General Election 2015

[pap]

"Ra ra ra. The coalition did a good job"

 

Oops. Before anyone complains that this is dark and a little bit scary, I had rioters a mile and a half down the road from me. A lot of people had to deal with it. It was a little bit dark and scary.

 

Under their watch.

 

[Torres]

Except that the Labour government made absolutely no provision for the drop in taxation revenue that any basic understanding of the economic cycle will tell you is inevitable, because the all-seeing Chancellor had decreed that the era of boom and bust was over. Indeed, he'd committed the country to lengthy and hugely expensive PFI contracts and turned country into a public spending junkie seemingly believing that the money would always be there to spend because the era of boom and bust was over. The government convinced households and encouraged them that they really should be taking advantage of all the cheap credit available because perpetual growth really was possible and that the era of boom and bust was over.

 

I don't blame the last government for causing the crisis, but it's sure as hell their fault that it was as painful as it was for both the man on the street's wallet and the public purse.

 

Prudent, my arse. The man was a disaster.

[Torres]

"Ra ra ra. The coalition did a good job"

 

Oops. Before anyone complains that this is dark and a little bit scary, I had rioters a mile and a half down the road from me. A lot of people had to deal with it. It was a little bit dark and scary.

 

Under their watch.

 

Yes pap, definitely directly attributable to the last government. In little over a year they'd turned the police into a trigger happy bunch of racists and stoked tensions so high that rioting was inevitable. We can all be sure this certainly wouldn't have happened if Brown had won in 2010, and that poor Croydon furniture store wouldn't have suffered a scratch. Oh yes.

 

Give us strength or spare us this tosh.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just to put the hoary old myth to sleep. The deficit was caused mostly by a collapse in tax revenues, not an increase in spending.

 

 

In other words, committing to spending money we didn't have and weren't going to get.

[Gemmel]

"Ra ra ra. The coalition did a good job"

 

Oops. Before anyone complains that this is dark and a little bit scary, I had rioters a mile and a half down the road from me. A lot of people had to deal with it. It was a little bit dark and scary.

 

Under their watch.

 

 

I thought you lived in Liverpool

[pap]

I thought you lived in Liverpool

Indeed I do. UK wide riots. All going off down Smithdown, la. I was living off Edge Lane at the time.

[pap]

Yes pap, definitely directly attributable to the last government. In little over a year they'd turned the police into a trigger happy bunch of racists and stoked tensions so high that rioting was inevitable. We can all be sure this certainly wouldn't have happened if Brown had won in 2010, and that poor Croydon furniture store wouldn't have suffered a scratch. Oh yes.

 

Give us strength or spare us this tosh.

 

1981 – Brixton riot of 1981, (London, England)

1981 – Toxteth riots (Liverpool, England)

1981 – Moss Side riots (Manchester, England)

1981 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England

1981 – Handsworth Riots, (Birmingham, England)

1985 – Brixton riot of 1985, September 28, (London, England)

1985 – Second Handsworth riots, September 11, (Birmingham, England)

1985 – Broadwater Farm Riot, Oct. 6, (London, England)

1987 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England

1995 – Brixton riot of 1995, (London, England)

2011 – Riots in London which spread to other cities in England, over a hundred injured and 5 killed

 

Vote Conservative and enjoy riotous times.

[shurlock]

In other words, committing to spending money we didn't have and weren't going to get.

 

The Tories were promising exactly the same thing. On the eve of the financial crisis, Cameron and Osborne had promised to match Labour’s spending plans until 2010/11 - to "share the proceeds of growth". Indeed, they actually committed to a real terms increase in public spending (2% iirc), especially on health.

 

In short, nobody, not least the Tories who were simulataneously clamouring for more financial deregulation, saw that the economy and its revenue base were built on sand.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Out of interest, assuming that it's another hung parliament, can Cameron survive having failed to win a GE twice despite being up against Gordon and now Ed?

