The UK would have been happy with a common market not being part of a superstate, good decision to leave.
It is you who should be paying attention. National debt is not the same thing as budget deficit. The first refers to the amount of money owed by the UK. government - the running total. Which has increased massivley since 2008. The budget surplus or deficit is the difference between everyday expenses and revenues. To give an idea of this, the UK. had a budget surplus every year between 1947 and 1974, at a time when we were still running up national debt. The two are not necessarily related.
I was correcting the false statement that the UK's deficit is rising, it is reducing each year under the Tories control. The national debt is entirely a different thing. Of course with a proper austerity policy the deficit would have been eliminated by now.
Leo I have a degree in History and Politics but it doesn't mean that I claim to be right on every subject related to it.....nor have I alluded to it until now. Over the last 26 years (13 Tory and 13 Labour) Tory budget deficits have been twice those of Labour - another unpallatable fact which the Express or the Mail will never tell their readers about. The last time the tories had a majority in this country they destroyed the countries manufacturing base and made it over dependent on finance markets - thus leaving Britain totally undefended against the later crash (Germany remained a manufacturing nation which is why it was not so badly affected), they squandered all of the money from their privatizations. This Tory government is on the verge of driving Britain finally off the cliff, and you tell me the Tories are better for the economy ?
With respect my degree was in politics philosophy and economics with a major in stats - I claim no special ability for any other than the stats as it is a science. I studied history at A level and S level but that does not equip me to comment on history apart from a few facts. However if you have studied a science then there are certain things you learn. A chemistry graduate would be expected to know more about atoms than joe public. In this case statistics is a very confusing subject and one which the layman thinks he understands - he rarely does. Even on the TV they use / get stats massively wrong. In statistics a number of correlations contain a time lag - this is why picking up data from the central statistical office and misusing it is so wrong. I do wish people on tis forum were able to argue without using the Mail and Express. Let us all accept that no newspapers "tell the truth". So let us ignore them all. As an economist I know where to get data and it is not from a paper. This is not the post to go over the Thatcher era but your analysis of the destruction of the manufacturing base is simplistic at the very least and causally completely incorrect. But that is for another thread. Labour failed in the 60s causing economic chaos and devaluation. In the 70s they again messed up and ended their term with strikes (amazing for a Labour government) and chaos; Blair used Tory economics and had 10 successful years. Brown reverted to Labour economics and wrecked the economy again. I do not say the Tories were always great otherwise I would be a supporter of them. However they solved a lot of necessary problems with old declining industries, smashed union blackmail and generally ran a reasonable economy. I expect you to disagree with all of that but that is the nature of politics. Your last sentence verges on hysteria. "driving Britain off the cliff"? Is that good debating language? Do you haave current growth, employment and unemployment statistics in mind when you say that? Even if you were remotely correct I would argue it was the 17.4 million people who chose to leave the EU who have had the most effect on our current economic climate. Unless you argue the electorate should never be consulted then you have to accept their verdict whether or not you like it.
I am not 'trading' degrees with you Leo. I actually regret admitting to having one, because it is, in no way, relevant here. In any case I went off in a completely different professional direction having got it. I find the idea of a society of specialists dangerous ie. we leave scientific decisions to scientists, economic ones to economists etc. etc. Profoundly undemocratic. Every body has a right to express an idea on anything, and has a right to have it judged on its merits, regardless of the title of the author. We cannot prove that either Labour or the Tories were 'better' for the economy - statistics alone cannot do this, because the results of government often reep benefits many years later. With regard to Britain's old industries such as steel, mining, textiles etc. Germany also had the problem of old dying industries - towns like Solingen, Essen, Dortmund etc. etc. were no different to Sheffield or the mining areas of the UK. But in Germany the transition away from these old industries was over a longer period, and was in a centrally planned way, involving investment, retraining etc. etc. and Germany is still a manufacturing nation - still in the same areas, but with more high tech industries. The whole process was not thrown over to the free market as in the UK. Miners in Germany knew that there was a 20 year plan for closure. What replaced it was not a transition to finance economy, as in the UK.
