Sir Ralph

Your opinion means a lot to me so its a sad day for me.

Ahhhh, the politics of envy. Terrible look.

I'm not going to start talking about roles and departments. Like I said, you can take my experience for what it is or dont. Its fine. The conversation about class is a different issue now - I think we started at public spending and debt. In summary, it doesnt matter if your lower or upper class origins. We all start of with different positions. If you achieve through hard graft, regardless of social status origin, you deserve the benefits that come your way.

Well I disagree with that - most people I know who have done well have come from lower class backgrounds and grafted, taken risks and built businesses from scratch. They deserve everything they get. Your experience is obviously different to mine.

I'm not going to tell you this for obvious reasons - if you dont think there are inefficiencies in the public sector then fine, dont believe it.

I agree its about your priorities. Your view on people on the left being nice and kind and people on the right being selfish isnt correct though. Often people take a position because it is to their advantage - that is human nature. If I was a net taker from the state (paid for by the taxpayer) or employed by the state I would probably more likely vote to the left, as the outcome would be better for me. Please dont pretend otherwise. I also want my children and peers to grow up in an aspirational country where you can be successful without being unreasonably taxed for it - where your work reflects your reward.

You asked me to provide examples. In general terms the issues are too many people employed in roles created unnecessarily, which create additional unnecessary processes which essentially delay and prevent business growth. In many cases instead of helping growth it is hindered by these people. I know this is not all parts of the public sector but the area I work in there are these issues and similar issues in other industries from people I know. In large companies they live or die by their financial success. Whilst inefficiencies occur, they will often be rooted out at some point due to the drive to create financial success, otherwise the company ultimately dies. With the NHS for example and some other public bodies, it feels like more and more taxpayer money will be thrown at it without addressing root causes and the inefficiencies, often because Government doesnt actually have a scobby of how to address the issues (whilst pretending they do) and politically its too sensitive to make cuts. The solution then it not to just tax, in my opinion.

I'm aware that economics is complicated. I dont think there are many anomalies and I responded to the examples you gave with specific explanations as to why they werent anomalies and provided correlations between public spending and debt. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I dont think most people would mind being taxed more if they were happy with the return in terms of improved services and that there was a priority to reduce inefficiencies where they exist. Conversations about 30% corporation tax and the long term sustainability of the NHS in its current function are entering into new grounds and that depends on an individuals priorities, of which we all have different ones.

You can pick out anomalies from the trend but most of them have an explanation (Japan's debt is high because of Government intervention in the 90s regardless of their public spending now being low - its not high because of general public spending, Finland's and Austria's debt is historically low but is now increasing very rapidly with public spending being one of the reasons, showing a direct link https://yle.fi/a/74-20174454 https://www.vol.at/shocking-figures-government-spending-causes-deficit-to-rise-to-4-7-of-gdp/9310835). Therefore both Finland and Austria are likely to have to consider reducing public spending. Whilst there are some countries where high tax and high public spending works with a lower debt (Scandinavia is always mentioned by any high tax proponent because they are lacking other examples) , in the majority of cases it doesnt. The below shows budget deficits in European countries in 2024. Finland, France, Austria, Belgium and Italy are 5 of the top 8 countries with the biggest deficit (contributing to increased debt) and are the top 5 public spenders. This shows another clear correlation.

Public Spending Ratio EU Member States in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy have top 5 highest public spending) Government Debt in relation to GDP in 2024 (France, Belgium and Italy are also top 4). One of the reasons Greek debt is so high because of excessive public spending before the 2008 crisis.

Well I agree - the points arent really relevant to each other though and I didnt make any link. The previous discussion was why was the Euro Zone inflation lower than ours and whether the differential between us and the Euro Zone was due to government policy. The two topics are quite separate. France's debt relates to structural economic issues, not inflation over the past year. We still want policies that lower our own inflation though so that point remains.

It depends on the specific circumstance of the country I would say. The point is that Frances public spending (as a %age of GDP) is higher than most other countries, which is a factor in its current debt crisis I suspect.

I completely agree with you and we are saying the same thing - France's recent lower inflation is irrelevant to its debt. I was responding to the below thread.

I said (oh and lots of economists) that inflation in the Euro Zone was much lower and the UK government policies has had a role in that. Economies aren't simple (obviously) but it doesnt take away from the point about inflation specifically. Obviously if a country has a significant debt that it is struggling to repay (which has accumulated over years) then having a lower level of inflation for a year or so isnt going to resolve that as there are structural issues with the economy. Your point is a bizarre one, dont worry you havent had a eureka moment! France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. Maybe look at that....

The comment I made was that France and the Euro Zone has lower inflation than us at the current time. What relevance is that to their national debt which has accumulated over years? It doesnt invalidate the point at all. France has a more socialist political and economic system than us with an increased role of the state. If anything France's position should sound as a warning to reduce our spending.

“They” - transphobe 😆

It would be transphobic though. 😆What an utterly weird thing to do. https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/portsmouth-fc-fan-john-westwood-banned-for-fourth-time-this-season-after-going-into-ladies-toilets-claiming-he-was-transgender-4062862

The point I made was I’ve never heard anybody at a football game sing about a PM which shows how unpopular he is. Very simple point. You dismissed it by essentially calling them all right wing nutters. I called you out and I’m a nutcase. Somehow you have got onto John Barnes, Danny Wallace, the IRA, the England Supporters Club, Brexit and Reform. You missed out Trump though, which I’m sure is coming 😉

You’ve basically tarred any England fan that doesn’t like Kier Starmer with this brush which is a ridiculous statement. “If you chanted about Kier you’re a right wing facist and racist” - it’s a poor comment. We don’t live in the 1980s anymore and this was a home game against Andorra. Anyway it’s immaterial - the polls are what matter. The England fans reflected what the wider country thinks. You can ignore it all you want but that doesn’t matter. It reflects the level of dissatisfaction.

It’s a different crowd now at England. Can’t remember England fans singing about any other PM. Maybe he has come in for special treatment because he is hugely disliked. Again, whatever is put as evidence you will try to rebut rather than just accepting the public really don’t like this Government one year in. Just because people are anti Labour / Starmer it doesn’t mean they are right wing. Also the polls don’t lie, including the dramatic decline of the Labour Party, and the polls are the most accurate reflection of society. Today’s signing is a reflection of that. The majority don’t support them or their policies. It’s ok to accept that rather than blindly standing up for them whenever anyone says something negative about them.

England fans paying their “compliments” to Kier Starmer during the Andorra game. Can’t remember for a long time England fans singing derogatory songs about a PM. These lot really are unpopular

I did complain about that so fair enough. Have a good evening.

He didnt mention anyone specifically. Why so defensive? I didn’t get offended.

Good summary 😆

Don’t be too harsh - I’m sure running was a typo