General Election 2015

[pap]

I voted in Labour 10 years or so ago. That helped take 1m lives.

 

Yup, but you had no expectation that it would ever be the case.

 

Thatcher enabled Pinochet, who is also estimated to have taken 1m lives.

 

We can play body count all day long, but tell me when I have ever defended Blair on Iraq. The difference now is that you have to look Conservative victims directly in the eye. The ones that are still around, anyway.

 

http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

[Batman]

Yup, but you had no expectation that it would ever be the case.

 

Thatcher enabled Pinochet, who is also estimated to have taken 1m lives.

 

We can play body count all day long, but tell me when I have ever defended Blair on Iraq. The difference now is that you have to look Conservative victims directly in the eye. The ones that are still around, anyway.

 

http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

I have already voted. Conservative

 

[pap]

I have already voted. Conservative

 

 

Let's hope that the rest of the population aren't as malleable and indifferent as yourself.

[Batman]

Let's hope that the rest of the population aren't as malleable and indifferent as yourself.

 

 

jesus pap

 

im off, have a good night

[Jonnyboy]

Personally, I think Labour has moved a little from the right in recent years. No bad thing.

 

Serious question pap, do you eat ReadyBrek, your avatar, if of you, suggests you do. You are also in desperate need of a haircut.

 

Hmm, your Avatar isn't exactly a short back n sides.

[pap]

Hmm, your Avatar isn't exactly a short back n sides.

 

Back in the days of feudalism, freemen, those that were not the bítch of some lord, were distinguished by their long hair.

 

All the serfs had to have their barnets shorn, as did conquered peoples at other periods in history

[Ex Lion Tamer]

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

 

[Smirking_Saint]

Not a lot that can be argued if they can pull it off

[pap]

Not a lot that can be argued if they can pull it off

 

Certainly a better plan than borrowing a fúckton of money to buy houses we don't own so they can be sold off to the public at a discount rate.

[whelk]

I used to at least respect the Telegraph. Now starting to feel sorry for them. Now just like the Star that is used to promote Big Brother. Have they given up on news?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

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

Edited 26 April, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[whelk]

I used to at least respect the Telegraph. Now starting to feel sorry for them. Now just like the Star that is used to promote Big Brother. Have they given up on news?

 

And not staged or anything......http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/10/karren-brady-small-businesses-sign-election-letter-labour-too-risky-economy

 

......From 10 April

[Ex Lion Tamer]

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

[shurlock]

I think a lot of people don't contextualise why the defecit was so high in the first place though, in 2008 we were just about to see the back of a very costly and controversial war in Iraq and were mid-way through a military intervention in Afghanistan too. I'm not saying that these were the sole causes for the defecit but the increase in military spending definitely contributed to it being run up by Labour. Of course there were overspends and irresponsible financial actions taken by successive governments, but the political climate at the time called for vast amounts of spending which had to come back to bite us at some point - unluckily for Labour it happened to be exacerbated by the global financial crash which was in turn also caused by a failure of many global governments to properly regulate the banks.

 

It's easy to point at Labour and say that they singlehandedly caused the defecit to be as high as it was, but you do have to take into account that there were a number of extraneous circumstances that contributed to it and also the small ideological gap between early 2000s Conservatives and Blair-era Labour meant that the Tories probably would've gone along a similar path with regards to spending as well.

 

Agree context is critical. Anyone wanting to understand it should google 'global imbalances, deficit countries, consumer of last resort, excess savings' or any combination thereof. The problem is deeper than feckless governments and households running up unsustainable debts or indeed greedy bankers who blew up the system by taking one-way bets.

[SuperMikey]

I'm reading Owen Jones' excellent book "The Establishment" at the moment and there's a very interesting chapter on the media and how they help to shape the political landscape just by reflecting the views of those in charge at the paper. During an election the headlines you read in most of the papers will all be shaped to fit a certain political agenda (no surprise there) and things like the Telegraph's front page there will have been stockpiled to use to give the Tories a boost if they were flagging or it's a slow news day.

 

Interesting though that it appears to be a similar tactic to what the Better Together campaign did in the Scottish Independence referendum, phoning in support from businesses to try and sway the electorate with prophetic tales of what chaos could be wrought with a vote for 'the other side'. Realistically though, I can't see too much of a difference economically between Labour and Conservative apart from a slight change in tact by Labour with regards to spending increases as to more cuts.

