This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Hansy 19 May 17 1.43pm | |
---|---|
Conservatives, increasing the Tax allowance by 2020, bringing immigration down; Smaller increase to the NHS. Labour, largest spending for the NHS and Education; nationalise the Railways and Energy sectors. Lib Dems, 1p tax increase ring fenced for the NHS; Second referendum on Brexit. It is quite an interesting read for all three in all honesty. Conservatives very much positioning themselves as the party to guide us through the Brexit process, which will bring on those that voted in favour of UKIP in 2015. Labour targeting the young, whilst giving themselves the ‘Soft Brexit’ identity. And Lib Dems targeting anyone that voted against Brexit, by giving them another vote. The above points from their manifesto, I did not want to mention any negative points. Conservatives have been labelled the ‘Hard Brexit’ party by all others mainly because they won’t confirm they will go for Single Market access and advising ‘No deal is better than a bad one’. They have a white paper in negotiations, this should be seen as a plus in my view. You cannot go into negotiations with points on our side already confirmed, the example being guaranteeing EU rights in the UK; yet the EU haven’t confirmed the right for the UK citizens living in the EU. In my opinion the Tories (I have been a Labour voter all my life in Streatham, having been blessed with an MP such as Chuka Umunna) are the best party to negotiate our deal. If we gain no deal, WTO guidelines advise that 1/3 of our exported products will continue to be Tariff free, with the Car exporting industry the highest % increase being 10%; As we know though Theresa May is coming to an agreement with the Car industry already in the UK. I live in Carshalton now, which has been a vastly Lib Dem area, but having voted in favour of Brexit; this could easily swing to being a Tory constituency. Labour have promised a lot of things this time round. Huge boosts to the NHS and Education, whilst nationalising Railway and Energy companies. The NHS and Education I totally believe in, and something that should be in the forefront of every manifesto. The NHS and Education I believe are the backbone of our country, investing in the kids to get a good education and do well for themselves in the future, whilst guaranteeing lower wait times and medical attention. Nationalising the Railway and Energy companies, would be nice to see. Mainly to get it back in the hands of the Government having complete power over them. The big question, I will repeat the BIG question is how Labour will be able to fund all of these large spends? Increasing the tax rates for those earning above £80k and Corporation Tax will not be able to cover everything, this will mean the UK will need to borrow and take a hit on the Debt. One thing Labour believe in is the best way of getting out of trouble within the economy is to grow it, contrast to what the Tories believe in which is cutting spending. But with over 170 Labour MPs passing a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn JUST LAST YEAR, how can he be the best man for the job and why do they now suddenly support him? Lib Dems utterly believe the Tories will win, and want to use this election just to gain some of the seats they lost in 2015. It’s a good strategy, but still a doomed one. They were hit the hardest from the coalition, which they can thank Nick Clegg for. Promises broken, power grabbing confirmed you have to feel sorry for those that have voted for the Lib Dems all their life. I saw nickgusset’s comment regarding National Debt being the highest within a Tory government. That is true, but the reason why it is the highest was due to Labour’s mismanagement of the Country’s deficit leading up to 2010. Labour believe in spending and growing their way out of trouble, as I mentioned previously. With their manifesto, that cannot work. The Tories proved that they can cut spending, whilst keeping the economy growing. The reason why the overall debt increased in 2008-2012, was due to the funding the Government had to give during the financial crisis and the repercussions after. The below link shows how Labour and the Tories managed the deficit.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 19 May 17 2.02pm | |
---|---|
Conservative manifesto: Lack of costings leave blanks to be filled in. Tories are managers of the economy so why just not put it all on the slate like the last 7 years........
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 19 May 17 2.19pm | |
---|---|
Poor old SKY what a shame. I suppose it means we have less cr@p to watch in regard to the upcoming election.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 2.42pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hansy
Conservatives, increasing the Tax allowance by 2020, bringing immigration down; Smaller increase to the NHS. Labour, largest spending for the NHS and Education; nationalise the Railways and Energy sectors. Lib Dems, 1p tax increase ring fenced for the NHS; Second referendum on Brexit. It is quite an interesting read for all three in all honesty. Conservatives very much positioning themselves as the party to guide us through the Brexit process, which will bring on those that voted in favour of UKIP in 2015. Labour targeting the young, whilst giving themselves the ‘Soft Brexit’ identity. And Lib Dems targeting anyone that voted against Brexit, by giving them another vote. The above points from their manifesto, I did not want to mention any negative points. Conservatives have been labelled the ‘Hard Brexit’ party by all others mainly because they won’t confirm they will go for Single Market access and advising ‘No deal is better than a bad one’. They have a white paper in negotiations, this should be seen as a plus in my view. You cannot go into negotiations with points on our side already confirmed, the example being guaranteeing EU rights in the UK; yet the EU haven’t confirmed the right for the UK citizens living in the EU. In my opinion the Tories (I have been a Labour voter all my life in Streatham, having been blessed with an MP such as Chuka Umunna) are the best party to negotiate our deal. If we gain no deal, WTO guidelines advise that 1/3 of our exported products will continue to be Tariff free, with the Car exporting industry the highest % increase being 10%; As we know though Theresa May is coming to an agreement with the Car industry already in the UK. I live in Carshalton now, which has been a vastly Lib Dem area, but having voted in favour of Brexit; this could easily swing to being a Tory constituency. Labour have promised a lot of things this time round. Huge boosts to the NHS and Education, whilst nationalising Railway and Energy companies. The NHS and Education I totally believe in, and something that should be in the forefront of every manifesto. The NHS and Education I believe are the backbone of our country, investing in the kids to get a good education and do well for themselves in the future, whilst guaranteeing lower wait times and medical attention. Nationalising the Railway and Energy companies, would be nice to see. Mainly to get it back in the hands of the Government having complete power over them. The big question, I will repeat the BIG question is how Labour will be able to fund all of these large spends? Increasing the tax rates for those earning above £80k and Corporation Tax will not be able to cover everything, this will mean the UK will need to borrow and take a hit on the Debt. One thing Labour believe in is the best way of getting out of trouble within the economy is to grow it, contrast to what the Tories believe in which is cutting spending. But with over 170 Labour MPs passing a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn JUST LAST YEAR, how can he be the best man for the job and why do they now suddenly support him? Lib Dems utterly believe the Tories will win, and want to use this election just to gain some of the seats they lost in 2015. It’s a good strategy, but still a doomed one. They were hit the hardest from the coalition, which they can thank Nick Clegg for. Promises broken, power grabbing confirmed you have to feel sorry for those that have voted for the Lib Dems all their life. I saw nickgusset’s comment regarding National Debt being the highest within a Tory government. That is true, but the reason why it is the highest was due to Labour’s mismanagement of the Country’s deficit leading up to 2010. Labour believe in spending and growing their way out of trouble, as I mentioned previously. With their manifesto, that cannot work. The Tories proved that they can cut spending, whilst keeping the economy growing. The reason why the overall debt increased in 2008-2012, was due to the funding the Government had to give during the financial crisis and the repercussions after. The below link shows how Labour and the Tories managed the deficit. Nick's post was actually an article showing Tories have borrowed more on average over the last 70 years not just in the last parliament. Also the debt growth in the past 8 years was first and foremost due to the GFC rather than fiscal mismanagement. It's continued to grow due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and damaging austerity. Using austerity in an economic depression only worsens the situation. The Tories cuts made it worse not better. The deficit has only gone back to pre-GFC levels this year and that's mainly due to increases in consumer spending funded by short term credit. Instead of cheap government borrowing and investment our economy has been built on costly and precarious private consumer credit. On what do you base your assertions that fiscal stimulus in the shape of Labour's manifesto can't work? Genuinely interested. Debt is very cheap and People's QE also an option.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 2.46pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
I think we mostly agree really, but I think any additional state intervention should be scrutinised very closely as it often does more harm than good. Also, all price caps, wage caps, interest rate fixing etc is all nonsense that distorts the market place - the very mechanism by which true rates would be arrived at. Edited by hedgehog50 (19 May 2017 12.40pm) This is an illegal act rather than government policy. Financial markets and most markets in fact are inefficient and imperfect. Financial markets are extremely imperfect due to asymmetries of information, collusion and high barriers to entry.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 19 May 17 2.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hansy
Lib Dems utterly believe the Tories will win, and want to use this election just to gain some of the seats they lost in 2015. It’s a good strategy, but still a doomed one. They were hit the hardest from the coalition, which they can thank Nick Clegg for. Promises broken, power grabbing confirmed you have to feel sorry for those that have voted for the Lib Dems all their life. The university fees did undoubtedly bite them on the bum. However that aside, I am not sure that their current position on Europe is doing them any favours. That with Farron being Farron, means that they're not getting the bounce you'd perhaps expect. You will still get people like me vote for them because of the local MP rather than any strategic benefit
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
hedgehog50 Croydon 19 May 17 2.58pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
This is an illegal act rather than government policy. Financial markets and most markets in fact are inefficient and imperfect. Financial markets are extremely imperfect due to asymmetries of information, collusion and high barriers to entry. Of course markets are not perfect and totally efficient - but they are more efficient and less imperfect than government 'planning'. Edited by hedgehog50 (19 May 2017 2.59pm)
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 |
Hansy 19 May 17 3.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle On what do you base your assertions that fiscal stimulus in the shape of Labour's manifesto can't work? Genuinely interested. Debt is very cheap and People's QE also an option.
You can't put a value on the Railway or Energy companies as of yet, but include the additional NHS and Education funding, you are looking close to £100bn lets say. That is 1/7th of the UK's total direct revenue. How can this work, whilst attempting to bring the National Debt and Deficit down? Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Nick's post was actually an article showing Tories have borrowed more on average over the last 70 years not just in the last parliament.
That is true, by a large margin. But they have also dropped the deficit considerably from over 100bn at the end of the last Labour government to around 17bn at present. In which there has been a 20% swing against the Tory government in National Debt. Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Also the debt growth in the past 8 years was first and foremost due to the GFC rather than fiscal mismanagement. It's continued to grow due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and damaging austerity. Using austerity in an economic depression only worsens the situation. The Tories cuts made it worse not better. The deficit has only gone back to pre-GFC levels this year and that's mainly due to increases in consumer spending funded by short term credit. Instead of cheap government borrowing and investment our economy has been built on costly and precarious private consumer credit.
I did mention in that paragraph that the GFC was a factor in the increased National Debt. But can someone like Corbyn who has had to constantly change his Shadow cabinet and attempt to please his labour peers, please everyone for a whole term? He was only the Labour leader for a year before 3/4 of his own party turned on him. If someone like Chuka was more involved I would be more inclined to believe they could do a better job.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 3.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Of course markets are not perfect and totally efficient - but they are more efficient and less imperfect than government 'planning'. Edited by hedgehog50 (19 May 2017 2.59pm) On what do you base this? In my opinion it is the role of government to intervene in markets where inefficiencies exist to prevent market abuse and improve the outcome of those markets. I don't think anyone on here has yet advocated a "planned" economy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
CambridgeEagle Sydenham 19 May 17 3.44pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hansy
I did mention in that paragraph that the GFC was a factor in the increased National Debt. But can someone like Corbyn who has had to constantly change his Shadow cabinet and attempt to please his labour peers, please everyone for a whole term? He was only the Labour leader for a year before 3/4 of his own party turned on him. If someone like Chuka was more involved I would be more inclined to believe they could do a better job. I agree that the Labour party only really stands a chance if they work together and utilise the real talent in their ranks. You can only hope that they will do from June 9th onward whether they win or not. I do think that their manifesto is ambitious but a lot of it is achievable, and indeed probably all of it is, but not over a 5 year parliament, more like 15 years. But that's fine by me. Some structural changes that are required to improve productivity and make the economy fairer would take a long time. It's impossible to say for sure, but I am firmly convinced that the debt and deficit would be lower today if we'd had a government who's undertaken a programme of fiscal stimulus and not austerity. I'm also convinced we'd not be seeing crises across many of our public services.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hansy 19 May 17 3.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I agree that the Labour party only really stands a chance if they work together and utilise the real talent in their ranks. You can only hope that they will do from June 9th onward whether they win or not. I do think that their manifesto is ambitious but a lot of it is achievable, and indeed probably all of it is, but not over a 5 year parliament, more like 15 years. But that's fine by me. Some structural changes that are required to improve productivity and make the economy fairer would take a long time. It's impossible to say for sure, but I am firmly convinced that the debt and deficit would be lower today if we'd had a government who's undertaken a programme of fiscal stimulus and not austerity. I'm also convinced we'd not be seeing crises across many of our public services. Great points. Agree with you regarding it taking more like 15 years, which I also will be happy with. We've needed structural change for a while now imo. That is why there are differences between Labour and Tories. Tories will bring everyone into a spending cut, where Labour will borrow the money to ensure we grow in the long term. I do feel though the Tories did reasonably well to counter the GFC as much as they could when they took power. I am more of a Centrist, Tories falling more to the right, Labour heading to the left. Hard decision to make on the 8th June!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 19 May 17 3.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Nick's post was actually an article showing Tories have borrowed more on average over the last 70 years not just in the last parliament. Also the debt growth in the past 8 years was first and foremost due to the GFC rather than fiscal mismanagement. It's continued to grow due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and damaging austerity. Using austerity in an economic depression only worsens the situation. The Tories cuts made it worse not better. The deficit has only gone back to pre-GFC levels this year and that's mainly due to increases in consumer spending funded by short term credit. Instead of cheap government borrowing and investment our economy has been built on costly and precarious private consumer credit. On what do you base your assertions that fiscal stimulus in the shape of Labour's manifesto can't work? Genuinely interested. Debt is very cheap and People's QE also an option.
Would this stimulate the economy by putting actual money in peoples pockets without creating debt and too much inflation? I think short term big increase in interest rates to cut and penalise borrowing sorry if its painful. The creation of money by QE is just that? Out of thin air not creating more debt? Struggled to understand it as I am always looking for who is actually paying for the creation of the electronic money.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.