Strong and Stable My Arse

Today is the day of the #StrongAndStableMyArse campaign. Print your own leaflets. Hang your own banners. Have fun and spread the word! And remeber, don't be a strawberry! #ToriesAreStrawberries #DontBeAStrawberry.

Carmine Raven

Lord Ebenezer Sugar

"Trust me, I came from the poorest family in the 50's. He offers lies, not hope." - Lord Sugar, 2017, Twitter.

Ebenezer made this statement in response to a twitter user who dared suggest Jeremy Corbyn offered hope to people after seven years of suffering under a Tory government. Let's consider that claim. His dad had a job, so while certainly impoverished, they were not the poorest. By 16, Lord Sugar had his own job, and by 40 he was one of the richest men in Britain. While his family were undoubtedly poor, to presume he understands modern day British poverty and can tell others not to find hope in Corbyn shows preposterous and blind arrogance in the face of grim reality.

Wages are contracting in the UK under Tory government, living standards are falling, child poverty is increasing, Theresa May is making u-turn after u-turn and purposefully lying about misquoting Corbyn and lying about being unclear about her unpopular and uncosted manifesto policies. Her foreign secretary has lied about giving the NHS £350m on numerous occasions. National debt is skyrocketing. Economic growth is slowing. The NHS is on the brink of collapse and teachers are having to provide food parcels for children whose parents can't afford to feed them. Yes, people should find hope in Corbyn, because under the Conservative government the cavernous divide between rich and poor is once again stretching. We need Corbyn because the already wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are becoming homeless.

Homelessness and food bank use are both on the increase. We need some hope because the Tories only offer lies and hopelessness. We should aspire to be better, not accept that we are getting ourselves into a worse situation. Even if poverty is insignificant compared to previous decades (it's not, but if), the only salient point remains that poverty is increasing and is a greater problem now than at the height of the crash. Rather than ignoring the increasing problem and dragging the country backwards, we should be looking to lift people out of poverty and work towards a more prosperous future for all. There is no reason for children to go hungry in modern day Britain.

"Who are the poor these days? There are some people in the north and such places who are quite poor, but they all have phones, being poor, they've all got microwave ovens, being poor, they've all got televisions, being poor..." - Lord Sugar, 2015, The Telegraph

But Lord Sugar doesn't believe real poverty exists in Britain. After all, we all have phones, computers, and TVs. He seems oblivious to the fact those things are essentials rather than luxuries in modern life. Many televisions were purchased before the crash when people had money, that they still have those televisions doesn't mean they aren't impoverished in the present day. More important than either of that, though, is the understanding that television is today's radio. In the 50's everyone had a radio or bought newspapers. Many came to own televisions too, even though they were black and white. Everyone could access news stories. Modern television is not a luxury, it is our access to the world.

As for computers, tablets, and even smart phones? It's clear Sugar hasn't hasn't needed to apply for a job recently, and I presume other people place job adverts on his behalf. Only such separation from the job market can explain his ignorance on the matter. Most people understand that many businesses only accept online applications these days. With libraries shutting down people need their own internet access to apply for jobs, which they do because a) they want work, or b) they are required to in order to get the job seekers allowance which allows them to pay for some food, some heating, some of the cost of living.

Even students have to have computer access to complete education these days. Technology isn't a luxury, it is essential. Everyone from potential employers to the Department of Work and Pensions expect to be able to get in contact and - shock horror - it can be cheaper to have a mobile than have a land line. Yet Sugar seems to be suggesting that people aren't truly poor if they have the equipment they need to survive. Taking away phones and computers these days is the equivalent of taking away Royal Mail and phone boxes in the 50's. Suddenly people don't have access to jobs, or other people, or even emergency services. As for microwaves ovens, I would love to pose this question to the wealthy oaf:

Have you ever tried to become an expert in making home cooked meals (rather than ready meals) in a microwave because you can't afford a cooker?

That was my reality for a while, and my first cooker was an already old thing donated to me free by a friend. My current cooker was my late father's. Not everyone can afford a cooker, in light of that can you really say poverty is not a problem in Britain? People can not afford kitchen appliances. They cannot afford electricity. Get your head out of the clouds, Ebenezer, and face the truth. If you're not to busy buying anything your heart desires, that is...

"Unless it's a plane or boat or something like that... I don't look at the price. I look at the product and if like the shirt I have it. The price is whatever the price is." - Lord Sugar, 2015, The Telegraph

Perhaps we should expect someone who freely admits he doesn't look at price tags (and doesn't know the cost of a pint of milk) to have no idea what is going on in the real world. His family were poor a long time ago. He's been among the richest people in Britain for the last thirty years. He made the most of the social mobility offered in the 80's, and the economic growth of the late nineties and early in the millennium, and somewhere along the way he surrendered his sense of perspective in favour of a sense of self-importance. He denies modern day poverty, and yet the number of people using food banks today makes the numbers using food banks during the crash look insignificant.

In 2009-2010, only 40,898 people used food banks. 

That was in post-crash Britain, when unemployment was going up, the government had just bailed out the banks, and we still feared worse would come.

Well, things did get worse, but not because of the global economy. No, Tory austerity brought about the second wave of suffering for many normal people, both those in work and those out of it. Zero hours contracts and being forced into self-employment brought down unemployment levels, improving the Tories' image, but such 'employment' meant and continues to mean many people cannot afford to live. Some aren't earning minimum wage. That leads us back to food banks.

In 2016-2017, the number of people using food banks increased to 1,182,954, despite our economy supposedly 'recovering' and 'unemployment decreasing'.

That's over a million instances of people accessing food banks even though, during the crash, the figures didn't even reach fifty thousand. Take a moment to think about that, then say you agree with Sugar that poverty isn't a problem in Britain. Do you really believe him?

If your answer is to accuse people of using food banks like takeaway, you need to remember than many food banks require evidence proving users cannot afford to purchase food. They do not give resources out to any and all, and they only give out three day emergency supplies, not a full weekly shop. Now you've remembered that, you need to take a good long look at yourself  and reassess how to be a decent human.

"You brain dead. I left before Corbyn was Labour leader." - Sugar, 2017, Twitter

Sugar even called a Twitter user 'brain dead' in another remarkable tweet. This only goes to emphasise how out of touch with ordinary people Sugar is. Under no circumstances is calling someone 'brain dead' appropriate, especially as we fight to overcome stigma against mental illness, and while the Department of Work and Pensions continue to sanction comatose disability claimants or declare them 'fit for work'.

Mental health is so underfunded that those being cared for in the community are killing themselves without ever reaching the top of the waiting list for treatment. The sick are facing so much stress when applying for benefits that they are dying just to escape poverty and trauma. All the same, Sugar feels it's alright to call people 'brain dead' for suggesting he's jumped ship from Labour because he'd rather look after his own wealth than the interests of the country. It seems like Sugar lives in his own self-important world where poverty can be erased by merely dismissing its existence and people are mentally deficient for daring to question his motives.  And while the ill have electricity cut off and die by suicide, Sugar can't even bring himself to be humble about his wealth.

"Yeh (I'm) a very rich man who paid £50m in tax in January to provide police and NHS for you. You talk a load of rubbish." -Sugar, 2017, Twitter

Apparently, Sugar as thinks of himself as a philanthropist who does his part for all of us. He pays his taxes in order to 'help' us, like some benevolent gentleman providing basic essentials to the plebs who work for him, watch him on television (which we shouldn't have anyway if we're genuinely poor), buy his products, and are the source of his wealth and continued celebrity. Yet, according to the Telegraph, in the year up to June 2016, Sugar took home dividends of £181m from Amshold. Taking this before April's tax increase saved Sugar £14m in taxes, according to This Is Money. He paid 38% in tax and still took home £123m after tax.

Most of us can't imagine taking home £123m in a year, and yet Sugar seems to have acted to avoid paying an extra £14m, and appears fearful of being required to pay more to support the people who buy his products and give him fame under a Labour government. He gets wealthier under the Conservatives, despite already being a billionaire, and he claims poverty isn't a problem in Britain despite evidence to the contrary. He is also so generous and 'helpful' that he's threatened to leave the country if Labour get into power...

Well, Sugar, I would say this...

Screw you.

I want to find out what businesses you are involved with and boycott them. I will not watch a programme with you in it, nor buy a newspaper where you are featured. Go ahead and leave, and take that blonde-haired harridan you made famous with you. Let a new wave of people make the most of the hope a new labour government would bring. Rather than hoarding British wealth to increase your own so-called 'worth', allow another young entrepreneur the opportunity to shine.

In 2015, your 'worth' was valued at £1.4bn, but that same year over a million families were forced to access food banks to survive. All the same you deny poverty exists. You have forgotten where you came from. You have forgotten what it is to be poor and you have no experience or understanding of poverty in the modern world. When you support the Tories who've tripled our national debt and sent child poverty skyrocketing to levels which are predicted to surpass those of thirty years ago, you become a national threat.

People die under Tory rule. People die in hospital corridors while waiting to be seen. Sick and disabled people - those who are already at their most vulnerable - kill themselves rather than enter battle with the DWP. Children go hungry. The police have faced such severe cuts that they cannot fulfil even basic duties, never mind protect us from terror. That is the Tory legacy. That is what you support.

You disgust me. You do not deserve the title 'Lord'. While your monetary worth may be more than most of us could ever dream of, your value as a as public figure, political commentator, and even as a person has crumbled. You should be ashamed, Sir. Today, somewhere in England, a child is eating cold beans out of a can because their parents can afford neither cooker nor microwave. Think about that the next time you wish to promote the Tories.

Yesterday, you said 'may your god help you' to a Corbyn voter. Today, I suggest you consider whether your god would approve of the blind eye you're turning to suffering.

EDIT 20170529: Sugar's current business interests, according to Companies House, are as follows: By Alana (search for Ridiculously Rich By Alana), Amsprop USA Holdings Limited, Dr Leah Limited, Climb Online Limited, Amstar Media Limited, Amsprop USA Holdings Limited, Amshold Group Limited, Amshold Trading Limited, Amstar Entertainment Limited, Hyper Recruitment Limited, Tropic Skin Care Limited, Aventom Limited, Amvest Limited, Amshold International Limited, Amsprop London Limited. His media companies are involved in pre-press aspects of The Apprentice and Junior Apprentice.

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, Borrowing, Surplus, Tax, and Spend

I am going to explain this only once because I'm beginning to get truly frustrated with the ignorance I face from Conservative voters who don't want to accept that Labour has done the economy more good in the last three decades than the Tories. This really isn't that complicated.

Debt: The amount the government owes from borrowing, including the addition of any interest.

Deficit: The difference between budget spend and budget income leading to a negative balance.

Borrowing: The amount the government borrows.

Surplus: The difference between budget income and budget spend leading to a positive balance.

Tax: Money the government recoups from the populace through income tax and other taxes.

Spend: What the government invests in infrastructure, assets, welfare, and services.

So how do Labour and the Conservatives compare?

Debt

On its own and as a percentage of GDP, debt is consistently higher under Conservative governments than under Labour. Debt both prior to the Blair/Brown government and after it has been higher than during it.

Deficit

This is actually largely irrelevant. Large deficit isn't necessarily bad (unless the government are lying about their targets to lower it, but that's more because it shows government smoke and mirrors for the incompetence it is). Deficit is simply the difference in budget income and outgoings. Deficit is better than surplus in some respects as it shows money is going into the economy rather than being kept out of it in a surplus, although sometimes it is beneficial to be in surplus for a few years, pay off debt, and then start spending again. Under Labour, the Tory deficit was lowered, a surplus was created with fed into lowering debt, and then they began to invest, keeping the deficit stable. The rise in deficit came as a result of the GLOBAL crash, not as a cause of it, as government spending included bailing out the banks to stop a full scale crash of our economy.  This indicates anomalous spending in the years of the crash to save the economy, not recklessness on Labours part.

Borrowing

Under Labour yearly borrowing remained low and steady, the only exception was during the crash when the government borrowed to save the banks and the economy along with them. This was an anomaly, not a trend. However, since then, the Conservative government have continued to borrow at high levels. In 2015 their borrowing was still almost twice that of Labour's in 2007. Such borrowing while our debt remains high is reckless. It lowers the deficit, because it's 'income', but it doesn't improve our economic stability. In fact, high levels of debt are known to slow economic growth. As the conservatives are supposedly using cuts to welfare and public services to 'pay down the deficit'  and they aren't bailing out a new back every year, you have to wonder where all this borrowed money is going? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Ignoring corporate tax avoidance? Battle buses? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. 

Surplus

See Deficit

Tax

Despite a reputation for giving tax cuts, the Tories have a history of high taxation. They use stealth taxes to acquire income. Under Margaret Thatcher, effective tax reached a peak. It reduced under Labour, but rose under the Conservatives. We don't have any figures, but we can only presume the Tory dementia/death tax is intended to increase taxation further.

Spending

The government can invest in a number of ways, by purchasing assets which offset debt and can provide income or lower expenditure, or they can invest in infrastructure to improve productivity, or they can invest in welfare which has the twofold benefit of ensuring more people have money to spend, therefor increasing economic growth, and by ensuring recipients have some level of security and dignity, which in tern encourages productivity. Labour tends to invest in infrastructure, increasing economic productivity, while the current Conservative government seeks to cut spending which both slows economic growth and creates poverty. Child poverty has increased hugely in the last seven years, undoing the last Labour governments success and lowering it. 

Conclusion

The last Labour government had a policy of low levels of controlled debt, low levels of controlled borrowing, low levels of effective tax, productive economy, and investment to encourage productivity. The country made a lot compared yo what it borrowed. This placed us in a strange position during the global economic crash. Our accounts were in good enough shape that the government could borrow and bail out the banks to save the economy. The current Conservative government and the Tory government under Thatcher have high levels of debt, high levels of borrowing, high taxation, and slow economic growth, leaving us in a precarious position where another crash (such as that likely to follow Brexit) will have far greater impact than the global crash of 2008. And a future crash may well be the direct result of Tory policy and the Brexit referendum, as opposed to the 2008 crash which was global and not to be laid at Labour's door.

For a more in depth look at Tory and Labour policy, see my post Strong and Stable, or for more facts and figures on the economy, along with references for graphs shown here, see my post Debt, Deficit, and Deceit.

And remember, vote Labour for low debt, low borrowing, sensible spending, and low, stable, and open taxation.

Vote Conservative for high debt, high borrowing, spending on the already wealthy, and high, hidden taxation.

Carmine Raven

Vile, Awful 'It'

Today on twitter 3 tories decided to call me 'thicko', 'vile', 'awful', and 'it'.

Why?

I pointed out that I'm disabled, in poverty, a parent, that welface cuts cause poverty, and that it is not 'mismanagement' when you get pregnant before you know you're going to be made reduntant or end up on long term sick. I would rather work. I would rather have money to buy my daughter a birthday present, any burthday present, than get to the point where I have £13 in my bank account and four weeks of bills before I get paid. I would love to have the independence and future I had when I qualified under labour with a first class degree and a professiobal job. I would love not to worry all the time. I didn't choose or cause my situation. But sure, I'm the vile, awful, thicko of an 'it'.

This is how Tory policies of dehumanising the poor, sick, elderly, and impoverished translates to their supportors. It's ok to say this stuff, and to turn people into 'its' rather than people. How do they think this affect someone with a mental illness? If I told them, they'd probably say I was 'manipulative' or 'whinging'. Are these sorts of people really the ones we want to listen to?

For goodness sake, vote Labour.

Image from Pseudonymous Zombie

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, and Deceit: How Labour Caused the Crash and the Conservatives Saved Us

An election is coming, and we want to make sure we're in safe hands, don't we?

In advance of the General Election, it's prudent to take into account the past history of parties with government experience and look at their track record. Let's start with what we 'know'.

• The exiting Labour government left us in massive debt, with a huge debt following a policy of borrow and spend.
• Coalition and Conservative austerity has brought down the deficit as promised in successive election campaigns.

Those facts form the basis of much Conservative support. It is assumed that Labour will borrow billions and send us spiralling back into deficit. We've all seen the matter raised in the commons and on the news. We don't even need to look at Conservative campaign material to see that this is the truth; Labour caused the economy to crash and the Conservatives are cleaning up their mess. The Conservatives are taking us from deficit to surplus.

Right?

Well, the subject of debt and deficit is not that simple. Many people confuse the two. In fact even David Cameron, while in power, spoke of bringing down national debt when he actually meant deficit. So what are debt and deficit?

Debt

• Money borrowed. Often stated as net debt, being the money borrowed minus the value of assets. It's what the government owes.

Deficit

• The difference between budget income and outgoings. Deficit happens when income is less than outgoings. Surplus happens when income is greater than outgoings.

So in terms of debt, what is the track record of current and previous governments? 

To say the Conservative record is 'poor' would be an understatement. The current Conservative government have increased debt and debt as a percentage of GDP by quite dramatic amounts. They are borrowing in far greater amounts than Labour, which is all well and good in some respects as it provides us with income... until those debts are called in. Then we have one awfully big expense to pay off. That's extremely risky. 

Borrowing is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is a calculated risk, one the Conservative government is willing to put far bigger bets on than Labour ever did, and they are gambling with our economy. Not only is it risky because debts can be called in, but huge national debt can also slow economic growth as its lessens likelihood of other investment. It's a two pronged risk which the Conservatives are taking with apparently little concern.

However, this behaviour is nothing new to the Conservatives. It follows previous trends.

The last Labour government brought down debt as a percentage of GDP from that during the term of the exiting Conservative government. Under the Conservative led coalition, this rose sharply, surpassing even the previous levels under the previous Conservative government.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

In fact, here we can see exactly which party's policies lead to increased borrowing. Under Labour, borrowing as a percentage of GDP dropped to its lowest level in the two decades shown, while Conservative/Coalition governments have been blighted by vast amounts of borrowing compared as a percentage of GDP.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

Now, lets look at some current public sector debt data... This speaks for itself. We're still up to the eyeballs in debt.

Source: Office of National Statistics

OK, the debt's looking unhealthy, but what about deficit? That's coming down, right?

Well, yes, it is, but it would have done even without Conservative austerity because the huge deficit left in the wake of the global economic downturn was something of an anomaly. It didn't cause the downturn as many would like to imply, but rather it was a response too the downturn. The Labour government who were in power at the time were faced with the prospect of our financial industry collapsing. If the banks failed, they would wipe out savings. They would also have call in debts, including mortgages, loans, etc. The economy would have bombed ever worse than it did, and so the government bailed out the banks. That is what the huge expenditure was about. It wasn't reckless investment or unwise borrowing, it was an attempt to save our economy from the affects of a GLOBAL (rather than UK/Labour caused) downturn. It was a response, not a cause, and therefore an anomaly. 

So if we discount the deficit caused by the economic crash, how does Labour's track record stack up compared to the Conservatives?

When Labour came into power, the Conservative government left them with a deficit. The Labour government brought this into surplus where it remained for four consecutive years, longer than the previous and short lived Conservative surplus which preceded a Conservative deficit which was greater than Labour's at the height of their pre-crash bail-out spending. In fact, in recent decades, Labour have had us in surplus for a greater length of time than any Conservative government has managed, that is despite the Conservatives being in government for far more of the time.  The Conservatives had plenty of time to prove their policies were financially sound, but it was only under labour we had any substantial surplus. Even the later Later deficit was coming down again - under Labour... until the global crash.

Source: The Guardian

So how is the deficit doing now?

Source: BBC News, referencing ONS (annotation added).

It's come down, but not at the speed promised. Under Conservative election pledges, we should've been back in surplus by now. We aren't near. We have gotten back to a deficit equivalent to that before the crash, but we're no where near in surplus. That reduction in deficit has been paid for through austerity measures, cuts in funding to the national health services, education, welfare, and so on, while being somewhat slowed by tax breaks given to the wealthiest members of society and corporations. In other words, the reduction in the deficit is being funded by the poorest members of society and the working class, while big business continue to increase profits and the wealthy continue to hoard wealth - keeping it out of circulation and therefore slowing economic growth.

But who cares who paid to get the deficit down? It doesn't matter, right? At least it's down, so the Conservatives have done a good job?

That would be a rather narrow view. The previous Labour government took us from deficit to surplus without austerity and without reaching the deficit of the previous  Conservatives at its worst.  As much as I resent giving a thumbs up to Blair's government, they did a good job. They took us from deficit to surplus without the NHS going into free fall and without workers relying on food banks. They did so without the disabled committing suicide rather than losing their homes due to lost benefits. The did so, without spitting on the poor by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Now, some economists say that surplus is bad, that it takes money out of circulation and causes economic crashes. However, Labour's surplus bucks that trend. They balanced the Tory books, paid off Tory debts, and then started investing while keeping debt at a stable level as a percentage of GDP. Even in Labours second year, investment was up on the previous Tory governments final year, then it dropped for a year, then it went back up, and Labour managed to invest without causing debt to rise as a percentage of GDP. The Tory government have severely cut investment while dramatically increasing debt as a percentage of GDP. In other words, they pose greater risk to the economy.

Labour did a good job. The Conservative legacy is less positive.

Yes, the deficit is down almost to what it was before the global downturn, but at what cost? The NHS is on the brink of collapse. Food banks are back. National debt and the associated risk has risen dramatically. The government is hiding reports indicating that their strangle hold on welfare is costing lives. Meanwhile, they can't even account properly for election spending (battle buses) never mind the economy. On top of that, they have sold off national assets for less than they were worth to corporations in which they or their friends have interests. We now have a huge amount of debt and far fewer assets to balance it with. But sure, the deficit is down compared to at the height of the crash...

That the number of working families in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the number of children in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the NHS is collapsing shouldn't matter, should it?

That funding to mental health services has been cut to the point of crisis in the last seven years shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact student debt isn't being paid off because even the employed aren't earning enough to live, never mind pay off loans, shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact our disabled are being deprived of security shouldn't matter, should it?

It's all OK, because the current wealthy Prime Minister who went to university for free, with her supportive and wealthy husband who has interests in a company which is getting away with not paying full UK task is bringing down the deficit...

We all have the national debt around our necks, and the Conservative government is increasing that debt. As far as track records go, the Tory government has spent a far greater percentage of the time in office in deficit over the last few decades than Labour. And they too left a deficit as an outgoing government in '97, without being in the midst of a global downturn. 

• Labour did not cause the crash, but they did act to prevent it becoming worse than it was.
• Labour has a better record of surplus than the Conservatives.
• The Conservatives are bringing down the deficit at great cost to the poor and working class.
• The Conservatives are giving tax breaks to the wealthy and selling off public assets.
• The Conservatives are increasing national debt.

The Conservative government is carrying out a two pronged attack of economic growth, first by running up huge debts, and second by reducing investment in infrastructure. Both slow economic growth and while yes, the deficit is down, that doesn't actually benefit economic growth and therefore isn't a long term policy. It's also a bit of a fluke, and however you look at it, they've failed to reach their targets. What we do know, is they are borrowing huge sums and gambling with the economy, and they aren't investing, meaning the majority have less access to services or financial security. The Tories have done far more damage in seven years than Labour did.

Incidentally, welfare can be regarded as positive investment because welfare money doesn't leave the economy. It is given to the poor who have to spend, so the money goes back to local businesses or goes towards items which then earn the government both VAT and income tax from the wages of those supplying goods. What doesn't benefit the economy is the rich getting richer. If a person's bank balance or worth is rising, then that money has been taken out of economic circulation. It slows the economy. Amassed wealth doesn't improve a countries economic stability, what it does do is create poverty.  Money is not infinite, to have the super rich there needs to be the super poor. The wealthy are not philanthropic investors providing jobs to working man, they are creators of poverty and class division in order to amass their own personal wealth which is outside of our economy.

