Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2017
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
likewise, why continue with this line of argument when the spending is on healthcare, welfare, pensions, education, etc that no one wants spending cuts? people will point at "tax cuts for the rich", overlooking they amount to 2-3bn, while welfare legacy of Brown leave us with 30bn a year bill for tax credits.
with the apparent popularity of Labour's new spending plans (50bn a year deficit), it seems the public are happy with debt, yet its still something to beat the current government with... so Tory debt is bad, Labour debt is good?
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
And after the dust had settled we got (or continued to get);
rising poverty, rising child poverty, the longest decline in wages since records began, Brexit (FFS), £20bn in NHS cuts, the systematic abuse of disabled people, corporations paying less tax than their employees, most unaffordable homes ever, a huge rise in food bank dependency and police cuts (to name a few).
Hope the champers was worth it Bozza.
nicko31
Well-known member
In defence of the Tories I don't think Labour would have done any better.
If we want better services without piling on more and more debt on public finances, individuals and business need to pay more tax.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Well all need to pay more.
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
I think people are quite right to point out the economic failings of the Tories. People keep beating Labour with the same old tired rhetoric about the economy yet the Tories have been just as inadequate. It also wouldn't be as bad (for the Tories) if they hadn't said they'd eradicate the deficit by 2015 and subsequently used this as the basis for austerity, which has simply succeeded in transferring more wealth to those at the top.
A good post.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
The NHS was the idea of Beveridge who was a Liberal politician. All three parties campaigned at the 1945 election for its creation and the winner, Labour, implemented it.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,648
Quite.
She isn't strong enough to lead with a healthy majority so she is hoping for a landslide.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,648
No it didn't, it was suggesting no winner. What it got right was that the tories would have most seats.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Have to agree with this. It's difficult to understand the rationale for reduced public spending at a time of low interest rates. This is certainly a factor in increasing inequality as disproportionate hardship falls on poorer families leaving the wealthier to invest in and benefit from asset price growth. The private sector is borrowing to invest so why not the public sector ?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
its quite fair to highlight their failure to meet their own targets, to grow the economy productively etc. but its daft to drag up the debt when its a legacy of previous spending commitments and contradicts opposition to cuts. fact is the "austerity" lasted first couple of years since when cuts have been salami slicing budgets to small real terms cuts, sometimes reducing future increases.
the original strategy was to keep a lid on increase spending and let the economy catch up itself, which is just about has/will in the next year or two. Labour's solution is to borrow tens of billions to artificially inflate the economy. one approach has us eventually reducing the debt, the other has us deciding not to care about debt anymore as long as everything keeps growing. one has proven to take longer than expected and hurt more than it should have in the short/medium term, the other is proven (elsewhere in time and geography) to lead to great economic hardship in the long term.
and other point... there is little to no government policy that has transferred wealth to the top. most fiscal policy has impacted greatest on the lowest and highest incomes (i may look for the graph later, its out there). the increase in wealth for the top decile is largely down to asset price inflation from monetary policy - QE. about the only contradiction is the reduction in top rate tax, and lowering corporation tax (which is paid by all eventually in lower wages, lower dividends). austerity does not increase income or wealth for anyone.
Last edited:
Good, especially pleased that Geldof and Lineaker are losing out.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Telling everyone else what to do, sick of them all.
nicko31
Well-known member
Coming from the Daily Mail, LOL...
I thought you would be pleased, surely the left don't support stars evading paying tax.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
We should know this is completely different. For The Many, Not The Few.
I might be wrong, but I presume he was referring to the disgusting hypocrisy of The Daily Mail ranting about tax avoidance, when it is itself registered in Jersey, and its owner despite living in a stately home in Wiltshire claims nom-dom status to protect his £800m fortune?
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Amber Rudd is most adroit at offshore tax efficiency schemes too - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03655247/officers