 

Personally I don't see how our services can sustain more cuts, especially not £30bn worth. Read an interesting piece by Henry Marsh in The Indy today as well talking about cuts and the NHS - he made the point that if there were more easy cuts to make then we would've made them already (albeit he was referring specifically to the NHS, but the point stands across the board I think).

[hypochondriac]

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

 

Completely uncosted package of policies...

[Smirking_Saint]

Completely uncosted package of policies...

 

Nonetheless its headline making and vote turning. The tories arent doing enough, and Camerons decision not to debate doesnt help.

[SuperMikey]

Completely uncosted package of policies...

 

They're costed, only by using tax revenue that they're not sure they'll actually get from the Mansion tax (don't want to start that whole debate again though..)

 

On the other hand, the Conservative manifesto has a £30bn black hole in it. Think I might side with the ones with the optimistic tax revenue forecasts rather than the ones that'll just take more funding out of perilous welfare spending to abide by their pledges..

[pap]

Completely uncosted package of policies...

 

Completely correct, hypo. There is no provision for ordered bride tax relief, which we both know, is important.

 

Are you Lee Horton?

[Smirking_Saint]

They're costed, only by using tax revenue that they're not sure they'll actually get from the Mansion tax (don't want to start that whole debate again though..)

 

On the other hand, the Conservative manifesto has a £30bn black hole in it. Think I might side with the ones with the optimistic tax revenue forecasts rather than the ones that'll just take more funding out of perilous welfare spending to abide by their pledges..

 

Yet the same IFS claims that Labour will need to borrow 90b in order to deliver their own manifesto.

 

TBH I think its pretty shoddy work by both parties

[Johnny Bognor]

The problem is that the Tories won't say much, because they don't want to come across as harsh, whilst Labour won't say too much because they want to come across as financially responsible.

[hutch]

The problem is that the Tories won't say much, because they don't want to come across as harsh, whilst Labour won't say too much because they want to come across as financially responsible.

or maybe the Tories aren't saying much because they actually think that the normal people think that things are sort of OK at the moment, and will be happy with more of the same. While watching labour jumping up and down shouting "We'll give you this. And this. And this as well. And we'll make somebody else pay for it. Honest"

[Ex Lion Tamer]

or maybe the Tories aren't saying much because they actually think that the normal people think that things are sort of OK at the moment, and will be happy with more of the same. While watching labour jumping up and down shouting "We'll give you this. And this. And this as well. And we'll make somebody else pay for it. Honest"

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

[Wes Tender]

Labour is now saying that it will abolish stamp duty up to £300,000 purchase price I think it was, and this will cost a quarter of a billion. This they will find from raising revenue from tax avoiders. Good luck with that one, Ed. I'm against people avoiding paying their tax, but as these are people who take measures to avoid paying it, it is likely that they will either find other loopholes to exploit, or just go elsewhere.

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

So that you can be even worse off?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

So that you can be even worse off?

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

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

That would leave more demand for the rest of us to fulfil, with more money to do it.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That would leave more demand for the rest of us to fulfil, with more money to do it.

That doesn't even make sense

[Johnny Bognor]

That doesn't even make sense

 

If the government tax people more, to then spend it, it doesn't create more demand. If those people were left to spend it anyway, the demand would be there anyway. By cutting spending, the need for tax increases reduces, thus leaving people with more money to spend anyway, which stimulates demand.

 

Applying your logic, means that increasing taxation sucks demand out of the economy, because those who are taxed, have less to spend??

 

Ironically, increased borrowing, just makes the rich richer. Who do you think governments borrow money off of???

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[View From The Top]

Labour is now saying that it will abolish stamp duty up to £300,000 purchase price I think it was, and this will cost a quarter of a billion. This they will find from raising revenue from tax avoiders. Good luck with that one, Ed. I'm against people avoiding paying their tax, but as these are people who take measures to avoid paying it, it is likely that they will either find other loopholes to exploit, or just go elsewhere.

 

Abolish stamp duty for 1st time buyers.

 

The debate earlier in the thread, from both sides of the divide, was almost wholly in agreement with getting rid of stamp duty all together. Your issue is that Labour have said it.

[View From The Top]

The problem is that the Tories won't say much, because they don't want to come across as harsh, whilst Labour won't say too much because they want to come across as financially responsible.

 

And every time any of them open their mouths the bullsh*t just spews forth.

[Johnny Bognor]

And every time any of them open their mouths the bullsh*t just spews forth.

 

Agreed. The problem is that politics is now a legitimate career option. All the while this is the case, you will get the Camerons, Osbournes, Cleggs, Millibands and Balls of this world making a nice living out of telling people what they want to hear, whether or not they believe it.

 

Harriet Harman went to the same fee paying school as Osbourne. Milliband and Boris went to the same primary school. I could go on....

 

Although the tories get knocked for the number privately educated MP's, 40% of Liberal Democrat MP's were privately educated. 20% of Labour MP's went to fee paying schools. When you consider that only 7% of the population went to fee paying schools, none of the parties are respresentative of the nation as a whole.

 

Vote: Johnny Bognor's Revolutionary Party

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

That doesn't even make sense

 

Lower taxes equals more spending money.

 

I may have misinterpreted you. What exactly did you mean by 'sucking demand out of the economy'?

[pap]

Ironically, increased borrowing, just makes the rich richer. Who do you think governments borrow money off of???

 

It's all sitting under Smaug in the Lonely Mountain.

 

(if you're going to talk shít, do it properly, I say)

[SuperMikey]

Lower taxes equals more spending money.

 

Which equals more money into the coffers of private industry rather than it going into the state where the money is actually needed. Fantastic.

 

I would happily pay more tax on my earnings to offset more government spending in the areas it's needed, but the Tories seem to think that tax is intrinsically bad and is something that people should pay less of when the government is desperately short of spending money. Doesn't square up to me.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Lower taxes equals more spending money.

 

I may have misinterpreted you. What exactly did you mean by 'sucking demand out of the economy'?

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.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[SuperMikey]

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.

 

The 1000 richest people in Britain have increased their wealth from £335bn to £547bn since 2010. Not sure they would've been able to grow their wealth so much without facilitation from the top brass at No 10.

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

Thanks for taking the time to expand.

 

It's all a question of where this money comes from. Governments can either raise it in tax or borrow it. If we assume that the tax levels are probably at the point where revenues are maximised, and some say they are beyond that, then we are left with increased borrowing with all that that entails.

 

I disagree with your assertion that you're 'giving rich people more wealth', you're just not stealing quite so much of it from them. You talk about money as though it belongs to the state instead of the individuals.

 

There's nothing wrong with personal saving, it's part of the bedrock of a capitalist society. Of course, over the past few years savers have seen the value of their deposits reduced by interest rates which have been lower than inflation which in my opinion has been due to deliberate government policy to devalue the cost of their borrowings at the expense of the savers. Effectively there has been a huge transfer of monetary worth from the savers to the borrowers.

 

As for helping the poor, don't discount the increase in personal tax allowances. Now let's get the N

I thresholds in line with these too.

[Johnny Bognor]

Which equals more money into the coffers of private industry rather than it going into the state where the money is actually needed. Fantastic.

 

I would happily pay more tax on my earnings to offset more government spending in the areas it's needed, but the Tories seem to think that tax is intrinsically bad and is something that people should pay less of when the government is desperately short of spending money. Doesn't square up to me.

 

It all ends up there anyway. It doesn't just stay circling on the public sector indefinitely.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Thanks for taking the time to expand.

 

It's all a question of where this money comes from. Governments can either raise it in tax or borrow it. If we assume that the tax levels are probably at the point where revenues are maximised, and some say they are beyond that, then we are left with increased borrowing with all that that entails.

 

I disagree with your assertion that you're 'giving rich people more wealth', you're just not stealing quite so much of it from them. You talk about money as though it belongs to the state instead of the individuals.

 

There's nothing wrong with personal saving, it's part of the bedrock of a capitalist society. Of course, over the past few years savers have seen the value of their deposits reduced by interest rates which have been lower than inflation which in my opinion has been due to deliberate government policy to devalue the cost of their borrowings at the expense of the savers. Effectively there has been a huge transfer of monetary worth from the savers to the borrowers.

 

As for helping the poor, don't discount the increase in personal tax allowances. Now let's get the N

I thresholds in line with these too.

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

[Johnny Bognor]

It's all sitting under Smaug in the Lonely Mountain.

 

(if you're going to talk shít, do it properly, I say)

 

I expected better from you Pap.

 

The rich are buying government bonds. It is a fact. They get a much higher return on them than many other investment vehicles. Government borrowing globally has soared. The rich are earning off the back of it.

 

 

"In a paper on household wealth over the past decade, economist Edward Wolff at New York University found that wealth inequality rose sharply from 2007 to 2010 and has remained largely unchanged since then.

One reason: The wealthiest 1 percent put three-quarters of their savings into investment assets. By contrast, the middle class had 63 percent of their assets tied up in their homes, with home equity accounting for about a third since they have large mortgage debt. Wolff found "striking differences in returns by wealth class." The top 1 percent earned an average annual return of 5.91 percent between 2010 and 2013—far more than the 3.27 percent earned by the middle three quartiles. And that was due mainly to having more exposure to the stock market.

 

While stocks played a role, the paper says that bonds may be the real secret to the better investment gains of the rich. "Wealthy families might be able to earn 6 percent on their bond portfolio (e.g., by investing in foreign markets or in high-return convertible bonds) while the rest of the population might earn 3 percent only, and that differential might have increased over time," the paper said."

 

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102196033

 

 

I know it concerns the US, but it won't be much different here. The rich are getting richer off of governments borrowing more money. So it is ironic when leftie parties want to increase borrowing, when all they are doing is making the global rich, even richer.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[hutch]

The 1000 richest people in Britain have increased their wealth from £335bn to £547bn since 2010. Not sure they would've been able to grow their wealth so much without facilitation from the top brass at No 10.

Lot of assumptions in there. It would only be true if 1) it was the same 1,000 people in 2010 and 2015, and 2) that all of their wealth was earned and kept in Britain. Neither of which are true.

 

Try to look beneath the headlines, it isn't the top 1,000 richest British people. Britain has become a good place for foreign billionaires to come to, and bring some of their money with them.

[Torres]

Sorry, dim.

 

Yeah, sorry, I totally misread what you wrote.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Torres

[Ex Lion Tamer]

wat?

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

[View From The Top]

The tory lad is getting ripped apart on Daily Politics as the tory central office produced the letter for the Telegraph themselves. They forget to remove the metadata tag.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Labour is now saying that it will abolish stamp duty up to £300,000 purchase price I think it was, and this will cost a quarter of a billion. This they will find from raising revenue from tax avoiders. Good luck with that one, Ed. I'm against people avoiding paying their tax, but as these are people who take measures to avoid paying it, it is likely that they will either find other loopholes to exploit, or just go elsewhere.

 

That's a great policy to be fair, apart from the fact that it will increase house prices further...

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That's a great policy to be fair, apart from the fact that it will increase house prices up further...

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

[trousers]

The tory lad is getting ripped apart on Daily Politics as the tory central office produced the letter for the Telegraph themselves. They forget to remove the metadata tag.

Are there actually people out there who are naive enough to believe that these 'letters' aren't engineered out of party election HQs? (Asked Trousers rhetorically)

 

[Johnny Bognor]

Lot of assumptions in there. It would only be true if 1) it was the same 1,000 people in 2010 and 2015, and 2) that all of their wealth was earned and kept in Britain. Neither of which are true.

 

Try to look beneath the headlines, it isn't the top 1,000 richest British people. Britain has become a good place for foreign billionaires to come to, and bring some of their money with them.

 

Nail. Hit. Head.

 

Only a third of Britain's billionaires were actually born british. The super rich have come here, in their droves, bringing their wealth (often earned elsewhare) with them. This in itself creates a bigger gap between rich and poor.

 

I know, why don't we tax the **** out of them, they'll **** off, meaning the gap between rich and poor will get smaller. Problem solved. Oh wait a minute. Will the poor be any better off?

 

A better policy, would be to see how we could get them to spend more of their wealth, which was earned elsewhere, in the UK. This would stimulate demand, grow the economy, reducing the need for Government borrowing. But we can't do that, because the laws of envy won't allow it.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[aintforever]

All these measures to solve the housing crisis are pointless when you have 300,000 more people turning up every year, it's simple supply and demand.