You will see a lot of posts at the moment about how if the rich are attacked and taxed more they will remove investment... Will they? 

Well, no. They wont. Why? Because that's cutting their noses off to spite their face. Paying more tax lowers profit - that earned on top of expenses, and in addition to already amassed wealth. That's not to say it removes profit, it doesn't, it simply takes a very small percentage of it to give back to the poorest people in society, who then spend that money in businesses owned by the wealthy, so it still goes back into the 'pot'. It gives the wealthy a larger client base and promotes economic growth. The wealthy still make a profit and grow their personal wealth. It doesn't stop the wealthy becoming more wealthy, it simply slows that process down fractionally to make like better for the poorest members of society - the children, the sick, the elderly - while also ensuing economic growth. Withdrawing investment as a response to higher taxes would mean yes, the wealthy would keep the money they have, but they would no longer be investing to increase their profits. No investment, no return. No investment, potential for profit decreases. No investment, and the wealthy stop getting wealthier. Everyone ends up worse off. And if the economy crashes because the wealthy don't invest? Well, thanks to Tory debt, I doubt we'd be bailing out the banks a second time, so who's savings will vanish as the banks collapse? Well it isn't the savings of the poor because they don't have any savings. It would be the savings of the wealthy. The poor would suffer immeasurably, but currently wealthy people would also go bankrupt. It seems a rather silly risk to take, because of a 10% tax increase on earnings over what most of us could dream of earning anyway. 

Also, the past proves that taxing the rich doesn't cause economic gloom. Labour increased tax on wealthy earners while keeping debt at a stable level compared to GDP. Investment didn't stagnate under them. People were investing and the economy was the strongest it had been in years before the global economic crash. The current Tory legacy on the other hand, is one of tax cuts for the rich, low investment, rising debt, and economic uncertainty.

Oh, but if you're still worried about a tax hike on the wealthy, Labour's proposed tax rate is still less than it was for nine of Thatcher's eleven years is office, until her chancellor cut it, close to the end of Maggie's popularity and while causing her concern. So when you hear people claim that taxing the wealthy is 'politics of envy' or 'communist', ask yourself this, was Thatcher practising the politics of envy or was she a closet communist? Well it's not the latter, as she was openly anti-communist (as most of us are). The former also seems unlikely, she wasn't really in a position to envy the wealthy who kept her in power and have granted her an almost saint like position among politicians. If anything, her legacy was a standard Tory legacy of high debt as a percentage of GDP and securing the wealth of the already wealthy while child poverty remained high. She was neither envious, nor communist. Nor was she philanthropic.

It actually provides a more stable economy to tax the wealthy a little more to keep the poor afloat - after all, it's the poor who are renting from the wealthy landlords and paying for whatever they have to sell or are invested in. Lowering tax on the wealthy while creating massive amounts of poverty and debt leaves us in a position of economic uncertainty, failing public services, and rising child poverty, alongside rising rates of homelessness, suicide, food bank use, and preventable deaths of the elderly due to lack of heating and social care.

Conclusion? If you care about national debt, the NHS, education, the disabled, the impoverished, or even just getting the taxes due, then vote for Labour, because the Conservatives are playing Russian roulette with national debt and systematically destroying our public services, while also increasing national and child poverty.

Please note that I have used a range of sources from the Daily Fail Mail, to what I'm told is the 'twisted lefty' Guardian, as well as the not so impartial BBC and going straight to the sources with the Office of National Statistics. I've done so specifically to show how the figures remain the same across a range of sources. These aren't biased, labour leftist statements, they are facts and figures I'm giving you to draw conclusions from, alongside my own thoughts. What you do with that information is up to you.

But I'm team #VoteLabour.

Carmine Raven