General Election 2015

[Silkster365]

We all need about £10 per hour minimum wage, we need £70.00 a month wiping off our council tax bills, we need our energy bills reduced by about £25.00 - £30.00 per month. The governments need to stop paying out for silly things and put that money back in to important things. Just like this government, he wouldn't do any of this, they can't afford it.

If you wack minimum wage up to £10ph you'll end up paying more for everything else anyway. Who do you think companies pass their higher costs on to? The consumer...

One reason why the minimum wage was a ridiculous idea in the first place

 

[peterward]

If your house is falling down due to decades of neglect you may well want to max out your credit card to repair it.

but that isnt true is it, in 1997 the government inherited the golden goose that laid the egg...... the economy was in good condition. People were fed up with Tory sleaze and Bliar was cool, modern and a breath of fresh air. fast forward 11 years and its bankruptcy and economy in tatters that the current incumbents inherited.

This country is not naturally on the left or right extremes its centrist..... Blair understood that and comrade millibland doesnt. Cameron for all his failings does get that and has dragged his party kicking and screaming towards the middle.

After all is said and done the most important central policy of any government is economic management as everything else starts from here. Labour just can't do it, they cant rein in their impulse to simply lob money at things, most of it borrowed, I am not doubting their idealism..... but the reality is our country doesn't earn enough to pay for their giveaways, look at the fiasco in how much different dept of the NHS were paying for the same things...... write an invoice for any amount and the goverment pays, feckless mismanagement.

if you think raising taxes is the answer you know little about economics, low tax regimes will bring in more to a government, increase growth than high tax regimes which are moral fairness arguments and are actually counter productive to the economy... international business always moves towards the low tax regimes.

Socialism, the teenagers ideal of utopian society of equals, its economically unachievable and cannot be funded for with debt today and massive interest for your children tomorrow.... compassionate policies yes, fiscal responsibility is the key to everything. Labour has none

 

[MattBackHome]

Enjoy this all you Millibland enthusiasts

Who are the 'Millibland enthusiasts'? I haven't seen any on here.

 

[peterward]

If they're doing so well why are the almost certain to lose the next election?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/11/ed-miliband-labour-policy-grassroots-criticism_n_5667341.html

Please do take your head out the sand and give us your reply to this HT? your reply to the words of activists

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

so you dont think a policy that requires new power comes from sources costing two-to-four times as much as old, isnt directly affecting the price of energy?

Maybe it plays a small part as do many other factors but a lack of true competition is the main driver in the ever increasing UK energy prices.

 

[CheeseRolls]

People talking about raising the minimum wage; Watch as the number of unemployed soars.

If you wack minimum wage up to £10ph you'll end up paying more for everything else anyway. Who do you think companies pass their higher costs on to? The consumer...

One reason why the minimum wage was a ridiculous idea in the first place

Interesting to see how this progresses in the USA. Seattle has set a minimum wage of $15 per hour, which is way above the rest of the US. Will they lose jobs through this ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27674474

Bearing in mind that the US workforce is traditionally more mobile than their European counterparts. I suspect we have scope here to raise the minimum wage, whether £10 is achievable is another matter.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

People talking about raising the minimum wage; Watch as the number of unemployed soars.

We were told this when it was introduced. Nothing happened. We were again told this when the living wage was introduced in certain areas and sectors...again nothing.

 

[Silkster365]

We were told this when it was introduced. Nothing happened. We were again told this when the living wage was introduced in certain areas and sectors...again nothing.

Convenient timing!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Maybe it plays a small part as do many other factors but a lack of true competition is the main driver in the ever increasing UK energy prices.

And also life cycle costs are never properly calculated - for example if considering a 25 year supply of coal, the price of that coal is a fluctuating commodity. The 25 year supply of wind, sun, tide isn't. Too many have vested interest in the 'old' economies that it is going to be a battle to changed engrained mindsets. Statements like [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] on costs demonstrate how hard that is going to be to overcome.

 

[Buzzer]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/11/labour-soar-past-tories-seven-point-lead-icm-poll

After a shambolic month where Cameron was humiliated in a EU vote, had the chair of the party resign and seen Boris position himself for the impending election defeat his lead slips further. Not even the demotion of Gove will save him.

Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2010 election showed Tories with a 12 point lead over the incumbent Government. Actual result: Hung Parliament

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/23/icm-poll-february-2009


Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2005 election predicted UKIP to split Tory vote and Labour to have landslide of 110 seats. Actual result: Labour win by 66 seats, UKIP get 2% of vote

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jun/16/elections2004.uk1


Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2001 election predicted Tories with 38% and Labour with 34%. Actual result: Labour 41%, Tories 32%


Opinion poll for Guardian, 1 year before 1997 election predicted Tories with 26%, Labour with 56%. Actual result: Labour 43%, Tories 31%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997


Opinion poll for Guardian, 1 year before 1992 election predicted Tories with 38%, Labour with 49%. Actual result: Labour 34%, Tories 42%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992



May I respectfully suggest that Guardian polls, 1 year before a general election are pretty much a load of old tosh? What with the German economy performing worse than Spain, you need something a little more concrete than this to cheer you up.

 

[Kumquat]

We were told this when it was introduced. Nothing happened. We were again told this when the living wage was introduced in certain areas and sectors...again nothing.

Exactly. The CBI have a strong hold over many politicians of both leading parties. the Tories being in makes it just a bit worse. They constantly scaremonger on the minimum wage. They also have a vested interest in us being in Europe which is the main reason why any leader of the Tory party is so schizophrenic on the issue. One minute knocking Europe and then saying we need to work with them.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2010 election showed Tories with a 12 point lead over the incumbent Government. Actual result: Hung Parliament

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/23/icm-poll-february-2009


Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2005 election predicted UKIP to split Tory vote and Labour to have landslide of 110 seats. Actual result: Labour win by 66 seats, UKIP get 2% of vote

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jun/16/elections2004.uk1


Opinion poll in Guardian, 1 year before 2001 election predicted Tories with 38% and Labour with 34%. Actual result: Labour 41%, Tories 32%


Opinion poll for Guardian, 1 year before 1997 election predicted Tories with 26%, Labour with 56%. Actual result: Labour 43%, Tories 31%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997


Opinion poll for Guardian, 1 year before 1992 election predicted Tories with 38%, Labour with 49%. Actual result: Labour 34%, Tories 42%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992



May I respectfully suggest that Guardian polls, 1 year before a general election are pretty much a load of old tosh? What with the German economy performing worse than Spain, you need something a little more concrete than this to cheer you up.

Just out of interest, and I appreciate you may not have the data available so easily, but how do other polls fair for accuracy over this kind of timescale?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

but that isnt true is it, in 1997 the government inherited the golden goose that laid the egg...... the economy was in good condition. People were fed up with Tory sleaze and Bliar was cool, modern and a breath of fresh air. fast forward 11 years and its bankruptcy and economy in tatters that the current incumbents inherited.

This country is not naturally on the left or right extremes its centrist..... Blair understood that and comrade millibland doesnt. Cameron for all his failings does get that and has dragged his party kicking and screaming towards the middle.

After all is said and done the most important central policy of any government is economic management as everything else starts from here. Labour just can't do it, they cant rein in their impulse to simply lob money at things, most of it borrowed, I am not doubting their idealism..... but the reality is our country doesn't earn enough to pay for their giveaways, look at the fiasco in how much different dept of the NHS were paying for the same things...... write an invoice for any amount and the goverment pays, feckless mismanagement.

if you think raising taxes is the answer you know little about economics, low tax regimes will bring in more to a government, increase growth than high tax regimes which are moral fairness arguments and are actually counter productive to the economy... international business always moves towards the low tax regimes.

Socialism, the teenagers ideal of utopian society of equals, its economically unachievable and cannot be funded for with debt today and massive interest for your children tomorrow.... compassionate policies yes, fiscal responsibility is the key to everything. Labour has none

The inherited debt was reduced significantly under Labour. But, they had to eventually (after 5 years I think they started) increase spending to pay for schools which were falling down, hospitals which needed staff (take a look at the number of dentists the UK had in 97 for example.) and new technology, services which were removed or cut after decades of neglect. Society and the services it needs were a complete mess in 1997. Labour needed to eventually spend in these areas; they had no alternative.

