General election

[Wintergreen]

Oh before we get going let's dispel some Tory sound bites..

The nations credit card..no such thing..government runs on credit simple as that.

Borrowing against our children's futures..they did that in WW2 and given the strife the world and the banks faced 10 years ago I'd say it's the worst crisis the world faced since the depression.

I'm sure there are others,it drives me absolutely mad that in an age that we live in the people we elect refuse to set out coherent policies and offer meaningless pap in the hope it's enough to appease people.

But the question is HOW MUCH credit do you want to have.

In any case I accept it's difficult to seperate cause and effect from the whole borrowing piece.

More important imo is the principle.

Do you want a party who believes in "small state", lower direct taxes a greater emphasis on allowing business to grow --> Vote Tory.

Do you want a party who believes in a larger state sector, higher direct taxes and more focus on protecint employee rights --> Vote Labour


Of course you also need to look at the leaders.

If you can honestly imagine Corbyn sitting around a table and negotiating, well anything, then go ahead and vote for him!

Frankly he is the Tories biggest asset in this election.

[fozzieskem]

But you always,always have to have credit,yes tons of it in hard times,less of it in better times,the gormless stupid sound bite way of modern politics does my head in.

Not you Wintergreen btw,just these stupid nonsensical sayings.

[thegimble]

Oh before we get going let's dispel some Tory sound bites..

The nations credit card..no such thing..government runs on credit simple as that.

Borrowing against our children's futures..they did that in WW2 and given the strife the world and the banks faced 10 years ago I'd say it's the worst crisis the world faced since the depression.

I'm sure there are others,it drives me absolutely mad that in an age that we live in the people we elect refuse to set out coherent policies and offer meaningless pap in the hope it's enough to appease people.

But the question is HOW MUCH credit do you want to have.

In any case I accept it's difficult to seperate cause and effect from the whole borrowing piece.

More important imo is the principle.

Do you want a party who believes in "small state", lower direct taxes a greater emphasis on allowing business to grow --> Vote Tory.

Do you want a party who believes in a larger state sector, higher direct taxes and more focus on protecint employee rights --> Vote Labour


Of course you also need to look at the leaders.

If you can honestly imagine Corbyn sitting around a table and negotiating, well anything, then go ahead and vote for him!

Frankly he is the Tories biggest asset in this election.

Re tax you sure we pay less. Tory governments have raised vat more than any. Tories give breaks for the higher earners.

[DaveO]

As for the Tories borrowing. Ever thought to ask yourself why? The mess they inherited was purely down to Labour mismanagement.

That is a bare faced lie and demonstrably so. Again you do not have to take my word for it. You can check out the facts. Such as the level of borrowing pre the 2008 crash being nothing out of the ordinary compared to previous Tory governments.

In 2010 the economy was growing at a rate of 2% when the coalition took over. Austerity put paid to that and since then borrowing has shot up under the Tories and the deficit reduction targets get kicked down the road every time they fail to meet them.

Of course Austerity and its failure isn't only about economics. It's also about a deliberate political policy to reduce the size of the state. It is at least as much about Tory ideology as it is economics. Reducing the deficit is the excuse. There are plenty of other ways to reduce expenditure such as rent controls to reduce the massive housing benefit bill, a bill that has gone up massively as a direct result of Tory policy to sell off social housing but that would never do for the Tories.

I'm not saying the Tories are perfect, no party is, but given the alternatives they are the only credible choice imo.

I fail to see how their record equates to them being creditable about anything. Economically they have been an absolute disaster.

I find the statement about "you would be a fool to vote Tory if you are not in the top 1%", inconsistent with the assertion that you vote on principle rather than personal circumstance(which incidentally I also do).

There is nothing inconsistent about it at all. Your Tory principles will make 99% of this country worse off. I suggest you do a bit more delving into what is going on in reality rather than what your principles think should transpire.

A good example would be education. A Tory dominated Parliamentary committee only last week published a report condemning the Free Schools initiative. (Free Schools being the result of Michael Gove's particular ideological bent).

