[Politics] rishi sunak

[Thunder Bolt]

you need to accept public spending increased 26% in those years, then follow on from your very good question, where did it all go?

Spending but not public spending.

 

[beorhthelm]

Spending but not public spending.

what other sort of spending is there from government than public spending.

 

[zefarelly]

what other sort of spending is there from government than public spending.

Selective investment?

Or 'giving it to mates'

 

[ferring seagull]

May wasn't a great leader and tied herself in knots with her Red Lines on Brexit which pretty much destroyed her piece by piece. Therefore she had no chance when dealing with the Tory lunatic fringe and the opportunist Johnson.

But, in her defence, she probably would have done a better job dealing with Covid and wouldn't have dared to throw the Saville jibe out or genuinely lie on a daily basis

Or a party in Downing Street !

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That’s not the same as public spending. Services have been cut so where did the money go?
Perhaps it was the study into a new ferry service that didn’t have any ferries, or the £900K consultation on a bridge to Ireland that could never be built because of buried armaments in the Irish Sea?
In the meantime fire stations were closed, 10 in London alone, 50% of magistrates courts closed etc

I think you're wasting your breath. Some people long decided that every day in every way the conservatives do everything better. When it doesn't seem to be better, and all the evidence indicates it isn't better, this is your fault for not realising it is better.

And, whatabout Corbyn?

 

[beorhthelm]

I think you're wasting your breath. Some people long decided that every day in every way the conservatives do everything better. When it doesn't seem to be better, and all the evidence indicates it isn't better, this is your fault for not realising it is better.

and some wont accept the spending went up. so nothing is challenged, no one understands how public money is spent or why their service has been cut over others. carry on with a cliche instead

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

and some wont accept the spending went up. so nothing is challenged, no one understands how public money is spent or why their service has been cut over others. carry on with a cliche instead

That's because in reality it's not true!
Spending went up on welfare benefits and pensions! Spending also went up on debt interest payments, and spending went up on international aid and development. Health spending was marginally up.
Spending on every other government department went down in real terms after 2010.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[zefarelly]

I think you're wasting your breath. Some people long decided that every day in every way the conservatives do everything better. When it doesn't seem to be better, and all the evidence indicates it isn't better, this is your fault for not realising it is better.

And, whatabout Corbyn?

If it wasn't for Corbyn we wouldn't be in this mess. OBVS!

 

[WATFORD zero]

That's because in reality it's not true!
Spending went up on welfare benefits and pensions! Spending also went up on debt interest payments, and spending went up on international aid and development. Health spending was marginally up.
Spending on every other government department went down in real terms after 2010.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Makes you wonder why someone would keep repeating something which is clearly and obviously a complete misinterpretation of the facts, to everyone including themselves. Because it definitely wouldn't be a deliberate misinterpretation on this account, would it

 

[beorhthelm]

That's because in reality it's not true!
Spending went up on welfare benefits and pensions! Spending also went up on debt interest payments, and spending went up on international aid and development. Health spending was marginally up.
Spending on every other government department went down in real terms after 2010.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

some positive input. you're accepting that the spending went up in areas. so we saw a policy of transfering to welfare and healthcare, away from non-core services. the first part is popular, the second not so much. i havent looked the real-terms for each department, you're probably right, though over all total spending kept pace in real terms. not alot of austerity, more like suffling the finances.

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

some positive input. you're accepting that the spending went up in areas. so we saw a policy of transfering to welfare and healthcare, away from non-core services. the first part is popular, the second not so much. i havent looked the real-terms for each department, you're probably right, though over all total spending kept pace in real terms. not alot of austerity, more like suffling the finances.

I think that some might dispute your claim that education, transport, police etc are non-core services. Also factor in cuts to local government spending and you have local public services, libraries, local roads, etc declining. What we saw was a decline in public services over this period.

And remember that in real terms spending on health was still lower than the previous Labour government, and what you had was austerity, pure and simple Even George Osborne called it austerity!

The fact that pensions went up meant a redistribution of wealth from working age population to the elderly. However, perversely,many pensioners living off savings actually had a fall in income due to the low interest rate on any savings.

A very long but interesting report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, an independent organisation
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9180


Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

I think that some might dispute your claim that education, transport, police etc are non-core services. Also factor in cuts to local government spending and you have local public services, libraries, local roads, etc declining. What we saw was a decline in public services over this period.

indeed we did, i wasnt questioning that really. just the austerity cliche that is too easy when spending didnt drop in real terms. Osborne used it cheaply to pretend he was doing more than he was, it stuck. meanwhile how services are supposed to be funded goes unanswered.

 

[usernamed]

indeed we did, i wasnt questioning that really. just the austerity cliche that is too easy when spending didnt drop in real terms. Osborne used it cheaply to pretend he was doing more than he was, it stuck. meanwhile how services are supposed to be funded goes unanswered.

Could I politely suggest we might use the mechanisms we’d used for the hundred or so years pre-Osborne?

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

indeed we did, i wasnt questioning that really. just the austerity cliche that is too easy when spending didnt drop in real terms. Osborne used it cheaply to pretend he was doing more than he was, it stuck. meanwhile how services are supposed to be funded goes unanswered.

No, you are missing the point!
The reason why government spending continued to grow was because of the low growth in the economy which meant that the government was committed to spending more than Osborne planned. See Osborne's budget predictions in 2010: the budget deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015! The debt didn't come down so debt repayment carried on going up. If the economy had recovered faster, he would have cut faster.
Also, the government committed itself to the triple lock on pensions meaning that pension spending was guaranteed to rise in real terms. A commitment to health spending was also in the manifesto.

The only way to to cover for this and the £45-50billion debt repayment per annum was to cut what many people would call essential services such as schools and police etc.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

Could I politely suggest we might use the mechanisms we’d used for the hundred or so years pre-Osborne?

since it lead to a decade of cut services while increasing spending, maybe we should look for an alternative.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Just a quick question, when this first came out, if Bojo had admitted that he had done wrong and apologise there and then would this still be going on, or would we all just left it at that?

If it had been a single event, quite possibly. But there is a difference between accidentally touching a female guest's bum when doing the goodnight mwah after a boozy dinner party, and shagging four of your wife's mates, plus your wife's sister.