Ex Lion Tamer

That's true, but the lefties on here are much more likely to back up their opinions with evidence

This is the sort of response I was hoping for, albeit less "cut and pasty". I'll have to read properly later, but I believe some of these criticisms have been addressed in the second edition of the book, which includes full data as an appendix.

Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who produced a detailed peer-reviewed book following many years of study, or Johnny Bognor's fag-packet research taking a few examples and trying to prove a rule. Hmm yes I wonder who I trust more

Yes fair enough, you've refined your list now. Do have a read of the Spirit Level, its a pretty important book

That's kind of the opposite to what the Spirit Level suggests. They should all leave London and New York and go to Scandinavia if that's the case

The Spirit Level shows that across measures for physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries, regardless of their absolute level of wealth. The pattern is also repeated across more and less unequal US states. Have a look at some of the charts here: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/spirit-level Why this might be is up for speculation. They think that inequality erodes trust, increases anxiety and illness, and encourages excessive consumption (in order to keep up with the richer people we see around us). it I'm just throwing it out there as its interesting - but its certainly better evidenced than your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

Sorry your discussion above made me think you were one of the more thoughtful posters, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you would come back with a load of rubbish about communism:mcinnes:

Have you read the Spirit Level? Its data would seem to suggest that inequality is counterproductive in and of itself

Even I will admit it looks like that's not a good one

The VAT increase was certainly bad for my company because we had to negotiate higher prices with all our clients

I'm not one of the ones particularly saying we should be raising tax rates, if we get growth and get everyone earning well, even at the bottom, then tax receipts will rise as a result. However, any tax changes we do make should be done in a way that helps the less well off. Raising VAT was an example of a policy that hurt the less well off more than the more wealthy because everyone pays the same regardless of how much they can afford, plus it hurt businesses too as they had to raise their prices. The findings are pretty clear that the poor and young have not had enough assistance in the last five years: "While wealth rose for households aged over 65 between 2006-08 and 2010-12, it fell for younger ones. By 2010-12, median total wealth for households aged 55-64 had grown to £425,000, including pensions, but had fallen to £60,000 for those aged 25-34. To bridge the £365,000 gap would require young households to save or make pension contributions of £33 for every day for thirty years. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/unequal-legacy-crisis-leaves-young-economic-mountain-climb

In economics there is supply side and demand side reforms. Supply side is making business more efficient, demand side is making sure consumers are able to buy goods and services. The basic fact is that the Tories had big cuts planned for the last parliament, but they had to row back on them because their initial cuts were causing economic growth to stagnate. They were taking money out of the economy and there was less money circulating for people to spend as a result, meaning less demand for goods and services. This is bad for consumers and bad for business. The way to have a healthy economy is to make sure that everyone has spending money to spend on businesses, so it becomes a virtuous circle. Public sector spending is a big part of that I'm afraid. The thing is, if you give people at the bottom money it grows the economy better because they have immediate spending needs, meaning they put it back into the economy via goods and services. If you give money to the rich or even middle class (via tax cuts or otherwise) then a sizable proportion save it rather than spending it because they already have everything they need. Everything the Tories have done in the last five years has hit the poorest hardest while helping the wealthy. I know you think that if you give rich people more wealth then they use it to create jobs but I just don't think that's true.

That doesn't even make sense

I don't want the tories sucking more demand out of the economy with their draconian cuts and bribes to the wealthy thanks

Comes down to whether you are happy with your circumstances I guess. Personally my standard of living has fallen so I want change

Contrast with Labour's detailed package of policies. This tory government is so bereft of vision

Middle England will be squealing if their house prices start falling and green space is built on

Labour now promising to have started construction on a million new homes by 2020. Let's hope they can pull it off.

Why isn't it happening if it's so easy?

It's exciting for me, I'd love to be able to move into a house and know that I'll be able to afford the rent for the next three years. At present my contract states that rent has to go up by between 3 and 7 percent a year, regardless of inflation or my wages. At some point I'd like to start a family so I want stability, not the threat of having to move every year

People talk about solving the housing crisis as if it's easy, but homeowners don't want their values to fall due to increased supply, and planning laws make it difficult to get houses built. I'm not holding my breathe that any party will have the balls to do it

1) that's pretty vague 2) the prices are still fixed by landlords, they just have to plan them over three years. I agree that the lack of housing needs to be solved as well, but tenants need more stability either way.

Why is it a crap idea?

Rents will be allowed to increase with inflation within the three years, and students will be able to agree one year contacts. See the link I posted earlier

Clearly that will need to be worked out and regulated. It's not that hard - we already have the tenancy deposit scheme which ensures that landlords can't deduct from deposits unless they have a good reason to (an excellent labour policy that has made a massive difference to tenant rights)