Also, where have I ever mentioned higher taxes? The only change I'd make to the current set up is to cut taxes for the lower paid, tighten up the laws to ensure the rich do not get away without paying their share and change the laws so Amazon, Starbucks etc cannot avoid the vast majority of their corp tax obligation.

 

[Buzzer]

And I did send this to Herr T yesterday but I thought I'd share it here too. You know that great German economy that he holds up as the gold standard by which all other economies should be matched? It's now being outperformed by Spain.

...Yes...I did mean Spain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-10/europe-s-growth-engine-stutters-as-spain-beats-germany.html

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What with the German economy performing worse than Spain, you need something a little more concrete than this to cheer you up.

This is like those Sun headlines where they say "Phew, what a scorcher, it's hotter than Ibiza" on the single day when it's hot in the UK and the researcher had dredged the world's weather to find a normally warm country which is unseasonably mild on this particular day.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Representative democracy does not work when there is no one to vote for that will represent us.

Whoever we vote for will make absolutely no difference, there will be no social improvements. Inequality will continue to increase, the environment will continue to be destroyed, politics will become more and more corrupted by the wealthy ruling classes.

Democracy really needs to be revolutionised somehow, but obviously that is not in the interests of the main parties.

Yep. Anyone over the age of twenty five who thinks that party politics makes a blind bit of difference to the train wreck that is going on is sleepwalking.

 

[Buzzer]

Just out of interest, and I appreciate you may not have the data available so easily, but how do other polls fair for accuracy over this kind of timescale?

My gut feeling is that ICM aren't particularly way off the averages for all polls around the same periods. That UK Polling Report website should have most of the data. I reckon that most polls taken over 3 months before a General Election aren't worth the paper they're written on because people are answering because of disgruntlement or satisfaction with particular issues that are specifically on their minds at that time rather than thinking about the consequences of voting for X rather than Y. The pollee gives an answer almost as a dummy protest vote knowing there's no consequences to it. The polls just after the fuel protests is a case in point. Just my opinion, anyway.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Ed Milliband leading this great nation? Ha ha ha ha.

Almost as dismal a prospect as that of Cameron being in power again.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And I did send this to Herr T yesterday but I thought I'd share it here too. You know that great German economy that he holds up as the gold standard by which all other economies should be matched? It's now being outperformed by Spain.

...Yes...I did mean Spain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-10/europe-s-growth-engine-stutters-as-spain-beats-germany.html

The opening line says 'probably.....' Did it, or did it not?

And as I pointed out to you I do not get to worked up about single quarters. If this develops into a pattern then sure there is cause for concern.

But on this particular matter I'll wait for the correct figures, as opposed to a 'Bloomberg survey' whatever this is.

 

[beorhthelm]

And also life cycle costs are never properly calculated - for example if considering a 25 year supply of coal, the price of that coal is a fluctuating commodity. The 25 year supply of wind, sun, tide isn't. Too many have vested interest in the 'old' economies that it is going to be a battle to changed engrained mindsets. Statements like [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] on costs demonstrate how hard that is going to be to overcome.

thats a fair point, especially focus on the economics of the matter. though the life cycle costs are typically factored in, with decisions to build plant based on whether it can return investment over its life span. the costs of wind are high because of factoring in the additional infrastructure needed to support them, not just the unit cost of x turbines. so, you expect wind to be cheaper in the future, if coal increases in price (which it will due to regulations), or the technology improves. however we see the cost increase now, because the costs are borne now.

what bothers me about this, is that we knew this, and accepted this - save the planet - when times seemed good. now they aren't we don't want the expected price rises from carbon taxes, climate levies, policy and regulation, and want to blame industry. meanwhile politicians who made that policy grandstand on an obviously populist cause, ignoring the economics. its utter hypocrisy.