Tax payers money is being flung at these "Free Schools" in areas there is no need for extra school places while at the same time headteachers in state schools are laying off staff and have no money for maintenance as they are denied funds.

Which of your principles does this particular Tory cock up mesh with?

You could respond by saying you don't agree with this policy but even if you do and yet still vote Tory, that is what you are voting to get.

[Wintergreen]

Dave O- I have already posted that it's difficult to seperate cause and effect when it comes to borrowing, so let's park that.


Specifically let me directly address your inconsistency that you deny.


You stated

unless you are in the top 1% of earners in this country you would be a fool to vote Tory.

Clearly that implies a direct correlation between income and voting intention.

You then state

And just for the record I am a lot closer to that 1% than most people in this country and I am still voting Labour because I can see beyond the end of my own personal situation

i.e. you are voting Labour irrespective of your income level

Now either you are contradicting yourself, or you have singled yourself out as "special"

Which is it?

Incidentally I am still waiting on your response to the Diane Abbot thread.

[fozzieskem]

I must admit I would like to see cohearant arguemrent in favour of austerity,it simply has not worked,it has somehow managed to make a bad situation much worse,the poorest of course pay the price,the Tory way of course this goverentment and the coalition before are,frankly the worst I've seen in my lifetime.

[Wiganer Ted]

This collection of politicions are pretty awful.

I also though the last weeks of Callaghan's Govt were particularly dreadful and Major's last year with Tory sleeze was also very poor.

[Wintergreen]

This collection of politicions are pretty awful.

I also though the last weeks of Callaghan's Govt were particularly dreadful and Major's last year with Tory sleeze was also very poor.

Have to agree with you there.

I've seen nothing in May that leads me to believe she will be a "good" PM.

The fact that she is by far the better option out of the other two speaks volumes.

[i'm spartacus]

The poorest don't pay the price though do they. The top 50% of earners pay 90% of everything that goes to the revenue. From 2009 to 2016 the amount of people paying basic rate tax fell by 1.9 million following rises in the non-taxable earnings allowances, and the number of people paying the high rate tax rose by about 1.2 million.

People cite the amount of borrowing as though the amount is the only thing that matters; the fact is that it isn't. There are two factors to consider in respect of any debt, and the second factor is the ability to service it. The borrowing covers the gap between what the government receives in taxation, what it has to spend on the day to day running of the country, and what it has to pay in interest payments on the debt. Austerity aims reduce the gap between what you have, and what you spend. If you can get to a point where you have more income than expenditure, you start clearing the debt rather than just paying the interest.

Gordon Brown as chancellor inherited what was widely accepted to be a golden legacy from the Major administration; an economy that was actually in balance. By 2009, the Labour administration had expanded the public sector, lost control of spending and there was a gap of £170 billion between income and expenditure. No it wasn't the Labour Governments fault that there was a global banking crisis, but it was Labour who expanded the public sector to the point where 44% of the countries workforce, worked either directly, or indirectly for the state, and almost 50% of the entire adult population received half of their income from the state.

If anyone is familiar with the concept of explaining economics through using two cows, the Labour economic model was something like this - You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity

The austerity programme practiced by the conservative government, and the fact that more folk are in work, has increased tax and NI and has reduced that gap to £68 billion. Everyone has to balance their income against their expenditure and set their spending against the ability to service their debts.

Most of those who oppose austerity, appear to want to go back to a bigger public sector. Certainly, every policy put forward by the Corbyn led Labour Party I've seen or heard is advocating that. You can have a big public sector, providing it's paid for with higher taxes and not in the way Blair/Brown implemented it. Employing more public sector workers won't increase tax revenues because it's funded out of tax revenues. Another favourite of theirs is taxing the rich more. Labour have done that in the past, and it forced people offshore to pay their taxes into the coffers of other countries leading to decreased tax revenue, rather than increased revenue. The country needs people with money to create and invest in jobs creating more wealth. Whatever happens, I hope we never have to rely on Abbott to do any hard sums

[SJ]

And so say all of us. Well some of us