roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
There was a Merican bloke on 5 live earlier who has been in involved in US trade deals. He said their pharmas try this every single time and never get very far.
Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
There was a Merican bloke on 5 live earlier who has been in involved in US trade deals. He said their pharmas try this every single time and never get very far.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Labour have always politicised the NHS. The only surprise was the timing.....
zzr45
#MURDERINGSCUM
Im sure I’m having deja vu:
Neil asked how much extra government borrowing would be required for this infrastructure spending? This is an odd question because the answer is obvious. The amount borrowed will be exactly equal to the amount spent.
Corbyn replied: “What we will do is for the public ownership elements there’ll be an exchange for [sic] bonds for shares in it”. Neil suggested that this was still borrowing. “No, it’s not [borrowing]”, Corbyn replied, “it’s a swap of shares for a government bond”.
There are two errors here. First, Neil is right. When the government issues bonds, it borrows. A bond is a promise to pay a specified sum of money at a specified date to whoever owns the bond on that date. The government raises money by selling these promises. Promises to pay people money are debts.
Second, a Labour government would not be swapping bonds for shares. Rather, the government would issue bonds to raise cash. This cash would then be used to buy the shares of water companies, for example. No bonds would have been swapped for any shares. Rather, the government would have acquired new liabilities by issuing the bonds and new assets by buying the water companies.
Neil repeated his view that issuing a bond is borrowing. Corbyn replied thus: “Issuing bonds that we own which would be paid for by the profits from the industries”. The idea that, when the government issues bonds, it comes to own them is the exact opposite of the truth. Every day, more than £1 billion worth of government bonds are traded between private parties. How is this possible if the government owns them?
Perhaps sensing the impossibility of getting any sense on the matter of debt, Neil changed tack to examine the second part of Corbyn’s response: “You’ve said you would cut the water utilities’ profits. You might not have enough money to pay for the bonds”.
Corbyn replied that, “Instead of the profits being syphoned off, they would remain here. That’s an advantage, surely”. This fails to answer Neil’s question. If the profits remained in the UK but fell to £1, they would be insufficient to service the debt acquired in purchasing the water utilities.
https://iea.org.uk/what-jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-know-about-government-debt/ published June 2017.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Of course. Boris will develop a good relationship with both the USA and the EU. Corbyn however wouldn’t even be able to get the USA to negotiate about anything and the EU know he is stupid.....
I think the main difference is that they are hoping for a No Deal as 'everything will be up for grabs'
Wat Tyler
Player Valuation: £70m
He's not getting a trade deal done by the transition period and he's said no extension, so unless he's talking wham (again) then it's no deal...and the US are clearly hoping for No Deal because of the strength it gives them in negotiation and the added pressure it puts on Johnson to sign something quickly.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
The US? As far as I am aware, Johnsons deal, if he gets it through next year, will enable us to do our own deals with everyone, including the EU. That said, I may well be wrong, and I cant be the only one to be a little bit confused these days!
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
But No Deal works out fine for the U.K. also. We’ve been through this regarding the total sales between both parties in our relationship with the EU......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
No you are not confused. Once out we can do just as you say....
No Pete...No Deal quickens the necessity to sign FTA and the quicker the UK has to do that the better position the US is in.
The simple matter here is, while Labour have over-egged this, the Government has said 'this isn't up for discussion' when that's clearly not the case. So it comes down to if you think Johnson is a liar and will cave into these demands.
Whether these discussions were held in meetings with the DIT is not really that great an issue in my mind, the fact that the Government has said it 'want even up for discussion' worries me. But that that is possibly just attributable to Johnson's (and Hancock's) compulsive lying. I suspect you have a different take on your blue eyed boy.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
The NHS has always been and always will be political.
...i keep bleating on about Labour, but I think they genuinely have the interest of those who need support at heart. I’ve done ok in life, but I really have concerns about those less fortunate.
Labour are strategically woeful, they are increasingly pushing the wrong people into key positions and their governance is reactionary. Saying that, they mean well.
This Conservative Party, however, are dangerous. Decent Tories are being replaced by a new element who will do anything and say anything to gain power. I’m actually quite fearful of what could happen under their jurisdiction. They run rings around Labour.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
spot on
- Status