Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:42 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Labour position is to borrow more to fund spending on welfare and public services. The levels of borrowing are significant, that debt has to be funded somehow - you do the maths it isn't difficult even for you.

At no point have Labour even hinted at borrowing more to fund welfare and social services. They have said they are not averse to borrowing for capital expenditure, such as house-building etc

Sal Paradise wrote:

The Tories have had to borrow to fund the deficit they inherited - and that has cost us all, increased VAT for a start. Do you seriously believe Labour will be able to borrow these billions without anybody being worse off?

The tories have borrowed to fund the shortfall in tax-take and to pay for increased spend on welfare, in the form of housing benefit and tax credits

Sal Paradise wrote:

I personally don't like Cameron but I dislike him less than Miliband and Brown's merry band of hatchet men/women. I can't see a situation whereby Cameron can stay in charge so Labour will have to do deal with the SNP and that is where the problems will start. Salmon will want some influence and a heap of money - you reap what you sew.

Alex Salmond's potential influence is being blown out of all proportion by the right-wing press. Typical scaremongering.

On the subject of national debt. This country has ALWAYS been in debt, often at considerably higher rates than than we have seen since 2008. We usually inflate our way out of debt but you can only do that with a growing economy. To grown the economy you require stimulus, a national programme of housebuilding would provide that stimulus, in the same way that it did post-WW2.

Jeremy Hardy gave one of the best analogies I've heard on the deficit: "Would you stop feeding your children, simply to pay your mortgage down quicker?"

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:27 am  

cod'ead wrote:

At no point have Labour even hinted at borrowing more to fund welfare and social services. They have said they are not averse to borrowing for capital expenditure, such as house-building etc

The tories have borrowed to fund the shortfall in tax-take and to pay for increased spend on welfare, in the form of housing benefit and tax credits

Alex Salmond's potential influence is being blown out of all proportion by the right-wing press. Typical scaremongering.

On the subject of national debt. This country has ALWAYS been in debt, often at considerably higher rates than than we have seen since 2008. We usually inflate our way out of debt but you can only do that with a growing economy. To grown the economy you require stimulus, a national programme of housebuilding would provide that stimulus, in the same way that it did post-WW2.

Jeremy Hardy gave one of the best analogies I've heard on the deficit: "Would you stop feeding your children, simply to pay your mortgage down quicker?"

What has happened with successive Labour governments including the one that the two Ed's and Yvette were major players in? The size of the state grows - the are already saying more money needs putting into the NHS and education etc. where is that going to come from if it isn't borrowing/taxation?

To grow the economy you need the private sector to keep growing something Labour seems at odds with - increasing corporation tax seems a strange way of encouraging firms to grow profitability. Increase taxes on the wealthy yes definitely needs doing actually collecting the proper taxes from companies again yes. Make sure government contracts are only awarded to companies who pay the correct amount of CT

I am not sure Keynesian economics is what is needed here - is building future slums in the form of cheap public housing the rent for which is predominantly going to funded out of welfare is the right way forward? If it is - bigger infrastructure projects - not just in London, better public transport, improved roads better school facilities etc.

I am not convinced we have a housing shortage - we have an inability of youngsters to get on the property ladder - I know you consider ownership to be a negative - but to most ownership is aspirational and should be encouraged IMO. There needs to be a solution to unlocking the deposit issue, the ISA is not the answer.

On Salmond - he will hold the balance of power, time will tell how he uses his influence. The issues around the referendum still fester and he looks to me a man who is looking for a pay back.

On the cuts the Tories have instigated in local government, whilst most don't see it as a positive most will accept that it has forced them to be more creative and more agile with the funds at their disposal. I pleasant change from the flabby, inefficient councils we all have suffered for generations.

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:36 am  

Leaguefan wrote:

Can I make things clear and concise?

If you are employed by someone else and you vote Tory you are out of your mind, you are illogical, you are being ripped off and conned, in fact lets make it even simpler YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Now go vote for whom you "think" will be better for YOU.

You're not far off there. My last job was at a company where the MDs were lifelong Conservative voters. I was there 5 years and had a total of zero pay rises along with the rest of my colleagues. When we all asked about pay rises we were told there was no money and were often referred to look at the state of the nation's economy. A few fell for it and when the new machinery started arriving they were the ones who fell for the old 'speculate to accumulate' lines they were fed too. The only accumulating going on there was at the top. It wasn't until the new sports cars started rolling in that the blinkered few realised there was actually money, and plenty of it. Even so, they're the ones who are still there on the same money they were on 10 years ago, unhappy and moaning everyday, the rest of us have gone and left them to it.

