Metalchemyst wrote:And maybe couples should be given incentives to have more children
It's too late for that kind of intervention alas. When you weigh up the costs of the stimulus to couples and the knock on costs (such as lower economic activity due to parental leave, investing alot more in schools to accommodate them etc) while at the same time having to provide that in addition to paying for the effects of a currently ageing population until the kids come of age would just kick the can down the road (plus if you take it ad absurd-um then your going to keep doing this every generation). No government could provide any meaningful intervention now.
Tet wrote: Because the last Labour government left it in such a mess. Has it been successful? Absolutely....The last Labour government increased the deficit tenfold in two years.
It depends on how you look at it as to where blame can be attributed essentially. While I'm not a fan of Labour's I think it's a bit simplistic to essentially blame the Tories shortcoming's/ongoing progress (depending on which side of the fence you sit) to blame the previous Labour government.
Yes, Labour doubled the deficit in two years, but given the situation how could they not without bringing the house of cards tumbling down? They had 3 options:
1) Allow the banks to fail, the deficit would probably have been larger than it is now as business' either fail or contract sharply and so tax receipts shrink and the welfare state bloat, at which point either the state goes bankrupt, (2), or the deficit spikes far higher if the government additionally borrows to try and spur growth through Keynesian style intervention.
2)- Allow the banks to fail and slash government spending to keep the government books balanced, at which point what little business confidence left evaporates, the mass of the population are left destitute and so the cycle repeats.
3)- What Labour did, bail the banks out and borrow to keep consumer and business confidence buoyed until the economy settled.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had to be done really, unless you want to invite a more radical huge shake up of society.
Tet wrote: Since coming to power, the coalition government and later the Conservative government have reduced the deficit steadily every year, thanks to the austerity measures. Until the deficit is under control, we're just digging ourselves a bigger and bigger hole. So can the Conservatives be trusted to balance the books? Looking at the data, I'd say that yes, they can:
Have the government "completely failed to bring government borrowing and spending under control"?
With a straight face, yes, you can say the government have failed to bring borrowing and spending under control, although not completely as you say.
Your figures fail to account for the government sales of assets, the long term impact of cutting capital spending and short sighted cuts.
The sales of the post office, government land etc are one time economic boons that contribute to reducing the deficit for one quarter prima facie but over the long term do nothing or even hinder it. (I know it's the military but cba to find a more relevant source right now https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/25/mod-privatise-military-housing-disaster-guy-hands
) So how much those figures are actively reducing the deficit through austerity vs one time sales to fluff the figures you can't be sure.
Can the Tories be trusted? No, but then again I doubt any party can. More to the point personally it is more how
can the deficit be eliminated. Too complex to get into but in short, where cuts are made and/or Keynesian economics.