Open letter to young anti-establishment pretenders

One of the funniest things I heard from a young student who voted in last weeks general election was that he was voting for Jeremy Corbyn because Corbyn was “anti-establishment”. The ‘establishment’ being, I assume, the Tories. His comment made me laugh out loud.

I fully understand the drive from the young to be anti-establishment and against the norm etc. You see all the bad things going on in the world, the norm,  and like to think that you are different and that you and your friends can make the world a better place. If only the world ran like you and your friends agreed, everything would be great – and I fully agree with the sentiment, it’s good to dream and to try to find ways to make positive changes in the world.

This issue I have is with the outright nonsense of your thinking that ‘the Tories’ are ‘the establishment’ and that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow the driver of an ‘anti-establishment and change’ movement. And it compounds my view of young people’s quasi ‘snowflake’ uselessness that it is not somebody within your own ranks ‘i.e. young’ that is leading this so called movement.

Nothing Corbyn has suggested is ‘new’, everything he has suggested is ‘old’ and tired and………..is completely pro-establishment. What you have failed to understand in your ‘global’ immature minds is that while a country is in debt the political parties are almost completely irrelevant.
The true ‘establishment’ is lead by financiers, huge banks and Global Corporations. Anyone, Anyone who is in ‘debt’ to these institutions is a ‘slave’ to these institutions, debt makes you a slave, debt makes you a quisling to the establishment.

Unfortunately for you, and whether you like it or not, you not liking it won’t change anything, the Tories at the moment are fully aware of this and are in effect the ‘anti-establishment’ party, “gasp”, yes it’s true!
They are the party trying to reduce our debt. We are currently £1T in debt and rising. We can’t afford for companies to leave – we HAVE to beg them to come here with tax incentives etc. We OWE the banks £50B in interest every year, that’s INTEREST only.

And what’s Jeremy Corbyns great ‘anti-establishment’ plan, the one no-one has thought of before? That’s right, borrow another £500B and massively increase our debt. Increase our yearly interest payments to the ‘establishment’ to an easy £75B and some. And I tell you something, the ‘establishment’ you are so desperate to challenge won’t mind that one little bit. Jeremy Corbyn is an establishment stooge, he is everything the ‘establishment’ wants – debt, debt and more debt for the UK…….

At the moment you are all stooges to the fat cats, they must be laughing themselves to sleep every night as you run around chanting “Borrow more money!”, “Pay more interest!”, “Live beyond our means!”.

You are not anti-establishment, you’re doing exactly what the establishment wants and I for one am disappointed beyond belief at how easily manipulated you are with this ‘establishment’ driven movement you have adopted in your desperation to be ‘anti-establishment’. Isn’t it funny that when the Tories have ‘almost’ reduced our deficit to the point where we can almost begin to start paying off our debts and maybe get into surplus we get this challenge from a ‘white haired innocent peace lover’ who’s whole mantra is ‘everything will be fine if we just borrow more money!!!!!’ And you’re supporting it?
Well more the fool you.

A country in surplus with money in the bank is everything the ‘establishment’ doesn’t want. We can’t be bullied by big corporations. We can make our own decisions. If companies want to come here we set the rules based on strength not desperation.

I’m desperate to see someone rise up out of your ranks and form a true ‘anti-establishment’ movement. One that’s really ‘anti-establishment’, one that says “Fuck you big banks and corporations, we won’t do what you tell us”.
When will I see thousands of you marching in the streets chanting for ‘Zero-debt’, ‘No spending over what we can afford’, ‘No more borrowing’ or ‘Social responsibility within our means’.
Because THAT is an ‘anti-establishment’ movement THAT is what the true ‘establishment’ is afraid of, a country living within its means, in surplus, and not in debt to THEM.

But alas I don’t think this will happen. It is the curse of the young to repeat their parents mistakes. So I expect I’ll just see you continuing  with your mantra “Let’s borrow loads of money and worry about it later, that’ll stick it to them, we’re so anti-establishment, yeh!” …………as the fat cats rub their hands in glee.

 

 

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Open letter to young anti-establishment pretenders

  1. I would like every young person to read but unfortunately they won’t and then they a chance to vote they won’t then maybe they will vote help the country and not vote for lying hypocrite Corbyn

    Liked by 3 people

    1. While I agree with the content of this post the name calling is detrimental to it having any positive effect on the youth I would have gladly reposted but for that.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. HOW about telling them about the 2 world wars, how about telling them WHO is running the eu,give you one guess, tell them about the ultimate destination of the eu, tell them what will happen to the uk when that happens, AND THEN TELL THEN WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN GERMANY GETS COMPLETE CONTROL OF EUROPE, IT WILL BE IN THEIR LIFETIME . NO POLISH, NO GREEK, NO ITALIAN, NO NOTHING JUST EUROPEANS AND TERRORISTS WITH FREE MOVEMENT, NO CHECKS THROUGH THE WHOLE OF EUROPE,WITH WW3 POSSIBLE STARTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THE FIRST 2.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Frank, that article would take me too long 🙂 I ‘hope’ that Brexit is the beginning of the end for the EU and we can maybe avoid the WW3 thing. Although I suspect a more focused EU civil war will be a possibility. With a sensible immigration policy and controlled borders we can hopefully bring some level of safety back to the UK at least!

      Like

  3. I don’t get it:
    How can a ‘PARTY LEADER’ NOT be NOT only ‘one of the few’ with a dozen of privileges … at the same time he IS INDEED a very big PART of the few ones representing the ‘ESTABLISHMENT’.
    There is something absolutely wrong in peoples mind …
    and there is no cure for their believes …

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Life is like a fairground merry-go-round, but without the music and definitely without the fun. It is the prerogative of the ‘young’ (and sometimes also the ‘not so young’) to make rash assumptions fuelled by the flame of well-meaning, youthful ignorance about this world we live in. Being of an age where I may be considered a drain on the economy of the country I live in (age 73 and counting). I have seen it all before – usually clothed in different cloth and colours, but basically the same message from the young to the old; “move over, you’ve had your day, now it’s our turn and look at the mess you have left for us”. I live in the hope that things will change and we can switch off this long-playing record that is stuck in a twenty year groove. However, my common sense tells me otherwise. Like man continues to kill when he is not hungry, wars will always be with us in one form or another. There is too much money to be made by selling munitions to another country so that they can blow each others brains out. So it is also true that, like death and taxes, the unknowing, misinformed youth will always be with us. To end this ‘wordy’ reply, please let me say that I agree with your well written article in its entirety – it should be a permanent part of the syllabus in every society – maybe then we might see a change.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Tony. Sounds like you speak from experience 🙂 And I think you’re right. Although if we can make a go of Brexit and keep the mentalist Corbyn out we might just have a chance to change things for the good?

      Like

  5. All uni’s colleges, further education must have lessons in simple economics, All students must be shown the full facts of the nations worth or debt then asked how they would manage our economy.
    Maybe then some of them hopefully will realise, promises have to be paid for, and who will that be not me as a pensioner, but them as the future workers of the nation. The young do grow old look at Greece where money was under the bed, taxes not paid, retire at 50+ walls can crash down without maintenance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What they don’t realise is that if they had taken this £500B ‘freebie’ payout it’s them that will be paying it back in 10 years time!!! I do remember thinking something similar to you a few years back. I spent 12 years learning maths to a high level at school. I’ve barley needed more than my times tables in the real world. What would have been infinitely more useful would have been ‘financial management/control’. Even a year of this would have been invaluable. I think there’s a reason kids don’t get taught financial control at school!!!

      Like

  6. Totally agree with the above, I’m a baby boomer as we seem to be called and have been through the bad periods of Labour in power and their style hasn’t changed, if Corbyn had got in with all the false promises, when the day arrives that you can’t borrow more that’s when you and your children who voted for a short uplift will see the pain of severe austerity for decades to come, it’s the easiest thing to borrow, it’s the hardest thing to pay back without pain and penalties.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I’m afraid a lot of people voted for Corbyn assuming he would come nowhere near winning. Well I’m afraid they slightly overdid it! What a disaster – we have to keep him out or our large corporations and banks will leave, along with businesses (whatever you say about them, they bring in a large percentage of our income) and not only will students not get their freebies but we shall become a third world country.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Wow, what a load of bollocks! Did you take lessons on being an arrogant condescending twat, or does it come naturally?
    “This issue I have is with the outright stupidity of your thinking … that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow the driver of a… “change’ movement”
    The issue I have is with the outright stupidity of your thinking that nothing would change if Jeremy Corbyn was PM. Labour wants to nationalise the railways, save the NHS, make the rich pay their tax, rescue the disabled from PIP and the DWP, and invest in the community. Conservatives want to do exactly the opposite! Theresa May kept bleating “Nothing has changed” while making spectacular U-turns in policy – if you can’t see the problem with that, you have no right to call anyone else stupid.
    “(The Tories) are the party trying to reduce our debt.”
    There is a lot of bullshit in that piece, but that sentence stands head and shoulders above the rest. That is a blatant lie, and you know it. When the Tories came to power in 2010, they described the UK debt (£700 billion) as a “national crisis” and pledged to eliminate it by 2016. After 7 years of austerity we now have 20,000 fewer police, 5,000 fewer soldiers, 85% understaffed hospitals, public services cut to the bone, the number of food banks has gone from 56 to 445, and more families are living below the poverty line than ever before. So tell us, o Tory worshipper, WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE? Because the general public certainly haven’t seen any of it.
    “…the Tories have ‘almost’ reduced our deficit to the point where we can almost begin to start paying off our debts and maybe get into surplus”
    But they haven’t, have they? Since 2010 the debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED from £700 billion to £1,730 billion. This is precisely the reason people don’t trust the Tories any more – we have been lied to over and over again, until we simply can’t believe a word the Conservatives say. You would have more credibility if you at least admitted that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Steve, let’s say you earn £100 a week, but you spend £110 on food, bills, sky tv, fags etc. You are £10 in deficit because you are spending £10 more than you earn. Simple maths. Now do this for ten weeks and you are £100 in debt with no prospect of paying it off. Without reducing the deficit to zero or earning more than you spend you will never pay off the debt. So promising pay rises for everyone, extra holidays, increasing minimum wage buying train companies giving away boxes and unicorns will not pay off the debt or deficit despite how much Jezza thinks he can get from the top 5%, and place generations to come in true austerity (aka Greece).
      We would all love to pay more to public services and sorely tempted to give it to them and let those students who wanted it all for free pay for it ten years down the line.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Government finances aren’t like household budgets.
        Government can print money to pay off their debt Paul, it’s called Quantative Easing, something the Tories have been pretty handy at doing in the last 7 years, so your comparison is sadly flawed.

        Like

      2. SteveP – Quantitative Easing is a delicate tool that needs to be used very carefully and can ‘help’ in some situations. Unfortunately it can’t be used to pay off £1.5T!!!!

        Like

    2. Hi Steve.
      I’ll try to answer your points. The first is that my article does suggest things will change under Corbyn – we’ll be in even further debt, just what the establishment would like. There may be a short term ‘boom’ as the money is spent but very quickly we’ll be back to where we are and in even further debt. It’s not an amazing plan – “Let’s borrow our way further into this black hole!”
      The second point you raise is about the ‘debt’ and ‘deficit’ and I’m not sure which way you’re going with this. We were left with a £150B deficit – i.e. we spend £150B on the public sector more than we collect in taxes, this was the result of a disgusting ‘ballooning’ of the public sector by Gordon Brown/Blair. Our debt will increase by this deficit amount each year, year on year until that deficit is reduced and goes into surplus i.e. we collect more in taxes than we spend on the public sector. The Tories decided to reduce the shock to the public sector of an immediate £150B reduction to the public sector and make the cuts slowly over several years, of course the debt will still increase but at a slower rate as the deficit is reduced.
      You seem to be suggesting that they should have made the £150B cuts immediately and start paying back the debt immediately. This is a valid point but a rather crude way to reduce the deficit, but like I say it’s a valid point.Just not sure that’s what you were suggesting??
      The deficit is expecting to be around £40B this year so they have more cuts to make but they are going in the right direction and we’ll soon be able to start paying off the debt.

      That’s my rough understanding of the deficit and debt anyway.
      As for the police cuts you mentioned I was speaking to a policewoman who said while the cuts were painful TM was only reducing the levels to the levels they were at around 2001-ish when Blair/Brown began ballooning the public sector beyond what we could afford.

      Like

      1. And the old adage: if you owe the bank $100, then you have a problem but if you owe the bank $1000 then the bank has a problem? A further point: Germany is often held up as a paragon of virtue and still has a huge debt, but no-one seems too worried, why not? I think that you are oversimplifying the problem and that in today’s complicated world there is no simple answer, if there is an answer at all. One thing is for sure: if you oversimplifying the problem, your answer won’ t be much use.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. As a 91 year old been a labour supporter all my working life , wait until you get firsthand experience of working under trade union leaders your eyes may be opened as to many are only interested in their own end, a lot of men just won’t take the job on so the hard left jump in, one firm I worked at we were called out on strike over the stewards mate, who had been given a months wages in place of redundancy, he told him to work the month then he wanted paying after the month past, I challenged the steward over this his reply was it was a shame a 21 year old was leaving his job, i said what about the other 600 who had also lost their jobs some as old as 56. When the firm had to fold he bragged that had shut it down. But he went on to be a full time trans union rep. My option of Corbyn he is brother chip to this official, so speak when get some working life.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for the post. Trade unions destroyed manufacturing in the UK. They were disgusting then and I don’t see them as being much better now. Self serving and as you mentioned will quite happily cause businesses to fold just to prove a point or to demonstrate their ‘power’. They served a purpose a hundred years ago for sure but I think they have become outdated and unnecessary.

        Like

  9. Interesting viewpoint. Perhaps you could explain why the establishment are funding the Tories? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-donations-money-raised-hedge-funds-bankers-analysis-general-election-2017-a7771346.html

    Perhaps it’s because the Tories have overseen the rich in this country getting richer and the poor getting poorer which means there is a huge gap between the haves and have nots. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/13/oxfam-calls-on-theresa-may-to-tackle-rising-uk-inequality

    Corbyn has taped into this and the fact that you don’t have to cut nurses and police officers to make ends meet, there is another way and that is asking companies to pay a fair share as well as individuals who can afford it. I would rather live in a society which has a properly funded health service than one that has a race to the bottom for corporation tax rates – we now have the lowest tax rate in the G20 – don’t tell me companies can’t afford to pay more at a time of national crisis.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Rob
      Who is and who is not the ‘establishment’ is a genuinely tricky question. When I suggest that the Tories as a collective are ‘not the establishment’ there may be an element of ‘erroniousness’ 🙂 in my thinking but I can tell you that Corbyn IS at least pushing an ‘establishment’ happy agenda. There’s nothing anti-establishment about what he’s suggesting. Pay rises for the public sector we can’t afford are not anti-establishment.

      Don’t be too sure that raising taxes will increase ‘tax revenue’. Tax revenue is what we’re really interested in. Check out the laffer Curve – it’s interesting. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical

      For example, as you said the tories recently reduced corporation tax, you’re probably thinking it was to help their chums………. yet tax revenue increased, it didn’t decrease?? How could that happen? Because corporations generally work to a fixed model, everything over and above their margin they generally reinvest – creating more jobs and more people to pay taxes – check out the link.

      Thanks for the post btw

      Like

  10. Rob, the NHS is a fantastic organisation and principle, one I have benefitted from personally about a week ago when I was hit riding home due to phone using driver. The NHS is not underfunded, it has more money thrown at it than it has ever had. The NHS problems arise from that funding being raped by nursing agencies charging 3x or more the actual cost of the nurse, overseas corporations buying small British pharmaceutical suppliers and promptly putting the cost of those supplies up by 000s% and raping those funds. The Drs, Nurses and ancillary staff do a fantastic job on the front line – it is behind the scenes that the money is being hived off.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Hey, You’re right about one thing. £50bn a year in interest on the debt is absolutely crushing and the banking sector are without a doubt a huge part of the establisghment.
    What you’re wrong about is the idea that Tory’s are addressing this issue with Austerity. The Tories have been complicit in a huge transfer of wealth from most of society up to the banking elite. QE created £425Bn of new money which was all simply given to the financial services industry while the inflation that creating that money created eroded the pounds in the pockets of normal people.
    Tory Austerity does not reduce debt, it transfers it from the public purse to normal households and individuals.
    Average Household debt is now £13,000 before mortgages are even taken into account. AND Mortgages have grown massively because of monetary policy being used to inflate asset prices.
    Corbyn’s National Investment bank redresses the balance here creating new money to be invested in the real economy.
    So long as we have Tories all money will be created either as QE and given to banks or by Private banks as debt for ordinary people.
    For really good info on how to pragmatically change policy to escape the huge debt burden caused by modern banking practices take a look at positivemoney.org/
    Oh and They’ll be another election soon so Vote Labour

    Liked by 2 people

      1. It is a widely accepted economic theory that at times of hardship the government (and central bank) need to stimulate the economy.

        This means creating new money. The Bank of England are already doing this. Labour just want at least some of this newly created money to go into the real economy as well as financial services whereas conservatives have been putting 100% into financial services.

        This is historically normal behaviour for governments to undertake. There is, always has been and always will be a magic money tree. Money is not a natural and finite resource. The job of the central bank is to make sure that the amount of money the economy needs is available without making so much that hyper inflation occurs. The BoE create money out of nothing by QE. The treasury is the immediate beneficiary of this. It’s utterly absurd that all of this money is given away to the financial sector. We’re talking about a £425bn giveaway to bankers whilst we can’t find £1bn to make essential fixes to crumbling schools.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Ben, I think we need to be a little bit careful – To an extent you are right the magic money tree does exist – to an extent. The point is, stimulating the economy with a £500B investment is a lot different if you are starting with a £300B surplus i.e. leaving you with £200B debt, than if you are already £1T in debt!!! And the results from that investment are not guaranteed by any means. Much easier to risk ‘innefective growth’ with a £200B debt than £1.5T. I read somewhere that the £500B boost from Corbyn would have to guarantee that we grew faster than India for it to be worth it!!!! Now I don’t like to be a pessimist but……
        If you’re in debt you do two things 1.cut back, and 2.try to earn more.
        Corbyn wants to 1.spend more 2.try to earn more by ‘borrowing’ £500B and ‘hoping’ that by investing this we somehow grow faster than India and earn an additional £1.5T???
        Now in the case of the banks I’d have quite happily let hem fail, even with the fallout, and many of them should have been prosecuted!
        But nationalised industries never work. The only way I can ever agree with a nationalised anything is if it is explained to me how those industries do not become over-resourced, inefficient, over-expensive cash black holes.
        I appreciate the issues with the private capitalised sector, the point where the richest 8 people in the world have more combined wealth than the poorest 50% is probably long past the point where you’ve gone too far, but nationalised industries are a proven disaster and without some mechanism to keep them efficient (which no-one has worked out yet) they always fail.

        Like

      3. Mac, Your maths is off, Money created by QE does not have a debt attached to it. Stimulating the economy does not necessarily mean borrowing. Borrowing is only one way of obtaining funds for investment. It’s very clear that labour are looking at a three fold method to obtain funds. Higher Taxation of top 5% and big Corporations, QE and borrowing.

        I can’t see this as anything but sensible, centrist economics and politics.

        Like

      4. Ben,
        QE doesn’t have a direct debt but it does devalue the pound so there is a debt associated.
        Higher taxes for the top 5% and corporations won’t necessarily increase tax revenue. The Government recently reduced corporation tax and increased tax revenue – please look at the laffer curve – it’s tried and tested
        http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical
        And borrowing….well??

        It’s simply not that easy to increase the amount of money we have – Corbyn would have you believe that it is, but it isn’t.

        Like

  12. When I see the advertisements on the TV telling us that we can take out a loan to solve a problem. The problem with this is that once we do this the problem becomes a larger problem and will take longer to get rid of. like you say, if we decide to not take out a loan and find an alternative way of solving the problem like not going out and buying a 50 inch plasma TV or a new kitchen until we can do this with what we have built up by budgeting our finance.That is to balance the input to the out put. Being free of debt gives us a freedom that is good for the health. being in debt makes us slaves to the banks and once a slave, they will move mountains to ensure we stay a slave. Putting a ban on this type of advertising would be a smart move for us but the banks wont have it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’d create a law to prevent any government borrowing more than X amount compared to GDP unless in times of war/recession 🙂 Some governments can’t be trusted with the bank balance!

      Like

  13. There is so much wrong in this article it’s hard to know where to start. In summary, you are treating the macroeconomy like a microeconomy, like a household budgeting exercise. It doesn’t work that way. The UK is a monetary sovereign, the owners and sole creators of the currency. We will never be in a position where we can’t repay our debts. We don’t owe the banks anything – the ‘national debt’ is an artefact of certain accounting technicalities. The government can run a deficit indefinitely, there is no problem with that, in fact it is essential to do so in order to gradually inflate the money supply into an economy that (hopefully) will gradually grow. Running a balanced budget, or, heaven forbid, a surplus, is not desirable. Please read some MMT books -modern monetary theory. There are hardly any good macroeconomists around. Randall Wray would be a good starting point. Things are not as you think they are!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Judging from your post you seem to know what you are talking about! However by consistently running at a debt you are paying interest on that debt, which is currently £50B a year. I’m sure you would love that to be spent elsewhere. So by reducing the deficit and then debt the money servicing that debt can be used on other things. (Free unicorns for everyone). I suppose you could print more money (QE), but too much QE could drastically devalue the pound. See pre war Germany for how this could happen.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Nick, thanks for your comment.
      Unfortunately you’ll never be able to convince me that being £1.5T in debt is better than having £1.5T in the bank. For every economist that tells you having a shit load of debt is good I’m sure I’ll find a few that will be able to say it’s bad.
      I’m interested though why Greece is in such a mess if the EU can simply print loads of money and just ‘delete’ the debt, since it isn’t actually debt at all and the problem doesn’t actually exist??
      Many of the richest countries in the world are not in debt and are cash rich, I’m not sure I’d be able to convince them that MMT says they should spend it all and go into debt??
      The other richest countries that do have debt rely heavily on growth which cannot be guaranteed, recessions are inevitable.
      I appreciate the point that some deficit/debt is manageable. When John Major left power our debt was around £5B. THIS was considered sensible/manageable. The UK has had a recession roughly every 13 years since the 1900’s. During growth periods we pay off our debt and try to go into surplus. During recession/low growth we borrow money to boost the public sector and then try to repay the debt when the economy grows and so on and so on.
      Sometime in the early 2000’s I remember an interview with Gordon Brown when the interviewer asked him why during this period of growth we were still borrowing and getting further in to debt rather than paying off our debt? He replied that because we were now in a ‘global’ economy there would never be another recession so it didn’t matter – we could manage it!!!! You know what happens next.
      I think we’re starting to get to the point where because the task of reducing the debt is so difficult we’re trying to justify to ourselves that it’s not actually that big of a problem so we can afford to leave it alone.
      For clarity –
      debt in 1997 – £5B, considered not ideal but manageable.
      debt in 2017 – £1T, and rising considered not ideal but manageable.

      Like

  14. It’s not as simple as just voting for the Conservatives or Labour or some other Party…

    The Public subsidises Banks to the tune of £20 Billion to £120 Billion a BoE Report said in 2010?!!!!
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financialstability/Documents/fpc/fspapers/fs_paper15.pdf

    We are told that the Banking sector pays something like £63 Billion in Tax revenue – GREAT! Money for Nurses, but the subsidies could wipe this out.

    Another problem is that this estimate of Tax Revnue from the Banking Sector is different from the HMRC Figures – the £63 Billion figure came from Price Waterhouse Coopers commisioned by the City of London.
    The HMRC Figures – what’s actually received – are
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258996/intro.pdf
    Which range from £17.3 Billion to £24.4 Billion – well below the PWC figure, which was quoted by Boris Johnson a few years ago. The people who gave Boris those figures should have known better, Politicians often have to rely on their Advisers for accurate figures but their Advisers often use the wrong figures because they fit a particular political narrative, and so do not verify them properly.

    Table 1: PAYE, Bank Payroll Tax, Corporation Tax, Bank Levy and Bank Surcharge net receipts from the banking sector (£ billions)
    Year Total
    2005-06 20.6
    2006-07 23.2
    2007-08 23.3
    2008-09 17.9
    2009-10 17.3
    2010-11 24.4
    2011-12 20.5
    2012-13 21.6
    2013-14 21.3
    2014-15 22.9
    2015-16 24.4

    Bank Surcharge receipts were low in 2015-16 as most banks are not due to start paying it
    until 2016-17.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/paye-and-corporate-tax-receipts-from-the-banking-sector-2016

    “Tories heavily reliant on donations from hedge funds and bankers, new analysis shows”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-donations-money-raised-hedge-funds-bankers-analysis-general-election-2017-a7771346.html

    Could this be the reason why Tory MPs are unable to tell the truth about the drain on resources that Banks demand on the UK Economy? The reason why they cannot tel us that the Banking Sector creates a Net Loss on Public Finances and NOT a net gain?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting. I don’t have the ability to check this all out but i’d be surprised if they really are an all round loss? How come France and Germany are desperate to pinch the banking sector if they run at a loss – better to let them stay here? I’ll try to do some research into this and see. Thanks for the post.

      Like

  15. Another aspect of Debt is that – assuming that nothing that can be done about the Banking system – which is incorrect, there are other issues that effect waste in the Public Sector.
    Privatisation of the NHS has massively disrupted the efficiency of the NHS by reforming the NHS increasing it’s complexirty – 160 PCTs now morphed into 220 CCGs. Enforcement of Internal Markets and now External Markets, forcing the NHS to outsource services and get Tenders by threatening the NHS with anti-competition Laws has increased the Administration costs by at least 10% – according to studies by leading NHS Doctors with help from Legal Researchers, thanks to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The NHS’s £110 Billion budget has attracted much interest from Private Health Firms from around the World as a source of PROFIT. MPs and Lords have links to investments and job opportunities (Virginia Bottomley – now works for BUPA as one example) in the Private Health Sector. GP Practices are Private Firms that are contracted by the NHS – and GPs in their CCGs are being given the keys to the safe of the NHS Budget with strict instructions to contract out as much health care – the easy lucrative variety – as possible.
    Repeal the HSC Act 2012 and we immediately save over £10 Billion.
    Stop bailing out Banks and increase publicly created money to private money – and we save as much as £120 Billion – the implicit subsidies of Banks as reported by the Bank of England.
    Banks are a drain on the economy – they are required to process transactions but that is not worth £120 Billion – that’s more than the NHS Budget. The Banking System is very inefficient and much better ways of money creation and destruction could be developed using publcily createed money which would make debt a lot more sustainable and even a positive in our economy, rather than allowing Banks to runaway with the Money Creation Process – blowing up House Prices and National Debt.
    The Government spends another £10 to 12 Billion on Help-To-Buy – WHY? They are using public money – which they borrow – as Treasury Bonds – from the Financial Markets – and stuff into the Mortgage Market to allow people to leverage even more allowing House Prices to increase even further.
    Let’s say it again – but more simply:
    They spend public debt on making houses more expensive for the public!! Are they crazy or just stupid?

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Mac: you said “Now in the case of the banks I’d have quite happily let hem fail, even with the fallout, and many of them should have been prosecuted!
    But nationalised industries never work. The only way I can ever agree with a nationalised anything is if it is explained to me how those industries do not become over-resourced, inefficient, over-expensive cash black holes.”
    I agree with you when you say that we should have let them fail. But, if we had, the monetary system would have collapsed – that is because Banks create 97% of the money supply as debt.
    I also agree that Nationalised Industries sometimes don not work – but others – that are clearly Nationalised do actually work – the Royal Mail worked but is was sold off to private investors. The NHS would work if it wasn’t been altered to fit the needs of future Private Investors, my earlier comment explains why. But when an Industry is covertly heavily subsidised and bailed out with public money, moral hazard results as can be seen with the Banking Industry. A solution would be to Nationaise the Money Supply (most people think that money is created by the Government anyway) and restrict banks to just attracting deposits and lending those out. That way, a risk taking Bank could be allowed to collapse with it’s Customer’s deposits just being transferred to another custodian Bank. It would be great if the Banks operated like players in a true free market system but for that to happen, the infrastructure (The Money Supply) must be in public hands. Otherwise the Banks will continue to use our money as a hostage and threaten to collapse the economy (through implicit means only) if the Government refuses to bail them out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Conrad
      The problem being that you think the government (effectively Diane Abbott?) running a bank is more efficient than an experienced banker? I’m comfortable with a nationalised anything or even everything IF you can work out how to ensure continued improvements in efficiency, costs, and performance and as a collective throughout the whole of known history nationalised anythings have delivered the exact opposite. Royal Mail is not a shining example of a well run nationalised industry. I agree capitalism is not running perfectly at the moment by a long shot, The only thing I think we should keep nationalised is the NHS because the NHS in a capitalists hands would be a travesty but I think we could allow ‘some’ of it to be privatised in order to introduce some competition.

      Like

    1. Claire, It’s a very well written article and, unfortunately, describes the situation for many people today.

      It doesn’t tackle though the £2T deficit? Do you think the Tories wouldn’t like to ‘double’ no ‘triple’ the spending on the public sector?? You know they would. So would I. We are in the trouble we are in because we spent more than we could afford for many years. There’s a difference between what we would ‘like’ to spend and what we can afford to spend. As usual the poorest in our community are most affected by public sector cuts but what other solution is there other than ‘paying off the debt!!’

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s