I was not trading degrees either. However it is relevant to an argument if one person has a better understanding on something specific than another. I am afraid your use of statistics demonstrate that you do not know much about them. Sorry if that sounds rude but if as a layman you tried to tell a chemist about the structure of a molecule you would not expect them to think you were equally qualified. Picking up a bunch of stats and using them as you have is just incorrect. Sorry but that is a fact. Your argument is that everybody has the right to express an idea - of course they do - but it does not make them right. The referendum was lost because people distrusted experts. I happen to respect people who are expert in their subjects - it does not always make them right of course but you have to understand why you believe they are not. Some people still believe despite overwhelming scientific evidence that man did not land on the moon. They have the right to their opinion - but it is wrong. You were the one who tried to use statistics to prove a point not me so when I show you have failed to take account of time lag in the data and therefore your analysis is faulty you then try to decry experts. They say you can not fool all of the people all of the time. That is true. The people of the UK in my observation have made a judgement on the relative competence of Labour and Conservatives on economics. You have admitted yourself that Labour have a poor image and you do not know why. Of course Labour are trying to undo that. They know it loses them elections. Hence their constant attempt to deflect 2008- 2010 to world events and not their own policies. I think they can fool some people. Most people are pretty good judges on how a government is doing and tend to vote accordingly.
Leo, every country in the World was hammered by the crash of 2008-2010, this cannot be laid at the door of Labour. Germany suffered less than other countries because it is still primarily a manufacturing nation. Britain suffered in due proportion because the economy had become so badly balanced in favour of finances and banking - whose fault was that ? I think that I may be the only one on here with a degree in politics - so what ? It does not make my ideas any more valid than anyone elses - don't try to claim that your 'expertise' has any weight here. Qualifications gained out of our everyday lives are irrelevant in a debate on a football fans forum.
Yes - as I said - that is the Labour line adopted to try to pretend they were victims not perpetrators. We all know about sub prime and yahdy haydy yay but after 13 years in office Labour screwed up. Simple as that and no revisionism will convince the public at large that Labour did not make a bad case 10 times worse. And nope - look at what I told you was my degree- it included politics but I lay no claim to its use. Politics is not a science. If you use maths your sums have to add up. If you use statistics you have to know about regression analysis, lag effects etc etc . You used stats incorrectly. Any person with a knowledge of stats can tell you that so don't have a go at me for being the "expert" in that field. Statistical knowledge is directly relevant when someone uses statistics. You are trying to make a virtue of lack of knowledge. Tell me whether you would argue atomic structure with a chemist. I am sorry that you do not use statistics correctly but you are in the majority and rubbishing another's knowledge and dragging red herrings all over the place is no substitute for knowing about a scientific process. This has become a personal discussion and I swore to myself I would not get involved in such a discussion so I am not going to say any more. If you believe your use of statistics is correct all I can say is the old adage "when ignorance is bliss, tiz folly to be wise". Enjoy your lack of knowledge of stats if you want but do not pretend that your misuse is OK.
All I can say is that the statistics came from the House of Commons Library and that they were used by experts in the field of tax - I did not invent them. I am aware that statistics can lie - or, be used for support rather than illumination. The fact that governments sometimes reep the rewards of their actions 20 years later is also obvious. So what do we do ? Leave parties in power for 20 continuous years, because we can only really judge them after such a period ? Other than to go looking for statistics I am left with just the feeling that Thatcher destroyed the country - I lived there at this time and it was hell for many people. But is a 'feeling' sufficient for a debate ? And are you the only one who is qualified to use statistics ? And should we all believe what you find, because you are the accountant ? The fact is that there is no such thing as objective economics - for every one economist who spouts the ideas of Hayek, or the Vienna School there are others who favour the ideas of Keynes. For every one economist who believes in a 'trickle down' theory, there are others who don't - so what does the layman do ? Wait outside the door seeing which one of his champions will win ?
I did not question the figures but your interpretation. Some stats can indeed only be understood at a later date - but not all. I simply pointed out that picking up the stats for a period and then saying they prove Labour are better than the Tories without adjusting for causal effect is wrong. If you had said 2+2 =5 you would also have been wrong. Who said anything about leaving parties in power for 20 years? People judge parties on their apparent competence. I do not need 20 years to consider Theresa May's government poor. Your feeling on the Thatcher years are as valid as mine. So long as we acknowledge that we are making non scientific value judgements that is fine. As an independent I consider a lot of what Thatcher did was good, necessary and justifiable. Equally I consider a lot bad, unnecessary and unjustifiable. That is why I am an independent as I toe no party line but make up my own mind. It is people who see only black or white that trouble me. As I say I am not the only one qualified to use statistics and your question shows an aggression and fundamental flaw in logic. I do believe that somebody who is trained in a subject is better able to understand it than someone who is not. You used statistics incorrectly and any statistician would be able to tell you that. You have not answered my analogy to chemistry. Would you be arrogant enough to disparage a trained chemist's knowledge of his subject and imply he could not use his knowledge if that was the subject being discussed. we were not discussing football but statistics - and you are simply incorrect and too obstinate to admit it. I cannot do anything about that. You introduce so many red herrings. Accountancy is a partial science and in some aspects there are things that are black and white but most accountancy, economics and politics are not pure science.
You have not disputed the figures themselves Leo. The only conclusion I made was that the Tories borrow more than Labour, and that Labour pays more back. Do you dispute that ? The whole point arises because the accusation is always made that Labour are spendthrift, and this is believed because the media constantly reinforces it. If Britain has a large national debt, then it was the Tories who accumulated more of it than Labour - do you dispute that ? If so then please produce some of your 'economics' to do that. If you really want to criticize my use of statistics - then produce something better !
As a rider. On another forum where the number of people is much greater and the standard of debate generally excellent I was in a discussion with several others about the constitution. We kicked about a number of points but when a person came on who was a trained lawyer and had experience of constitutional law and told us what was in fact correct nobody asked why he though it OK to benefit us with his expertise. Nobody told him his "real life" was not relevant. We were grateful for his info and accepted we were less knowledgeable on that one point. Shame not everybody can acknowledge when they have something wrong.
Yes I meant the national debt: please log in to view this image yes i meant national debt How come it is increasing under a Tory Govt which claims to handle the economy better than labour?
I have not even thought about the figures as your use of them made them irrelevant. Do you not understand that Labour built up a massive debt and an unsustainable running annual spend. The Tories inherited that and the stats show it as being on their watch. The fact that it is taking years to reduce the debt does not show where it came from. Of course the stats show the debt higher under the Tories. If you do not see that then I cannot explain it more.
This is like pulling teeth. Look at SH's graph. It shows the Tories are reducing the overspend. However it has not gone to zero - until it does the total debt will always rise.
Do you dispute that the Tories have borrowed more than Labour for their years in office, and are, therefore more responsible for the national debt than Labour ?
Nice to know that David Cameron got it mixed up too: The UK national debt is often confused (even by politicians) with the government budget deficit (officially known as the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR)), which is the rate at which the government borrows money. The then Prime Minister David Cameron was reprimanded in February 2013 by the UK Statistics Authority for creating confusion between the two, by stating in a political broadcast that his administration was "paying down Britain's debts". In fact, his administration has been attempting to reduce the deficit, not the overall debt. The latter will continue to rise even if the deficit shrinks.[8] I do think that it needs to be recognized that for most of us on here the debate is likely to be at a fairly basic level and that if we try to engage we won't feel put down because of our limited knowledge. The reality is the vast majority of the population vote based on perception puts most of us in a similar boat
The tale of two Sirs. Lanky and Darby lived together. In 2005 all was well. Lanky decided they should live a bit better. Holidays and cars were bought and expensive clothes and fine dining. In 2010 he was £500k in the red at the bank and overspending by £100k per annum. This has to stop said the more sensible Darby. We must not spend more than we earn. Please don’t cut everything out said Lanky. Ok then said Darby but by 2015 we must not be overspending. He was too kind though and did not cut out everything so in 2015 they still overspent by £40k. The overspends had come down a lot: to 90 then 80, 60, 50 and 2015 40. All the overspends went on the bank overdraft which was now £820k (500+90+80+60+50+40). Oh dear the debt is higher now. You failed me said Lanky – we were supposed to have zero overspend now – and the debt has gone up. True says Darby – I should have been tougher and cut out your new suits and fine dining too – but at least we are now only overspending by £40 – and it is going down every year. If you had stayed in control with our overspend going up £10k per annum our overspends would have been 110+120+130+140+150 – a total of £650 plus the £500k – so now we would be £1,350 in the red – and getting worse. We are in less debt than you would have had us in and now our overspend is only the cost of the interest payments – and falling. Who knows –one day we may underspend in a year and start to bring our overdraft down So whose “fault” was this? Lanky for the original overdraft and the running rate of £100k or Darby for not cutting out everything? Was the average debt higher under Lanky or Darby? Did Lanky or Darby borrow most? Of course Darby’s figures are worse – but he was the only one solving the problem and would eventually have got there – the cause though was before his time.
