General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 136 of 450 < 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 >

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 9.32am
Originally posted by nickgusset Just leaving this here to dispel myths about labour borrowing and debt repayment. [Link] Thanks for this Nick. Sadly the facts are often forgotten in today's post-truth society where soundbites win the day. This data is totally unsurprising. It should be noted that the sources are all credible and the author is the man who has written more works about taxation than anyone else, by a long way. He knows his stuff.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 9.32am

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by nickgusset

Just leaving this here to dispel myths about labour borrowing and debt repayment.

[Link]

Thanks for this Nick. Sadly the facts are often forgotten in today's post-truth society where soundbites win the day.

This data is totally unsurprising.

It should be noted that the sources are all credible and the author is the man who has written more works about taxation than anyone else, by a long way. He knows his stuff.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 9.43am
Originally posted by dannyh [Link] More than 10% cut for nurses predicted. [Link] Fall bellow 2004-05 levels predicted for public sector given stated government policy. You say "liberal wet dream". That view is utterly absurd and one not recognised in most other OECD countries. See post from a Norwegian journalist. As to the assertion that the plans are affordable, given the current dynamics in our economy with monetary policy maxed out and QE being only used to support asset prices, there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in fiscal policy and expansionary fiscal policy is just that - expansionary. It will create growth and boost productivity. We've already seen on this thread that Labour have a significantly better record since the war on public debt and repaying debt. The idea that the Tories are trustworthy when it comes to the economy is a myth I find incredible that anyone with two brain cells believes. Attachment: Norway.jpg (81.09Kb)
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 9.43am

Originally posted by dannyh

[Link]

More than 10% cut for nurses predicted.

[Link]

Fall bellow 2004-05 levels predicted for public sector given stated government policy.

You say "liberal wet dream". That view is utterly absurd and one not recognised in most other OECD countries. See post from a Norwegian journalist. As to the assertion that the plans are affordable, given the current dynamics in our economy with monetary policy maxed out and QE being only used to support asset prices, there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in fiscal policy and expansionary fiscal policy is just that - expansionary. It will create growth and boost productivity. We've already seen on this thread that Labour have a significantly better record since the war on public debt and repaying debt. The idea that the Tories are trustworthy when it comes to the economy is a myth I find incredible that anyone with two brain cells believes.

Attachment: Norway.jpg (81.09Kb)

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 11 May 17 10.51am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle It would also help if they'd bothered to build any suitable housing for these people to move into that isn't hundreds of miles away. The lack of stock is the main problem, which makes the bedroom tax unwieldy and ultimately unfair. I agree, but that is a bit of a Catch 22 situation - bedroom tax should help to free up larger properties for those that really need them, but can only work if there is a supply of smaller properties for them to move into
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 11 May 17 10.51am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

It would also help if they'd bothered to build any suitable housing for these people to move into that isn't hundreds of miles away. The lack of stock is the main problem, which makes the bedroom tax unwieldy and ultimately unfair.

I agree, but that is a bit of a Catch 22 situation - bedroom tax should help to free up larger properties for those that really need them, but can only work if there is a supply of smaller properties for them to move into

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 11 May 17 10.59am
Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link] It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them. There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful) EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 11 May 17 10.59am

Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link]

It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them.

There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful)

EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott

Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 11 May 17 11.19am
Originally posted by npn Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link] It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them. There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful) EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am) If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose. But there isn't, so there's this dilemma: Do you vote for someone that isn't promising the earth on the basis that their policies might seem more feasible or Do you vote for someone promising lots of brilliant things that, let's face it, we all want no matter what our political leanings BUT with a voice in the back of your mind telling you that the manifesto is unlikely to be deliverable? I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

11 May 17 11.19am

Send a Private Message to Part Time James

Originally posted by npn

Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link]

There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful)

EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott

Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)

If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose.

But there isn't, so there's this dilemma:

Do you vote for someone that isn't promising the earth on the basis that their policies might seem more feasible or
Do you vote for someone promising lots of brilliant things that, let's face it, we all want no matter what our political leanings BUT with a voice in the back of your mind telling you that the manifesto is unlikely to be deliverable?

I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 11 May 17 11.21am
Originally posted by npn Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link] It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them. There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful) EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am) I agree with you. I'm not against renationalising the Utilities and perhaps the Railways. The problem of course is that nationalised industries are usually run so inefficiently and wastefully. But in principle these services should be under state control. Other problems with Labour are their dippy views on defence and immigration. Also agree that the calibre of the Cabinet would be very poor as the more capable Labours MPs would not serve. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 11 May 17 11.21am

Originally posted by npn

Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link]

There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful)

EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott

Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)

I agree with you. I'm not against renationalising the Utilities and perhaps the Railways. The problem of course is that nationalised industries are usually run so inefficiently and wastefully. But in principle these services should be under state control. Other problems with Labour are their dippy views on defence and immigration. Also agree that the calibre of the Cabinet would be very poor as the more capable Labours MPs would not serve.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 11 May 17 11.25am
Originally posted by Part Time James If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose. But there isn't, so there's this dilemma: Do you vote for someone that isn't promising the earth on the basis that their policies might seem more feasible or Do you vote for someone promising lots of brilliant things that, let's face it, we all want no matter what our political leanings BUT with a voice in the back of your mind telling you that the manifesto is unlikely to be deliverable? I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower. I've long believed that manifestos should be legally binding in some way. There is absolutely nothing to prevent any party promising whatever the hell they fancy to get in, with no realistic expectation of an ability to deliver it. I just hope this fully costed Labour one hasn't been costed by Abbott - "and we'll give eleventy-twenty to the police, and an extra twelvety-four to social care"
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 11 May 17 11.25am

Originally posted by Part Time James

If there was an unlimited pot of gold then all of the parties could promise the earth and it'd be difficult to choose.

But there isn't, so there's this dilemma:

I'm not an economist, so I can't say that they've definitely got it wrong, but my confidence in the "good guys" was low to begin with and is getting increasingly lower.

I've long believed that manifestos should be legally binding in some way. There is absolutely nothing to prevent any party promising whatever the hell they fancy to get in, with no realistic expectation of an ability to deliver it. I just hope this fully costed Labour one hasn't been costed by Abbott - "and we'll give eleventy-twenty to the police, and an extra twelvety-four to social care"

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 11 May 17 11.27am
Originally posted by Willo One can have all the so called "Popular" policies about : Extra this, more money for that, no fees for that, less of this, nationalise that blah,blah, blah. At the end of the day lavish spending sprees have to be paid for - unless you have a strong economy all these promises simply cannot be met.Labour are NOT trusted on the economy at all and their policies would bankrupt this country.The electorate are NOT stupid. They have a choice between a strong and stable Government under May or a coalition of chaos under Corbyn and his comrades. This is my final post on this thread as it will surely evolve into one where I feel duty-bound to respond to the Anti-Tory rhetoric and the debate will only evolve into yet another tedious WILLO thread full of acrimony. No more from me ! What has been strong and stable about this Tory government exactly? They way they handled the referendum? The way they've approached Brexit negotiations? Increased national debt whilst still cutting services left, right and centre? The NHS in crisis with Jeremy Hunt and his nonsense? Schools having to write to parents asking for money? Yeah, real strong and stable. The leaked list of pledges might be unachievable, but it's a start. I can't really see how any one could actually disagree with the idea of them? People laugh at railways, but the East Coast line was a massive success under government control, before then being handed back to a private firm to make money. Southern rail? You think that's good? I'd rather a government aimed for things like this, rather than just deciding it's too hard and just sticking to screwing over the ordinary people they claim to be fighting for. If a Labour government was able to achieve just one of those goals, it would be a massive success in my opinion. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 11 May 17 11.27am

Originally posted by Willo

One can have all the so called "Popular" policies about : Extra this, more money for that, no fees for that, less of this, nationalise that blah,blah, blah. At the end of the day lavish spending sprees have to be paid for - unless you have a strong economy all these promises simply cannot be met.Labour are NOT trusted on the economy at all and their policies would bankrupt this country.The electorate are NOT stupid. They have a choice between a strong and stable Government under May or a coalition of chaos under Corbyn and his comrades.

This is my final post on this thread as it will surely evolve into one where I feel duty-bound to respond to the Anti-Tory rhetoric and the debate will only evolve into yet another tedious WILLO thread full of acrimony.

No more from me !

What has been strong and stable about this Tory government exactly?

They way they handled the referendum? The way they've approached Brexit negotiations? Increased national debt whilst still cutting services left, right and centre?

The NHS in crisis with Jeremy Hunt and his nonsense? Schools having to write to parents asking for money?

Yeah, real strong and stable.

The leaked list of pledges might be unachievable, but it's a start. I can't really see how any one could actually disagree with the idea of them? People laugh at railways, but the East Coast line was a massive success under government control, before then being handed back to a private firm to make money. Southern rail? You think that's good?

I'd rather a government aimed for things like this, rather than just deciding it's too hard and just sticking to screwing over the ordinary people they claim to be fighting for.

If a Labour government was able to achieve just one of those goals, it would be a massive success in my opinion.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 11.28am
Originally posted by npn Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link] It's hard to find more than one or two I disagree with, the problem, as ever, is that it's all about increased spending, with very limited details of where the money would come from, aside from the "claim the manifesto commitments are "fully costed" with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue stream" - I just don't trust them. There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful) EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am) Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block.. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 11.28am

Originally posted by npn

Just read the 'leaked' Labour manifesto highlights on the BBC - [Link]

There is also the question of renationalisation - just renationalising the railway doesn't mean it will get better (I first started commuting under British Rail, and it was dreadful)

EDIT: Obviously, I couldn't vote for a country led by a cabinet including Diane Abbott

Edited by npn (11 May 2017 11.00am)

Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block..

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 11 May 17 11.32am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I agree with you. I'm not against renationalising the Utilities and perhaps the Railways. The problem of course is that nationalised industries are usually run so inefficiently and wastefully. But in principle these services should be under state control. Other problems with Labour are their dippy views on defence and immigration. Also agree that the calibre of the Cabinet would be very poor as the more capable Labours MPs would not serve. Just heard James o Brien for a few minutes on LBC prove the contrary. It's British nationalised industries that have been (past tense) run inefficiently. Some European ones are run efficiently, and some we've hired. Edited by Rudi Hedman (11 May 2017 11.48am) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 11 May 17 11.32am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Just heard James o Brien for a few minutes on LBC prove the contrary. It's British nationalised industries that have been (past tense) run inefficiently. Some European ones are run efficiently, and some we've hired.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (11 May 2017 11.48am)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 11 May 17 11.33am
Originally posted by Lyons550 Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block.. .... Funding so many of them so close together. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 11 May 17 11.33am

Originally posted by Lyons550

Agree...some of the ideas they come up with are great...it's just the funding that's always the stumbling block..

.... Funding so many of them so close together.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 11 May 17 11.40am
Originally posted by npn I've long believed that manifestos should be legally binding in some way. There is absolutely nothing to prevent any party promising whatever the hell they fancy to get in, with no realistic expectation of an ability to deliver it. I just hope this fully costed Labour one hasn't been costed by Abbott - "and we'll give eleventy-twenty to the police, and an extra twelvety-four to social care" I suppose in many ways politicians are more honest than we usually make out. None of them have promised free drugs and hookers for example (or insert something that would appeal to lots of people). The legally binding suggestion does resonate (whilst I appreciate it's not very feasible or likely). I wonder if it'd make policies even more vague though so that they couldn't be held so accountable. Perhaps turn the government into a franchise with service level targets. Failure to meet their key objectives demotes them!
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

11 May 17 11.40am

Originally posted by npn

I suppose in many ways politicians are more honest than we usually make out. None of them have promised free drugs and hookers for example (or insert something that would appeal to lots of people).

The legally binding suggestion does resonate (whilst I appreciate it's not very feasible or likely). I wonder if it'd make policies even more vague though so that they couldn't be held so accountable.

Perhaps turn the government into a franchise with service level targets. Failure to meet their key objectives demotes them!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 136 of 450 < 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors