Do we really care about Brexit

[baldy]

No.  Not all investment creates debt. Some investors have the money to invest without borrowing.

When the money used to buy assets is borrowed, the borrowing of the money invested is creating debt.

Investment is about buying assets expected to perform well  -  ie. assets which will have some sort of adequate or better return on the money invested.

The issue that Labour seems to not understand is that when the money used to buy the assets is borrowed in the first place, that the act of borrowing is creating debt. When this happens, the investor is building up a portfolio of debt. 

This is perfectly normal, but there needs to be some competence in managing the levels of debt and the performance of the assets.

To not understand that buying assets with borrowed money involves creating debt is to simply  fail to understand what is happening overall in money terms.

It is simply ignorance and stupidity all at the same time.

To make it really simple:

When the government issues bonds, it is issuing IOU notes to borrow money. The IOU notes (ie. bonds) represent debt.

No credible government would then say that the debt is not debt because it is being spent on assets.  This is like saying that when you borrow money to buy a house that your mortgage loan is not debt.

To say this is just denying the plain, obvious and very simple truth and shows ignorance about a very basic financial issue. This level of ignorance is pure stupidity.

Actually, I do not think Corbyn is stupid enough to think that borrowing money to buy assets does not involve debt. The point I was making was that McDonnell is stupid enough to say live on TV repeatedly that borrowing money via issuing bonds is not creating more debt. He is stupid because what he said is factually wrong about a very basic point.

He thinks that investing in assets means that the debt can be ignored as if it does not exist. Saying that borrowing money to invest means there is no debt several times proves he is totally incompetent at a very basic level of finance.

[Bob DeBilda]

The Labour party membership swelled amazingly when Corbyn was running for leadership. It swelled because all members have a vote and it swelled with £5 conservatives 'joining' in and being able to vote and vote for Corbyn because they saw him as the man to take the Labour party back to a place where they were never likely to win an election for the forseeable future.

The only problem now is that because May is turning around faster than a ballerina on speed and coming up with vote losing policies, it might all backfire.

Looks like a fanciful conspiracy theory!

A very credible theory to me. I know several people who actually did this.

Means testing pensioners for their winter heating allowance is common sense. But it wont be popular even amongst well off Tory pensioners.

Such as me, you mean?  I think it's an excellent idea.  Many of these "well off Tory pensioners" donate these payments to charity.

I have no idea if you receive the winter fuel allowance or not or whether you donate it to charity if you do. I don't even know if you're a well off Tory. I also think it's a good idea as well. They say that the poorest pensioners will still get it. How poor do you have to be to still receive it? How far do you take it. Do you stop the state pension to everyone with a private pension that gives them an income above the basic state pension?

Again, well off Tory's will like the scrapping of tuition fees like you say and that will lose votes. The poorer ones will always have a £50,000 + dept hanging over them if fees aren't scrapped. No incentive to get a higher paid job there? Also no chance of being able to buy a house no matter how many are built!

I think you judge people too harshly.  Not everyone is narrowly selfish - many act pro bono publico. 

I agree, not everyone is narrowly minded. But I do talk to well off people (Tory's or not) and they don't like parting with their fortunes. Gawd knows what they are going to do with it when they're dead?

[Michael]

No.  Not all investment creates debt. Some investors have the money to invest without borrowing.

But you miss the point, all publically own companies, those quoted on the stock exchange invite investment, borrow money,
from the investors.
Governments do precisely the same by issuing bonds, albeit at a fixed rate of return, inviting investment from the public in a government controlled industry.
Labour Party policy is to take back control of service industries, to run them for the benefit of the user, using investment from subscribers through the medium of the sale of government bonds.
This policy has widespread support from the public.

[baldy]

No.  Not all investment creates debt. Some investors have the money to invest without borrowing.

