Yes, that's why it's called a debt spiral.

If you wanted the debt cut or to worsen slower then you'd have needed deeper cuts and a budget surplus, or big increases in government spending but with less global demand than the time you mention under Labour.

The world was in economic recession. For how long and how much do you think that increase in government spending would've worked? The multiplier effect of building public facilities isn't as beneficial as trade.

[Link]

Despite the pound being cheap our trade deficit widens. The economy is clearly unfit for Brexit and May's plans will not address the fundamental issues.

Recession may not be too far away (within 2 years is my guess).

This is completely wrong, and has been widely discredited, other than by UK press and UK politicians.

Austerity caused the increase in the deficit, it didn't help it. Worse austerity would have been completely destabilising and would have caused the debt spiral you mention.

You don't need "global demand" to increase government spending. Government spending is of itself a contributor to aggregate demand. The world did and is still experiencing a savings glut, with savings frustrated by the lack of opportunity to invest. Increasing government spending would improve this and in fact lead to reduced deficits thanks to economic stimulus, a move towards full employment and improved productivity. Furthermore investing in infrastructure, human and social capital would have long term benefits.

Increasing public spending works as long as interest rates are at virtually zero. This has now been the case since 2009. Interest rates will only rise once the economy is back on track. You can also use monetary policy to boost fiscal policy (QE) while the economy is below full employment. Given the structural inefficiencies we have there is plenty of scope for this. The Tories haven't bothered. They used QE to prop up asset prices (benefits owners of assets who are invariably the better off).

"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker

[Link]

Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am)

"30 billion black hole" in Compo's spending spree shocker

[Link]

Edited by dannyh (12 May 2017 9.53am)

Did we start talking about Labour wanting to do too many things close together on the day or the day before the manifesto link?

You could see it coming. And it wouldn't stop there. There'd be more and more issues they'd address immediately regardless of cost. They'd be better off offering a few policies rather than lots, but this is a popularity manifesto rather than one for an election. He's used the Lib Dem classic. Offer what you know you'll never have to.

Hang on, this manifesto was leaked when? Wednesday? And this 'Thatcherite think tank' has already been able to fully go through the numbers and figure it all out?

Not to mention, the leak was only a supposed draft, not a fully costed final document?

Looking at their breakdown, I notice that nationalisation is all grouped together under one lump as well, instead of being split across energy companies/railways (apart from Royal Mail). It's just there in one lump. They're saying the gap is £30billion yet that cost is just under £50billion.

So, say in their four years Labour does everything except nationalisation. That article says that scrapping tuition fees, adding more police/prison officers/ border guards, funding the NHS, funding schools, renationalising Royal Mail, building council houses etc. is (using their figures) all achievable, and whats more with £20billion leftover. That sounds like an excellent outcome for the country. Does anyone disagree with any of those things? If you achieved half of those things I would still be pleased.

I'd also love to know what their split between railways and energy companies is, because given the way they've made an effort to make it sound like one huge unachievable sum, I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other option was below £20billion and would therefore fit under their figure. So you could still potentially also nationalise one or the other, on top of all the other promises.

Or you know, you could have a Tory manifesto that isn't worth the paper it's printed on either. No National Insurance rise (who cares if there was then a second U-turn, they still wanted to do it)? Running at a surplus by 2020? Cutting immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Committing to the single market?

Hang on, this manifesto was leaked when? Wednesday? And this 'Thatcherite think tank' has already been able to fully go through the numbers and figure it all out?

Not to mention, the leak was only a supposed draft, not a fully costed final document?

Looking at their breakdown, I notice that nationalisation is all grouped together under one lump as well, instead of being split across energy companies/railways (apart from Royal Mail). It's just there in one lump. They're saying the gap is £30billion yet that cost is just under £50billion.

So, say in their four years Labour does everything except nationalisation. That article says that scrapping tuition fees, adding more police/prison officers/ border guards, funding the NHS, funding schools, renationalising Royal Mail, building council houses etc. is (using their figures) all achievable, and whats more with £20billion leftover. That sounds like an excellent outcome for the country. Does anyone disagree with any of those things? If you achieved half of those things I would still be pleased.

I'd also love to know what their split between railways and energy companies is, because given the way they've made an effort to make it sound like one huge unachievable sum, I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other option was below £20billion and would therefore fit under their figure. So you could still potentially also nationalise one or the other, on top of all the other promises.

Or you know, you could have a Tory manifesto that isn't worth the paper it's printed on either. No National Insurance rise (who cares if there was then a second U-turn, they still wanted to do it)? Running at a surplus by 2020? Cutting immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Committing to the single market?