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:10 am  

cod'ead wrote:

You must live in a strange world if you think that:

Giving Local Health Boards the freedom to commission services for local people from a range of different types of provider

Is a mandate for privatisation

Ah, so all these different types of provider are charities simply giving away healthcare. Bless. It's quite sad to see you scrabbling around trying to to come up with anything that'll try and make it seem you didn't vote to sell off the NHS to the Tories and their chums. Spineless and hypocritical, quite the combination.

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:21 am  

Well, where to start?

Sal Paradise wrote:

What has happened with successive Labour governments including the one that the two Ed's and Yvette were major players in? The size of the state grows - the are already saying more money needs putting into the NHS and education etc. where is that going to come from if it isn't borrowing/taxation?

The state grew during 1997-2008 simply because the previous tory administration had decimated the NHS and education to the point of near collapse. Patients on trollies in corridors, children educated in leaking "temporary" classrooms. Labour inherited that and something needed to be done to redress the problems.

Sal Paradise wrote:

To grow the economy you need the private sector to keep growing something Labour seems at odds with - increasing corporation tax seems a strange way of encouraging firms to grow profitability. Increase taxes on the wealthy yes definitely needs doing actually collecting the proper taxes from companies again yes. Make sure government contracts are only awarded to companies who pay the correct amount of CT

Labour is not anti-business, it is however pro-business paying its share and making a fair contribution to the state costs of infrastructure. The US has a rate of corporation tax almost double ours and yet they still seem to allow companies to emerge and thrive.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I am not sure Keynesian economics is what is needed here - is building future slums in the form of cheap public housing the rent for which is predominantly going to funded out of welfare is the right way forward? If it is - bigger infrastructure projects - not just in London, better public transport, improved roads better school facilities etc.

"Building future slums"?

In 1953 my parents and I moved from a back bedroom in my grandmother's house, into a newly built, 2 bedroomed terrace house on a brand new estate, built on the outskirts of Hull. Built on land that had previoulsy been agricultural, so acquired for a song. The estate was a mix of 2,3 & 4 bedroomed houses, 2 pubs, 2 parades of shops with 1 & 2 bedroomed flats above. A fair amount of "pensioner bungalows", an "old folks home", a coupleof six-bedroomed homes for foster families and two doctors' surgeries (actually two 2 bedroom houses). The original tenants were spread across a wide range of careers: manual workers, office workers, managers, shop-owners - even the doctors originally lived in coucil houses on the estate. There was no shame in renting and nor should there be.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I am not convinced we have a housing shortage - we have an inability of youngsters to get on the property ladder - I know you consider ownership to be a negative - but to most ownership is aspirational and should be encouraged IMO. There needs to be a solution to unlocking the deposit issue, the ISA is not the answer.

You must be the only person in the country who isn't

Sal Paradise wrote:

On Salmond - he will hold the balance of power, time will tell how he uses his influence. The issues around the referendum still fester and he looks to me a man who is looking for a pay back.

Salmond will hold less power than Clegg. The main bitterness following the referendum has centered around Cameron's cynical attempt to make the result work to the Tory party, rather than the UK's benefit.

Sal Paradise wrote:

On the cuts the Tories have instigated in local government, whilst most don't see it as a positive most will accept that it has forced them to be more creative and more agile with the funds at their disposal. I pleasant change from the flabby, inefficient councils we all have suffered for generations.

Cuts in the local authority social funds have directly led to problems in the NHS, hence the bed-blocking we see currently

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Labour is not anti-business, it is however pro-business paying its share and making a fair contribution to the state costs of infrastructure.

Utterly. Utterly. Priceless. Vodaphone/Starbucks are the proof that'll you'll believe utterly anything that you read in the Guardian or Morning Star. Mug.

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:41 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

Utterly. Utterly. Priceless. Vodaphone/Starbucks are the proof that'll you'll believe utterly anything that you read in the Guardian or Morning Star. Mug.

Just what is that garbage supposed to relate to?

Care to expand?

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Just what is that garbage supposed to relate to?

Care to expand?

The Morning Star and Guardian? They're left wing rags which are lapped up by the terminally stupid.

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:28 pm  

BobbyD wrote:

The Morning Star and Guardian? They're left wing rags which are lapped up by the terminally stupid.

No, the Vodaphone/Starbucks reference, or do you believe that they do actually pay a fair and proportionate rate of tax?

Re: The General Election Thread : Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:13 pm  

The Tories are really pulling out all the stops now and the levels they will stoop to are simply jaw dropping.

The sight of Samantha Cameron giving an exclusive to the Mail on Sunday, about the death of her and her husband's disabled son, really shows the depths that they will sink to in order to try and garner some type of public sympathy for them and their vile, heartless party.