 

Can't see him surviving long , but it'll depend on the majority any coalition enjoys . Last parliament he had 80 odd with lib/ dems , if it's down anywhere below 25 he'll struggle IMO . Last time he could ignore the awkward squad , but if he's relying on them keeping in line he won't be able to do it . For every lib /dem member of government they'll be 4 Torys thinking their jobs been taken , that's not a good set of circumstances to try and control your party. Add to that the fact that he's not really a Tory, more of a social democrat and they'll get him before 3 years are up. IMO

 

The biggest mistake the party made was preferring him to David Davies .

[trousers]

Yes pap, definitely directly attributable to the last government. In little over a year they'd turned the police into a trigger happy bunch of racists and stoked tensions so high that rioting was inevitable. We can all be sure this certainly wouldn't have happened if Brown had won in 2010, and that poor Croydon furniture store wouldn't have suffered a scratch. Oh yes.

 

Give us strength or spare us this tosh.

I tend to agree with pap on this one....rioters are more likely to riot when a Tory government is in power than a Labour government. Pap and I probably disagree on the reasons why that is though...

 

In a similar vein, its no coincidence that the SNP engineered a referendum whilst the nasty Tories were in power...

Edited 10 April, 2015 by trousers

[CB Saint]

...

[CB Saint]

Just to put the hoary old myth to sleep. The deficit was caused mostly by a collapse in tax revenues, not an increase in spending.

 

We we running a deficit since 2001 and up until the crunch we were borrowing circa £40bn pa despite increasing the tax take year on year

 

if we had not increased spending as much between 2001 and 2008 we would have run a surplus

 

the fall in the tax take just brought the chickens home to roost

[CB Saint]

"Ra ra ra. The coalition did a good job"

 

Oops. Before anyone complains that this is dark and a little bit scary, I had rioters a mile and a half down the road from me. A lot of people had to deal with it. It was a little bit dark and scary.

 

Under their watch.

 

 

Definately one of your more daft lines of reasoning

[trousers]

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-political-move-to-scrap-non-doms-ignores-all-the-evidence-new-paper-argues/

 

Political move to scrap non-doms ignores all the evidence

 

Labour’s non-dom policies risk cutting off the country’s nose to spite its face:

 

There may be over a million non-doms in the UK, contrary to Miliband’s claim that there are 116,000; most of them are not rich people but foreign workers and students.

 

The UK’s non-dom system is not unique; countries like Australia, Japan and China all have tax systems that focus on local income for non-permanent residents.

 

The existing crackdowns on non-doms introduced by Labour (and supported by the Tories) have ended up particularly hurting less well-off non-doms (e.g. migrant doctors) while hitting the super-rich comparatively less.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by trousers

[pap]

Definately one of your more daft lines of reasoning

 

Don't see how. History repeats, as we saw four years ago.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/09/david-cameron-pledges-freeze-regulated-rail-fares-five-years

 

I'm confused about why freezing energy prices is dangerous socialism but freezing rail fares is the big society in action

[shurlock]

We we running a deficit since 2001 and up until the crunch we were borrowing circa £40bn pa despite increasing the tax take year on year

 

if we had not increased spending as much between 2001 and 2008 we would have run a surplus

 

the fall in the tax take just brought the chickens home to roost

 

Wrong.

 

Labour ran a slight deficit - one reason the supposedly frugal Tories opted to match and exceed Labour's spending plans in some areas.

 

On the eve of the crisis, the public finances were in a stronger position than they had been when Labour came to power in 1997. Even though more was being spent on investment in 2007–08 than in 1996–97 -in theory a good thing- the growth of revenues meant that a deficit of 2.7% of national income in 1996–97 fell to a deficit of just 0.3% of national income in 2007–08. Meanwhile, public sector net debt fell from 42.5% of national income to 36.5%, as the UK economy grew faster than new borrowing.

 

It is fair to say that other major economies were doing more at the time to strengthen their public finances; but this doesn't change the fact UK's finances were in pretty good shape, better than they had inherited from the Tories - never mind that borrowing was used, in theory, to fund productive investments in health, education and infrastructure.

