Labour stretches lead over Tories

[turbobloke]

BlackLabel said:

"Lord Ashcroft ?@LordAshcroft 5 mins5 minutes ago

Ashcroft National Poll, 24-26 October: CON 31%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 18%, GRN 5%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm."

Lord A needs to have a word in CMD's ear, following on from the previous several words he's almost certainly been having of late.

Still, Labour shrinks its lead over the Tories to vanishing point, all is not bad but it needs to be much better still.

[Mermaid]

turbobloke said:

Lord A needs to have a word in CMD's ear, following on from the previous several words he's almost certainly been having of late.

Still, Labour shrinks its lead over the Tories to vanishing point, all is not bad but it needs to be much better still.

Fallon's gaffe was anything but - canary sent to check the "temperature".

[RYH64E]

Sir Humphrey said:

If there were a free market with low tax as people move to London to get a better job, the North becomes cheaper to buy/rent property and hire people, meaning more good jobs come available there as businesses are willing to take the risk in basing themselves there. Because we don't have a free labour market, high taxation and government redistribution of wealth this won't happen, leaving the North permanently poor and London permanently rich.

Unless I'm missing something, property already is much cheaper in the North than it is in London and wages are lower.

[blueg33]

RYH64E said:

Sir Humphrey said:

If there were a free market with low tax as people move to London to get a better job, the North becomes cheaper to buy/rent property and hire people, meaning more good jobs come available there as businesses are willing to take the risk in basing themselves there. Because we don't have a free labour market, high taxation and government redistribution of wealth this won't happen, leaving the North permanently poor and London permanently rich.

Unless I'm missing something, property already is much cheaper in the North than it is in London and wages are lower.

Much lower in places like Hull and Grimsby. Our property costrs in the North East are a fraction of the costs in London, but we keep our HQ in London because the senior team need easy access to financiers, funds and Lloyds of London

[Crafty_]

Not a motorway, but improving transport links in the north ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29779134

I wonder if this will get as much opposition as HS2 did ?

[johnfm]

There seems to be a general reluctance to invest in speculative infrastructure projects that will at the very least provide design, engineering, construction and other jobs - the UK should be building another runway or airport down South, getting on with the HS1 &2&3 projects, building shedloads of new houses (on Boris Island if they don't build an airport there), building those 6 bridges that are needed across the Thames in East London etc.

Sure, we spend billions on overpriced PFI schools and hospitals (which provides jobs and makes a few company directors very very rich), but the UK needs some bigger thinking.

[BlackLabel]

There is nothing in it now.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

There is nothing in it now.

Equal number of actual votes has previously equated to a clear Labour majority though!

[blueg33]

johnfm said:

There seems to be a general reluctance to invest in speculative infrastructure projects that will at the very least provide design, engineering, construction and other jobs - the UK should be building another runway or airport down South, getting on with the HS1 &2&3 projects, building shedloads of new houses (on Boris Island if they don't build an airport there), building those 6 bridges that are needed across the Thames in East London etc.

Sure, we spend billions on overpriced PFI schools and hospitals (which provides jobs and makes a few company directors very very rich), but the UK needs some bigger thinking.

We do infrastructure projects but bearing in mind the huge cost it would be very hard to fund them on a speculative basis. If we get a govt backed income stream then the yield is down st 5 percent or lower. Speculatively yields are at least 8 percent effectively doubling the cost of money. This would make pfi look cheap. (Ps. Pfi isn't really expensive because lifetime FM is wrapped. Whereas govt traditionally doesn't maintain it's own infrastructure resulting in huge backlog maintenance)