But you miss the point, all publically own companies, those quoted on the stock exchange invite investment, borrow money,
from the investors.
Governments do precisely the same by issuing bonds, albeit at a fixed rate of return, inviting investment from the public in a government controlled industry.
Labour Party policy is to take back control of service industries, to run them for the benefit of the user, using investment from subscribers through the medium of the sale of government bonds.
This policy has widespread support from the public.

I'm not missing anything.  The Government is not a company. Its debt affects everyone.


John McDonnell denied that debt is involved when borrowing the money to nationalise companies.

What you are now saying is just a diversion about the fact that borrowing does happen. It is disingenuous.

Whether the support from the public for yet more public debt is widespread or not is a moot point, but the result of the election will certainly be interesting now that strong and stable Theresa has shown she is only just about competent and actually rather wobbly whilst Corbyn is rather incompetent and his shadow chancellor is financially illiterate at even a very very basic level.

[Mike Hawkins]

But surely the last Labour Government invested £billions we did not have! If this was not debt, why are we still in "austerity measures"?

Sorry Michael, but 5 years of Labour government equals 50 years of debt repayment!

Strangely, although the next Government will be for a 5 year term, almost 3 of which will be post-Brexit, not ONE of the parties have said what they will do with the money we will no longer be paying the EU.  OK, the Lib Dems will continue to give this to the EU by stopping us leaving, the Labour Party will apparently pay whatever bill the EU gives us for leaving (albeit only partially leaving), but what about the Conservatives? Do they intend to continue to subsidise the EU at the present level???

[Bob DeBilda]

But surely the last Labour Government invested £billions we did not have! If this was not debt, why are we still in "austerity measures"?

Sorry Michael, but 5 years of Labour government equals 50 years of debt repayment!

That was bailing the banks out. But that's another story.

Strangely, although the next Government will be for a 5 year term, almost 3 of which will be post-Brexit, not ONE of the parties have said what they will do with the money we will no longer be paying the EU. 

3 will be post Brexit? That's optimistic to say the least.

Didn't you listen to BoJo and Fromage? we are going to spend the money on the NHS   

Seriously though, it's going to go on much the same things that the EU spends it on now. Science, farming, fisheries, research, environmental protection. etc.Plus what we have already committed to. In other words all the things we have to untangle ourselves from. 2 years? more like 10 if ever!

[Michael]

But surely the last Labour Government invested £billions we did not have! If this was not debt, why are we still in "austerity measures"?

No argument from me there Mike, the reason they did that was to prop up failing banks who had embarked on risky lending deals.
The austerity policy is something else, it's a failed policy, we're more in debt now than we were 7 years ago, austerity hasn't worked and it's time to change the approach.
Investing in the economy to stimulate growth, that's the policy laid out by John McDonnell, and together with the attack on tax avoidance and tax evasion by the big multi national companies, it's a no brainer.

[Michael]

John McDonnell denied that debt is involved when borrowing the money to nationalise companies.

He was quite right to do so, in terms of the rail companies he has said that the government will simply refuse to renew the franchises.
As we have already agreed it is not unusual to issue bonds to create the cash necessary, a perfectly legitimate business practice.
Using this cash to invest in the utilities, gas, electricity, water, taking back into government control the post office and running them for the benefit of the consumer. Utilising the profits these companies produce to pay back the bond purchasers, instead of lining the pockets of the multi nationals.

[baldy]

Debt will be involved when buying the monopoly utilities such as water companies.

I accept that the railway industry is different, but that was not the example being discussed when John McDonnell denied that debt would be involved when buying companies to nationalise them.

This is all getting a bit more relevant now that it looks like Theresa May might actually lose the election .....   !!!!!!!!

I am beginning to wonder if she should quickly stand down in favour of someone like Michael Fallon or David Davies to lead the Tories ....

[Michael]

Perfectly true that nuclear weapons are no deterrent against terrorist attacks, but they are an essential deterrent against nuclear or conventional attacks. 

Nationalisation.  I can say of my own knowledge that privatisation was a marvellous thing for the water industry

Where are these nuclear attacks going to come from one might ask, from terrorist organizations? It seems they have no fear of reprisals, as to die for a belief is considered a plus.
Certainly not from any of the major states, diplomacy has changed since the "cold war" ended, with countries like Russia, and China now firmly attached to the idea of world trade.
Defence should mean just that, not getting your retaliation in first as seems to be the idea of some western powers, diplomacy is the ultimate defence.

Your comments on Nationalisation is certainly true in so far as it relates to the water companies who have made £Billions in profits, which under public ownership would have been ploughed back into services and reduced costs to the consumer, and it seems have paid little in terms of corporation taxes.
Prices for water services have increased at an unacceptable level, some 40% since privatisation, and services certainly haven't improved at anything like that level.

[John GL]

Well, Michael, I don't think we can trust in the good intentions of states such as Russia and China.  Power politics are as relevant now as they always have been.  Si vis pacem para bellum   - if you wish for peace, prepare for war.

The public sector water industry provided a terrible level of service and was starved of investment.  Privatisation has been a huge benefit for customers, who now get what they pay for in terms of reliability of supply, water quality, updated infrastructure and environmental improvements.  No publicly-owned industry has ever been satisfactory - just remember the quality of British Leyland cars, trying to get a telephone from the GPO, the state of BR's rolling stock...

[Michael]

Well, Michael, I don't think we can trust in the good intentions of states such as Russia and China.  Power politics are as relevant now as they always have been.  Si vis pacem para bellum   - if you wish for peace, prepare for war.

The public sector water industry provided a terrible level of service and was starved of investment.  Privatisation has been a huge benefit for customers, who now get what they pay for in terms of reliability of supply, water quality, updated infrastructure and environmental improvements.  No publicly-owned industry has ever been satisfactory - just remember the quality of British Leyland cars, trying to get a telephone from the GPO, the state of BR's rolling stock...

I'm not suggesting that all is well between major states, what I do say is that the threats are different, more sophisticated, cyber attack, manipulation of the money markets, and business competition.
We need therefore a different kind of defence, particularly on our home ground, the cuts in police numbers have greatly reduced our capacity to deal with home based terrorists, and we need to be less involved militarily in overseas conflicts.

Nationalised services were starved of proper investment and were bedevilled by inadequate management, much of this was a political policy to pave the way for the privatization, a similar tactic to that being being used by government with the NHS.

[Shizzy]

Looks like Theresa May is about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, her decimation of public services has come back to haunt her.

[baldy]

Anything could happen now ....

I know long-standing Conservative voters who have not bothered to send off their postal voting papers ....... 

Who believes any prediction poll now?

It seems that unless the Tories gain at least a few dozen extra seats, that Theresa May will face a challenge for the Tory Party leadership.

There is something to be said for weary Conservative voters seeing that a hung parliament means a Labour PM via a loose coalition etc and so actually going out to vote .... and then we all find that actually the result is quite a strong majority for the Conservative party.

Even so, Theresa May is badly damaged and I suspect she will simply face a challenge later, maybe after BREXIT is concluded and when she has maybe lost even more credibility ...

[Michael]

Neither May or Rudd look particularly safe whatever happens, Boris appears to have been side lined, Fallon has been made to look a fool by some of his pronouncements, makes one wonder who the Tories will chose as a new leader.
Conversely Jeremy Corbyn has grown in stature and after the election will continue as Labour leader, and probably as PM, although I accept that depends on how much influence the anti Corbyn stance of the main stream media influences voters.
Brexit is sill a major consideration for most voters, especially the younger ones, and JCs more conciliatory approach to the negotiations will appeal to them, as will the removal of tuition fees.
The disastrous policy statement on the dementia tax has done the Conservatives a good deal of harm, and May's track record on police cuts, both as Home Sec and PM will continue to haunt her.
All in all however I think we should probably discount the polls, as the unknown factor is the number of new and first time voters, but as ever it can go either way.