Snap General Election?

[anonymous-user]

Silverbullet767 said:

Can't moan about a thing if you don't vote though.

Try telling that to purplemoonlight

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

A recession is part of the normal economic cycle - you need to plan for this unless you think you've abolished boom and bust...

Ol' Winky tried to wriggle out of that one by claiming he only ever said 'no more tory boom and bust' but the record shows he inserted tory as a figleaf after the fact in an interview with Mail columnist Allison Pearson, and did indeed make the outright claim several times.

From one of his pre-Budget reports "we set about establishing a new economic framework to secure long-term economic stability, and put an end to the damaging cycle of boom and bust".

In his last budget as Chancellor Brown said "we will never return to the old boom and bust".

Gotcha Gordo.

Thank goodness he didn't claim the gov't he led 'saved the world'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0

[turbobloke]

ralphrj said:

UK debt interest payments actually peaked in 2011/12 and have fallen since.

For example: Actual UK debt interest payments were £45.1bn in 2015/16 not the estimated £57bn shown on the chart.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the wall too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

I agree with that.
If our tax money is to be spent it should be spent on infrastructure and encouraging investment by companies to grow the economy and produce more employment.
In fairness I would also penalise those corporations and companies that take advantage of their workforce.
Paying minimum wages and zero rate contracts are not the way to go,especially when we taxpayers have to subsidise those practices with a complicated social security system so that companies dividends are supported.
Yes,we have to be competitive,but it is up to the companies and their workforce to increase their productivity.
Then sort out our over complicated social benefit system so that those that can work have to.
Obviously those that are really disadvantaged through bad health and such should be given a helping hand to support themselves with dignity, and I would want the government to reinstate those schemes that offered a job to the handicapped,once again to allow them to restore their sense of dignity and self respect.

Edited by avinalarf on Thursday 27th April 19:28

[mx-6]

sidicks said:

mx-6 said:

Cycles yes, but we're talking about what was a massive recession/depression, the worse since the '30's. The whole financial system was close to collaspe if you remember, Brown rightly spent big money propping up the banks rather than let the whole economy fall over.

The money spent propping up the banks was negligible compared to the debt that was piled on before and after.

A recession is part of the normal economic cycle - you need to plan for this unless you think you've abolished boom and bust...

I agree that there should be a plan for when a recession hits. At the time though many politicians, on the left and right, had become overly optimistic that various financial engineering in the city would hedge against and mitigate most of the downside risks of recession and seemed to believe that such a large bust was impossible. It's all very well blaming Labour and create a party political narrative with the benefit of hindsight, but after the crisis the tax revenue tanked. Would the Conservative's have been running such a big surplus as to avoid the subsequent deficit if they were in power at the time? I'd say that they would have been somewhat more prudent but I expect there would still have been a fairly hefty deficit. They've not exactly opposed or ripped up much of the New Labour reforms of the period.

Personally I accept that more spending under a Labour government is inevitable, and things will be reigned in under a Conservative one, that's a big part of the political cycle. At this moment in the cycle it seems right that we have a fiscally more austere government and it seems many recognise that.

[Robertj21a]

avinalarf said:

sidicks said:

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the wall too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

I agree with that.
If our tax money is to be spent it should be spent on infrastructure and encouraging investment by companies to grow the economy and produce more employment.
In fairness I would also penalise those corporations and companies that take advantage of their workforce.
Paying minimum wages and zero rate contracts are not the way to go,especially when we taxpayers have to subsidise those practices with a complicated social security system so that companies dividends are supported.
Yes,we have to be competitive,but it is up to the companies and their workforce to increase their productivity.
Then sort out our over complicated social benefit system so that those that can work have to.
Obviously those that are really disadvantaged through bad health and such should be given a helping hand to support themselves with dignity, and I would want the government to reinstate those schemes that offered a job to the handicapped,once again to allow them to restore their sense of dignity and self respect.

Edited by avinalarf on Thursday 27th April 19:28

Well said, fully agree with that.

[MiniMan64]

Has anyone kept track of just how much money Corbin has promised to spend yet?

50,000 NHS staff
NHS pay rises
4 x bank holidays
Building more houses
Paying student fees

I'm sure I've missed a few.

[anonymous-user]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone kept track of just how much money Corbin has promised to spend yet?

50,000 NHS staff
NHS pay rises
4 x bank holidays
Building more houses
Paying student fees

I'm sure I've missed a few.

Well to be fair he is going to disband the armed forces which will save a few quid

[avinalarf]

MiniMan64 said:

Has anyone kept track of just how much money Corbin has promised to spend yet?

50,000 NHS staff
NHS pay rises
4 x bank holidays
Building more houses
Paying student fees

I'm sure I've missed a few.

Apart from the 4 bank holidays, which is a nonsense,I might consider the merit in the other promises albeit definitely not with Corbyn overseeing their delivery.

1) 50,000 NHS staff.....only after a complete overhaul of our NHS.
Analyse where savings can be made.
Then look how it can work with the private sector to increase efficiency.
Many of us pay exorbitant private health insurance so I would look how the private sector benefits from the NHS infrastructure and see that the NHS is fairly rewarded for its use.
I am thinking that if the privatised sector could be semi-incorporated into the NHS to create a system where those that were willing to pay for quicker treatment would be encouraged to do so.
By doing so the profits from that "nationalised privatisation" would also benefit those that couldn't afford to pay.
I hear the cries from some,that's not fair a 2 tier system....well that's the nature of a capitalist
system and its better than having a NHS that can never be realistically funded by us the taxpayer.
2)See above ......and /or look into how much we save or lose by using agency staff.
3) Build more houses .....yes.....but don't blooming sell them off at ridiculously discounted prices to their occupants
4)Student fees......abolish yes .....but work with companies and corporations so that the students come out of their studies ready to work in industry or commerce.
If this is done there might be a small levy put on corporations to help pay for the students courses ,for those corporations will benefit by having a pool of suitably trained workers.
Those companies that pay that levy would then recoup it via tax breaks when they employ more staff.
It's time the Great British Public,rich and poor, realised that there are no more free rides and no more extravagant crafty benefits,in the form of tax avoidance schemes,for the well off.
A level transparent playing field for all....work hard increase productivity then all should share equally in the profits.

[NJH]

Those who can afford private healthcare are already encouraged to go that way by ludicrously long NHS waiting times.

[anonymous-user]

NJH said:

Those who can afford private healthcare are already encouraged to go that way by ludicrously long NHS waiting times.

But let's not forget that when you are actually properly sick, your average private cover doesn't cut muster.

[mx-6]

El stovey said:

mx-6 said:

I see he's been saying all sorts today, they should keep him locked in a cupboard until 9th June.

Are people actually getting threatened or challenged to fights in Asda car parks.

I don't mean to derail this excellent thread but that's hilarious. Is it the thread about Stockholm?

I'm not sure I really get the car park and Stockholm references but it sounds amusing.

Whilst May studiously stays on message, tries to say as little new as possible and ride the poll lead, Johnson today has:
Said that the UK could join US attacks on Syria without parliamentary approval
Launched a personal attack on Corbyn calling him a "mutton headed old mugwump" amongst other things.
Reiterated the dubious £350M Bexit bus claims
Had his sister join the Lib Dem's in protest over the Conservative's position on Brexit

Maybe this kind of stuff plays well with the Tory faithful but I don't it'll do them many favours in consolidating centrist voter approval. I don't mind Johnson as a man, he's funny and obviously quite inteligent when he puts his mind to things, I don't rate him as a politician though. May surely must have done a deal with him over the leadership for him to back out of the contest and subsequently land a top cabinet job...

[anonymous-user]

mx-6 said:

El stovey said:

mx-6 said:

I see he's been saying all sorts today, they should keep him locked in a cupboard until 9th June.

Are people actually getting threatened or challenged to fights in Asda car parks.

I don't mean to derail this excellent thread but that's hilarious. Is it the thread about Stockholm?

I'm not sure I really get the car park and Stockholm references but it sounds amusing.

Whilst May studiously stays on message, tries to say as little new as possible and ride the poll lead, Johnson today has:
Said that the UK could join US attacks on Syria without parliamentary approval
Launched a personal attack on Corbyn calling him a "mutton headed old mugwump" amongst other things.
Reiterated the dubious £350M Bexit bus claims
Had his sister join the Lib Dem's in protest over the Conservative's position on Brexit

Maybe this kind of stuff plays well with the Tory faithful but I don't it'll do them many favours in consolidating centrist voter approval. I don't mind Johnson as a man, he's funny and obviously quite inteligent when he puts his mind to things, I don't rate him as a politician though. May surely must have done a deal with him over the leadership for him to back out of the contest and subsequently land a top cabinet job...

sorry I thought you were talking about some bloke on PHs that's been challenging people to fights.

[mx-6]

[amusingduck]

El stovey said:

mx-6 said:

I see he's been saying all sorts today, they should keep him locked in a cupboard until 9th June.

Are people actually getting threatened or challenged to fights in Asda car parks.

I don't mean to derail this excellent thread but that's hilarious. Is it the thread about Stockholm?

Mental, isn't it?

This is pistonheads, it should be a Waitrose car park for fks sake!

[MarshPhantom]

bmw535i said:

Well to be fair he is going to disband the armed forces which will save a few quid

Could you post a link to this story please.

[98elise]

avinalarf said:

sidicks said:

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the wall too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

I agree with that.
If our tax money is to be spent it should be spent on infrastructure and encouraging investment by companies to grow the economy and produce more employment.
In fairness I would also penalise those corporations and companies that take advantage of their workforce.
Paying minimum wages and zero rate contracts are not the way to go,especially when we taxpayers have to subsidise those practices with a complicated social security system so that companies dividends are supported.
Yes,we have to be competitive,but it is up to the companies and their workforce to increase their productivity.
Then sort out our over complicated social benefit system so that those that can work have to.
Obviously those that are really disadvantaged through bad health and such should be given a helping hand to support themselves with dignity, and I would want the government to reinstate those schemes that offered a job to the handicapped,once again to allow them to restore their sense of dignity and self respect.

Edited by avinalarf on Thursday 27th April 19:28

Yet empirical evidence says the majority of zero hours contract workers are happy with their hours and their terms. My wife and I are both on ZHC (at each end of the spectrum) and neither of us would want to change to full time employment.

Politicians should stop using ZHC as a political football. Deal with exploitation buy all means, but don't mess about with ZHC just because the term makes is sound bad.

[avinalarf]

98elise said:

Yet empirical evidence says the majority of zero hours contract workers are happy with their hours and their terms. My wife and I are both on ZHC (at each end of the spectrum) and neither of us would want to change to full time employment.

Politicians should stop using ZHC as a political football. Deal with exploitation buy all means, but don't mess about with ZHC just because the term makes is sound bad.

If a ZHC suits an employee that's fine.
Surely it would be possible for it to be an opt in system and not one which an employer can impose on an employee.
For the majority on low wages it is virtually impossible to plan a life when on a ZHC.
A flexible workforce can be a benefit to both employer and employee but in some large companies the majority of the workforce is on a ZHC whether they like it or not.

[herewego]

NJH said:

Those who can afford private healthcare are already encouraged to go that way by ludicrously long NHS waiting times.

While we are still in the EU we can still go to any other country for an operation as far as I know at NHS expense.

[Shakermaker]

avinalarf said:

If a ZHC suits an employee that's fine.
Surely it would be possible for it to be an opt in system and not one which an employer can impose on an employee.
For the majority on low wages it is virtually impossible to plan a life when on a ZHC.
A flexible workforce can be a benefit to both employer and employee but in some large companies the majority of the workforce is on a ZHC whether they like it or not.

It is already an opt in system
You apply for a job, and in the job advert, or at some stage during the process before you agree to start working for the company, you will then know what you are expected to work, what hours you will be paid, and what you will be guaranteed to be paid. If that is a ZHC you will know it before you start working there.

Exploitation is where some companies ONLY employ on ZHCs where in fact, there is probably enough knowledge to let them properly plan staff on a guaranteed minimum number of hours but then go ahead and only give them a short amount of notice of when they are needed, and then they get "blacklisted" if they start refusing shifts at short notice, as have been the allegations made against Sports Direct.