UK General Election 2015
Discussion
No, Guam, don't keep playing that victim card. By "people like you", I mean people who judge the government by utterly unrealistic standards. There is no way that the overall national debt could have been cut over the last five years, given the circumstances. If I am wrong, tell me what cuts should have been made. Foreign Aid is not an answer. It would have made hardly any difference. The cuts would have had to be huge. Bear in mind that the cuts actually made attracted strong criticism from legions of supposedly expert economists, led by Paul Krugman.
Guam said:
is still going to be an increasing drag on the economy and is ultimately going to implode the economy if someone doesn't bring it under control.
Deficit is reducing, if it continues to do so debt growth will stall. If deficit turns into surplus then debt can be paid back faster than current repayments schedule. Even if we only balance the books debt will reduce.We can argue about causes of the positive trend in deficit and likely long-term trend but you can't argue that the current data indicates that spending is heading in the right direction.
It's not happened as quickly as the Tories said it would during the last election but I assume that's partly due to Labour hiding the true depth of the trouble coupled with pre-election politics generally stating an overly positive outcome.
Guam said:
I am not judging it by MY standards I am judging them by their own standards, CMD set the expectations, and yes they could reduce the debt by sticking to their original commitments, people are banging on about Austerity, seriously what austerity?
We might have even less debt had we voted in CMD, but we didn't, we had a coalition, so Clegg carries the accountability of being a "softener" and "moderator" of Tory policy.IainT said:
It's not happened as quickly as the Tories said it would during the last election but I assume that's partly due to Labour hiding the true depth of the trouble coupled with pre-election politics generally stating an overly positive outcome.
It's not going to happen as quickly as the Tories say it will now. Their projections rely on hopelessly optimistic assumptions.https://woodfordfunds.com/budget-surplus-reality-c...
Esseesse said:
IainT said:
It's not happened as quickly as the Tories said it would during the last election but I assume that's partly due to Labour hiding the true depth of the trouble coupled with pre-election politics generally stating an overly positive outcome.
It's not going to happen as quickly as the Tories say it will now. Their projections rely on hopelessly optimistic assumptions.https://woodfordfunds.com/budget-surplus-reality-c...
Of course they'll fall short, unless there's a massive global economic mimic upswing, but direction of Gravlev is crucial and only one party that will get seats in double figures is pointing in the right direction.
You can bleat all you like that they should do more, but the country's economy will be in a much worse state in five years' time if the Conservatives don't run it over that period.
Edited by Zod on Thursday 23 April 12:59
Guam said:
I am not judging it by MY standards I am judging them by their own standards, CMD set the expectations, and yes they could reduce the debt by sticking to their original commitments, people are banging on about Austerity, seriously what austerity? He switched money from UK spending and pissed it away internationally!
Something the Muppets of labour will continue to do.
The economy is growing not due to the Tories (rather despite them), its growing due to masses of people like me who are growing their businesses against years of difficult conditions.
I am about to hire another employee and take another guy off the dole (my last recruit was unemployed). CMD isn't responsible for any of this job creation no matter how much he and you might like to claim he is.
Indeed if he had reduced taxation (instead of increasing it) I might be hiring another 3 employees as people would have more money to spend.
Thats the economics of the real world not the elitist bubble politicians inhabit!
I'm delighted to hear your business is doing well and growing despite difficult conditions.Something the Muppets of labour will continue to do.
The economy is growing not due to the Tories (rather despite them), its growing due to masses of people like me who are growing their businesses against years of difficult conditions.
I am about to hire another employee and take another guy off the dole (my last recruit was unemployed). CMD isn't responsible for any of this job creation no matter how much he and you might like to claim he is.
Indeed if he had reduced taxation (instead of increasing it) I might be hiring another 3 employees as people would have more money to spend.
Thats the economics of the real world not the elitist bubble politicians inhabit!
However you must admit that business conditions are a factor in business success? Would the conditions have been worse for you under a different administration? I put it to you that the likely answer is yes.
However much we all like to complain the UK is in fantastic economic shape in comparison to most of the world.
Greg66 said:
Guam said:
is ultimately going to implode the economy if someone doesn't bring it under control.
Who of the current candidates is going to bring it under control best, and by what means? I just don't get how those people who are happy to castigate the Tories for not reducing the deficit are the same ones also banging on about the ongoing austerity, swingeing cuts (haven't heard that one for a while now) and the increased tax burden on hard working families.
Just how do they think any government could maintain or increase spending and reduce the tax burden while borrowing less and reducing the deficit at the same time? I reckon I could explain this to my 4 year old and she would quickly figure out it doesn't add up, yet it appears to be an often rolled out argument as to the failure of the Tories in their term in government.
Just how do they think any government could maintain or increase spending and reduce the tax burden while borrowing less and reducing the deficit at the same time? I reckon I could explain this to my 4 year old and she would quickly figure out it doesn't add up, yet it appears to be an often rolled out argument as to the failure of the Tories in their term in government.
Guam said:
Zod said:
ha! A single analyst does not make for a consensus forecast.
Indeed, neither does a commitment to eliminate the deficit in one parliament make for a truthful statement 
Would it have been better with out a coalition? Maybe, probably even. I still don't think it would have been totally wiped out though. As it stands I think no deficit by the end of the next parliament would be reasonable to expect but not if we get Labour/SNP in charge... Just higher tax bills and long-term increases in poverty as investment and mobile wealth exits the UK.
Many here seem to dislike the Tories for not being Tory enough yet would rather see the left gain power. Really odd.
Guam said:
Zod said:
ha! A single analyst does not make for a consensus forecast.
Indeed, neither does a commitment to eliminate the deficit in one parliament make for a truthful statement Zod said:
orrect: they have absolutely no idea.
On the back of this, I am really curious as to how they plan to implement this mansion tax so I downloaded their manifesto and searched the word 'mansion'...3 occurrences.
"We will build up our NHS so that it has time to care, funding 8,000 more GPs,
20,000 more nurses and 3,000 more midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax
on properties worth over £2 million"
"Labour will invest in 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, and 3,000 more
midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax on properties worth over £2 million, a levy
on tobacco firms, and by tackling tax avoidance. The threshold for the Mansion
Tax will rise in line with house prices for these high-value properties, and those
on lower incomes will be protected with a right to defer the charge until the
property changes hands."
So one of their biggest agendas, or at least what I seem to have most of and not even a hint of what they're actually proposing but it's ok, it's all been INDEPENDENTLY verified as confirmed by that t
t above. I hate them. How can people vote for this?
IainT said:
Guam said:
Zod said:
ha! A single analyst does not make for a consensus forecast.
Indeed, neither does a commitment to eliminate the deficit in one parliament make for a truthful statement Would it have been better with out a coalition? Maybe, probably even. I still don't think it would have been totally wiped out though. As it stands I think no deficit by the end of the next parliament would be reasonable to expect but not if we get Labour/SNP in charge... Just higher tax bills and long-term increases in poverty as investment and mobile wealth exits the UK.
Many here seem to dislike the Tories for not being Tory enough yet would rather see the left gain power. Really odd.
I dont know why all the nashing of teeth....all you need to remember before ya puts yer little "x" in the box of cons/labs/libs is that youre voting for a bunch of total rackoffs who will do precisely dick for you and plenty for themselves.
If youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.
If youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.
Guam said:
Zod said:
here seems to be a fantasy in some quarters that a catastrophic five year term under Labour (with or without he SNP) will lead to a right wing revolution in the Tory Party and a new government that will take us out of Europe, pay off all our debt and usher Una. New golden age.
Well considering their latest Neo Marxist strategy with the right to buy stupidity, some of those folk might just have a point!4v6 said:
I dont know why all the nashing of teeth....all you need to remember before ya puts yer little "x" in the box of cons/labs/libs/SNP is that youre voting for a bunch of total rackoffs who will do precisely dick for you and plenty for themselves.
If youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.
EFAIf youre happy to continue with that relationship, then fill yer boots.
Boydie88 said:
On the back of this, I am really curious as to how they plan to implement this mansion tax so I downloaded their manifesto and searched the word 'mansion'...
3 occurrences.
"We will build up our NHS so that it has time to care, funding 8,000 more GPs,
20,000 more nurses and 3,000 more midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax
on properties worth over £2 million"
"Labour will invest in 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, and 3,000 more
midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax on properties worth over £2 million, a levy
on tobacco firms, and by tackling tax avoidance. The threshold for the Mansion
Tax will rise in line with house prices for these high-value properties, and those
on lower incomes will be protected with a right to defer the charge until the
property changes hands."
So one of their biggest agendas, or at least what I seem to have most of and not even a hint of what they're actually proposing but it's ok, it's all been INDEPENDENTLY verified as confirmed by that tt above.
I hate them. How can people vote for this?
And if you search the Conservative manifesto for info on where £12bn of spending cuts will fall, how they will fund the £8bn NHS bonnaza or the great HA housing giveaway, you will find a similar lack of clarity. That sort of detail doesn't win votes.3 occurrences.
"We will build up our NHS so that it has time to care, funding 8,000 more GPs,
20,000 more nurses and 3,000 more midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax
on properties worth over £2 million"
"Labour will invest in 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, and 3,000 more
midwives, paid for by a Mansion Tax on properties worth over £2 million, a levy
on tobacco firms, and by tackling tax avoidance. The threshold for the Mansion
Tax will rise in line with house prices for these high-value properties, and those
on lower incomes will be protected with a right to defer the charge until the
property changes hands."
So one of their biggest agendas, or at least what I seem to have most of and not even a hint of what they're actually proposing but it's ok, it's all been INDEPENDENTLY verified as confirmed by that t
t above. I hate them. How can people vote for this?
As to implementing a mansion tax - plenty of house valuation information around - how much it would be would fluctuate like any other tax, according to how much the Exchequer s short and how hard they can squeeze without unpleasant consequences.
Assuming that no party wins a majority (which looks inevitable if you believe the polls) and Labour have ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP then what is the most likely outcome in your opinion?
1. A minority Labour led Government
2. A minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties
If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?
CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?
Labour / greens / Libdems / Plaid?
1. A minority Labour led Government
2. A minority Tory led Government.
3. A formal coalition of more than 2 parties
If 3. is an option what are the likely outcomes?
CON / UKIP / Libdems / DUP?
Labour / greens / Libdems / Plaid?
Edited by Ecosseven on Thursday 23 April 14:20
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff