Sorry but, regardless of which party came up with it....

Nope'.
The point is the interest alone one servicing the national debt is, I believe, around 3% of GDP- We are still in deficit albeit the lowest it has been since 2001 I believe (so the pain of austerity was NOT totally in vain) Whilst the ND is STILL growing albeit at a slower rate because of the reduction in the deficit it is still growing and so the interest payments still increase. Investing and spending to increase GDP sounds a good idea BUT you cant spend money you dont have.
Simply put If your outgoings are less than your income and you are in debt it is insanity to borrow more ( at a higher rate of interest) and so reducing your credit rating to try to dig yourself out of the hole. You have to cut your expenditure OR increase your income.
Corbyn wants to borrow huge sums, meaning all the austerity pain the UK has gone through to bring down the deficit which is getting close to surplus. So instead of reducing the ND for future generations diverting interest saved to infrastructure projects, NHS etc. he will saddle my daughter, granddaughter and all future generations to even more years of austerity. Whilst the Tories have a reputation for poor and unequal distribution of the wealth the UK creates, under Corbyn plans the 'Wealth' would desert the country. so there wouldn't be any to argue about when it comes to equal and fair distribution. Billions of ND = billions of interest payments and spiralling deficit. Vote Labour of that is what you want.

 

Surprised at you Orsen. My OP stated 'regardless of which party', so it was not an attempt at political points scoring. Most of the rhetoric here is based on political viewpoints without really analysing the economic consequences. I would not disagree that Corbyn's sentiments regarding the declining Welfare State and apparent lack of compassion from those holding the purse strings are bound to strike a chord. The cutbacks have been severe and it is self evident whilst the upper echelons of society have not been affected, those in need have borne the brunt of the severe cuts. I am not disputing that. So as regards me , "not liking it" it is more a case of you putting forward an argument as to why it is credible and not a quick fix that would cause immense damage for years to come. So far the responses have been predictable in that no one has put forward a counter argument as to how this is costed, merely personal snipes e-g- "....someone who doesn't even live here" (irrelevant, since my family does).

 

Steady on TT - a bit touchy there, old chap! I was being a little tongue in cheek - certainly not making a personal snipe! My point is that Corbyn's plans are certainly credible, but only on the basis of large increases in taxation. Paul Johnson of the IFS has explained that the argument that the extra funding can come only from increases in corporation tax and tax hikes for the top 5% doesn't hold water. But all that means is that there would inevitably have to be more broadly-based tax increases for a greater swathe of the population. It doesn't mean his plans aren't credible, although I personally doubt very much whether they will carry enough popular appeal for him to be voted in with a large enough majority to carry them out. A further stumbling block is the logistical timetable for getting these things done. I suspect that even one of the large-scale re-nationalisations would be likely to occupy Parliament and a good chunk of the civil service for a full five year term. To do them all in one period of administration would be extremely difficult. So I don't agree that they are not credible - just that they represent a clear choice which will only be made possible if people are prepared to see the kind of measures that would be required to pay for them.

As one of the papers puts it today, what Corbyn's manifesto is about is the total reversal of Thatcherism. Now there's a whole separate discussion!

 

I know of at least 15 companies in Barnsley who will be in jeopardy when the minimum wage is raised. The owners of such company’s are already taking reduced wages, in some cases less than their workers and building up debt.

It’s not a brigade, it could be your job!

 

What gets me is 100,000 council houses per year then any private sector housing as well, where are they all going to be built and the services for them.

 

The tech companies based in the UK will have to move a large chunk of their business out of the UK and into the EU in the event of Brexit anyway - the UK was the centre for Europe, but without Freedom of Movement it introduces extra costs (you won't be able to just book a flight tomorrow for a meeting in Paris or Berlin any more). Staying in the UK puts them on a level playing field with India, who are still a lot cheaper (even with 10% per annum wage inflation in the IT sector).

TLR We are voluntarily giving up a chunk of an industry that exports £40+bn per year to the EU.

 

Apologies if you thought my "personal snipes" comment was aimed at you- It wasn't. Whilst we may disagree on many issues, you are one of the posters on here I can always rely on to be able to discuss and debate in a ration reasoned way.
One thing though, regarding this particular issue:There are may reasons I could list challenging the credibility of the plan although my posts are already way too wordy, but I would hold up the argument that generating wealth by stimulating the economy sounds good on paper, but a) there would be a long lag or lead time between borrowing and seeing the return and b) as you have said, general tax increases woulod probably be unacceptable to an already hard pressed public and unacceptable to most. High tax/high spend is no longer iviable n this era s hiatting the rich (as people on here seem to favour), would mean capital, both individuals and Corporations, deserting in droves, increasing unemployment and lower tax revenue (an oversimplification I know) but the underlying logic is plain for all to see if they just stop and think.

 

Are the Tories releasing a manifesto? I know they didn’t bother last time.

 

I think it's on the lines of looking at the Labout manifesto and saying "anything you can spend we can spend better" knowing full well that neither can actually deliver anywhere near to what they are promising.
That said, unless Boris drops a ton of bricks between now and the GE, (not entirely impossible) Labour can promise anything they want as they will not get into power. The biggest worry whether you want in or out, no Conservative majority probably means many more months of indecision which damages the economy even more than remain or leave

 

We've had 10 years of austerity with £35bn of cuts to public services. That doesn't include the knock-on costs associated with these cuts nor the tax increases. Many departments suffered 40% cuts to budgets and the people suffering the most were the poorest in society.

The richest 1000 people in the UK saw their wealth increase by 183 per cent over the past 10 years. That represents an increase of nearly £500bn in just 10 years!

How is that "credible"? But the reverse not so?


Edited for clarity.

 

The combined wealth of the UK’s richest 1,000:

2009 – £256bn
2010 – £333bn
2011 – £396bn
2012 – £414bn
2013 – £450bn
2014 – £519bn
2015 – £547bn
2016 – £576bn
2017 – £658bn
2018 – £724bn

That's not austerity, it's daylight ******* robbery carried out by sociopaths.

Corbyn's spending according to the Mail and Express is '£83bn of tax robbery'. Yet the 1000 richest people gaining nearly £500bn was strangely never a headline. It's bonkers logic.

Edit: it's not even bonkers logic, it's pure propaganda.

 

To put that in context, the North stand holds approximately 6,000 people. You could fill a sixth of it with all of those 1000 people who own £724bn.

 

But the tories spend taxpayers money so well don't they,,, my favourites?? I think 1 billion to buy 10 DUP votes to keep the parliamentary majority they threw away and the 100 million they spent on their 'leaving the EU' advertising campaign. The minting of the celebratory 50p coin isn't far behind. I count taxpayers as people like us by the way, not the McDonalds, Googles and Starbucks of this world.

 

Made me laugh that did