 

So, yes, the story is about a fall in revenues. And the real elephant in the room is that the overall structure of UK economy had become imbalanced and growth was built increasingly on sand due to debt-fuelled consumption, unsustainable rises in asset prices and an overreliance on one or two sectors or parts of the country, a consensus that no mainstream party questioned (Vince Cable was pretty outspoken but he was a lone voice).

 

More perversely, many of these trends and quick fixes are back in force today, even as the Tories slap themselves on the back over what is by historical standards a feeble recovery.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Batman]

Don't see how. History repeats, as we saw four years ago.

 

if history repeats itself, hold on to your hats

 

[The Cat]

Whatever happened to the Big Society? You couldn't turn on a news channel in the last campaign without hearing it mentioned.

[pap]

Blair's war record is disgusting, and has already been discussed many times.

 

I suppose Jamie's expert opinion is that he's coming back....

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Whatever happened to the Big Society? You couldn't turn on a news channel in the last campaign without hearing it mentioned.

They decided it was too difficult to explain on the doorstep. It appears to be back now though because the tories' nasty and negative campaign is causing them to fall behind in the polls

[hypochondriac]

Blair's war record is disgusting, and has already been discussed many times.

 

I suppose Jamie's expert opinion is that he's coming back....

 

Considering how often you harp on about Thatcher, I think it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of looking at past leaders and equating them with their current party

[pap]

Considering how often you harp on about Thatcher, I think it's a bit rich for you to accuse others of looking at past leaders and equating them with their current party

I've done nothing of the sort, you meff.

 

I am simply pointing out that Jamie's big point (and by extension yours) has been covered.

 

I may not have posted a picture of a dead kid, but I did do a Blair image and posted it on this thread.

 

F**k off along now.

[Bearsy]

you meff

 

??? pls

[pap]

??? pls

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meff

[shurlock]

Whatever happened to the Big Society? You couldn't turn on a news channel in the last campaign without hearing it mentioned.

 

You mean outsourcing services to Serco, G4S and Capita;)

 

It didn't help that one of the main architects of the big society -steve hilton- threw in the towel and left government in 2012. Scarily remember meeting him in no.10, attention span of a gnat. It also didn't help that many of the organisations envisioned with delivering it simply don't have the necessary scale, resource, competence and capacity.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by shurlock

[saint si]

1981 – Brixton riot of 1981, (London, England)

1981 – Toxteth riots (Liverpool, England)

1981 – Moss Side riots (Manchester, England)

1981 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England

1981 – Handsworth Riots, (Birmingham, England)

1985 – Brixton riot of 1985, September 28, (London, England)

1985 – Second Handsworth riots, September 11, (Birmingham, England)

1985 – Broadwater Farm Riot, Oct. 6, (London, England)

1987 – Chapeltown riot Leeds, England

1995 – Brixton riot of 1995, (London, England)

2011 – Riots in London which spread to other cities in England, over a hundred injured and 5 killed

 

Vote Conservative and enjoy riotous times.

 

Yes, riots exclusively happen under Conservative / coalition governments.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2480000/2480215.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Birmingham_riots

[whelk]

Don't know if I am able to trust this Ed bloke now the Mail has smeared him by highlighting he has had girlfriends in the past.

[Torres]

Wrong.[/Quote]

 

Sorry Shurlock, you're wrong here/.

 

 

Labour ran a slight deficit....[/Quote]

 

Running any budget deficit when tax revenues were so high is just criminal. Add in the true cost of PFI and the deficit was more than "slight".

 

the public finances were in a stronger position than they had been when Labour came to power in 1997[/Quote]

 

And so they bloody well should have been, given then years of strong economic performance. Only a total chump could have failed to improve them, something Brown nearly managed.

 

It is fair to say that other major economies were doing more at the time to strengthen their public finances[/Quote]

 

Abject failure that we weren't doing more.

 

So, yes, the story is about a fall in revenues.

 

No, the story is about utterly failing to properly fix the public finances when it should have been done.

[pap]

Yes, riots exclusively happen under Conservative / coalition governments.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2480000/2480215.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Birmingham_riots

Nice. Don't think I'd have been bold enough to make that point.

[trousers]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/09/david-cameron-pledges-freeze-regulated-rail-fares-five-years

 

I'm confused about why freezing energy prices is dangerous socialism but freezing rail fares is the big society in action

The nasty Tories are talking about adjusting existing rail fare regulation whereas Labour were talking about a whole new tier of regulation for the energy industry. The main political point scoring against Labour's energy freeze policy was that it didn't take into account fluctuating prices - i.e. prices go down as well as up - but, of course, labour backtracked on that one and decided retrospectively that it was a cap not a freeze.

 

P.s. the "big society" is in reference to the volunteering initiative, not the train fare policy.

[Torres]

Can't wait to see the Labour campaign pick this one up and run with it pap, as I'm sure they will.

 

Vote Tory, Get Riots

 

I can see the billboards now

[whelk]

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-political-move-to-scrap-non-doms-ignores-all-the-evidence-new-paper-argues/

 

Yet the Financial Times even comment about how inappropriate it is

But hey you have no problem with it I guess

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9545f01c-be78-11e4-8036-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WtIskSnv

[saint si]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/09/david-cameron-pledges-freeze-regulated-rail-fares-five-years

 

I'm confused about why freezing energy prices is dangerous socialism but freezing rail fares is the big society in action

 

Well one is a highly competitive marketplace for commodity products, with minimal barriers to switching (other than laziness, frankly).

 

The other isn't ... fixed term franchise agreements (monopolies) with safeguards on prices controlled by a regulator. Still agree though that the regulator should be left to do its job.

[shurlock]

Sorry Shurlock, you're wrong here

 

Not sure what your point is.

[Torres]

labour backtracked on that one and decided retrospectively that it was a cap not a freeze.

 

Which was an even more retarded policy, effectively allowing the energy companies to raise their prices to at or just below the cap, justify their prices with the line "we're not breaching the cap" and killing the limited competition there is in the market.

 

It beggars belief

[CB Saint]

Wrong.

 

Labour ran a slight deficit - one reason the supposedly frugal Tories opted to match and exceed Labour's spending plans in some areas.

 

On the eve of the crisis, the public finances were in a stronger position than they had been when Labour came to power in 1997. Even though more was being spent on investment in 2007–08 than in 1996–97 -in theory a good thing- the growth of revenues meant that a deficit of 2.7% of national income in 1996–97 fell to a deficit of just 0.3% of national income in 2007–08. Meanwhile, public sector net debt fell from 42.5% of national income to 36.5%, as the UK economy grew faster than new borrowing.

 

It is fair to say that other major economies were doing more at the time to strengthen their public finances; but this doesn't change the fact UK's finances were in pretty good shape, better than they had inherited from the Tories - never mind that borrowing was used, in theory, to fund productive investments in health, education and infrastructure.

 

So, yes, the story is about a fall in revenues. And the real elephant in the room is that the overall structure of UK economy had become imbalanced and growth was built increasingly on sand due to debt-fuelled consumption, unsustainable rises in asset prices and an overreliance on one or two sectors or parts of the country, a consensus that no mainstream party questioned (Vince Cable was pretty outspoken but he was a lone voice).

 

More perversely, many of these trends and quick fixes are back in force today, even as the Tories slap themselves on the back over what is by historical standards a feeble recovery.

 

Depends upon your view of what a slight deficit is

 

We increased our tax take between 2001 and 2008 by 40% pa - in the same time we moved from a balanced budget (a surplus the year before) to borrowing around £40bn a year

 

If we have kept spending at the 2001 level, then in 2008, before the crunch, we would have been delivering a surplus of way over £100 bn pa

 

We were spending on the never never, hoping that next years Christmas bonus would be sufficient to pay off the credit card bill. Unfortunately for all of us, the tax take collapsed and we were left with pre-recession spending commitments.

 

My irritation with the last governments economic policy was that there was more than enough in the pot to increase spending at a modest rate whilst putting some away for leaner days. they chose to spend what they didn't have because they believed that the boom and bust cycle had ended.

[JackFrost]

Which was an even more retarded policy, effectively allowing the energy companies to raise their prices to at or just below the cap, justify their prices with the line "we're not breaching the cap" and killing the limited competition there is in the market.

 

It beggars belief

 

And it's the price freeze that sums up Labour to a tee. An opportunist gimmick to fool people into thinking they still represent the working class, which ended up exposing their naivety of business and how rates work. Miliband/Balls preaching to freeze energy bills when they were at their highest tells you all you need to know. You can get things wrong (like the coalition bodging the RM sale) but then there's party policies that don't even understand basic economics.

 

Taking the global financial crisis completely out of the equation, how anyone can still defend Gordon Brown's and Allistair "The money will be borrowed" Darling's economic record is beyond me.

[pap]

Can't wait to see the Labour campaign pick this one up and run with it pap, as I'm sure they will.

 

Vote Tory, Get Riots

 

I can see the billboards now

 

Boom.

 

Nerve touched.

[badgerx16]

An opportunist gimmick to fool people........

 

This applies to just about anything spouted by a politician during an election campaign, it's not restricted to any particular party.

[trousers]

Yet the Financial Times even comment about how inappropriate it is

But hey you have no problem with it I guess

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9545f01c-be78-11e4-8036-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WtIskSnv

 

I have "no problem" with whatever the best policy is for the country's finances, rather than what is the best election point scoring policy. The jury is out for me as there appears to be supporting (and conflicting) evidence on both sides of the coin on this one.

[trousers]

Boom.

 

Nerve touched.

 

 

[pap]

 

 

 

The opposition has been spectacular so far.

 

Loved the fact that no-one said anything about the Blair image that went up a few days ago. Conservatives píss tears when it's one of their own.

[Torres]

Boom.

 

Nerve touched.

 

[shurlock]

Depends upon your view of what a slight deficit is

 

We increased our tax take between 2001 and 2008 by 40% pa - in the same time we moved from a balanced budget (a surplus the year before) to borrowing around £40bn a year

 

If we have kept spending at the 2001 level, then in 2008, before the crunch, we would have been delivering a surplus of way over £100 bn pa

 

We were spending on the never never, hoping that next years Christmas bonus would be sufficient to pay off the credit card bill. Unfortunately for all of us, the tax take collapsed and we were left with pre-recession spending commitments.

 

My irritation with the last governments economic policy was that there was more than enough in the pot to increase spending at a modest rate whilst putting some away for leaner days. they chose to spend what they didn't have because they believed that the boom and bust cycle had ended.

 

I have no great fondness for Labour; but it is simple hindsight to claim that finances were on the road to ruin. The UK had the second lowest level of debt in the G7, though I am the first to admit that it fared worse on other measures. But the question remains: it finances were so unsustainable why did the Tories, of all parties, pledge to match and exceed Labour's spending plans?

 

The answer is that they were perceived to be sustainable. Nearly every mainstream party and policymaker failed to anticipate the crisis and the consequent collapse in growth and revenues. Perhaps more could have been saved while the sun was shining, accepting the costs in terms of lower quality and quantity public services. But these efforts would still have been dwarfed by the scale and severity of the crash, the worst recession since WWII.

 

So rather than play a futile game of hindsight, why don't you look forward, something which can be influenced to some extent. After all, virtually the same assumptions about growth and the sources of growth that got us into this mess continue to be made, this time with unconventional (reckless) monetary policy and cheap credit. Why don't you aim your sights at this -rather than gush about the Tory-led recovery. After all, it is storing up a host of problems which, I am happy to bet, will ultimately have to be met through more aggressive fiscal policy. Or is it easier to claim omniscience after the fact?

Edited 10 April, 2015 by shurlock

[CB Saint]

I have no great fondness for Labour; but it is simple hindsight to claim that finances were on the road to ruin. The UK had the second lowest debt ratio in the G7, though I am the first to admit that it fared worse on other measures. But the question remains: it finances were so unsustainable why did the Tories, of all parties, pledge to match and exceed Labour's spending plans?

 

The answer is that they were perceived to be sustainable. Nearly every nainstream party and policymaker failed to anticipate the crisis and the consequent collapse in growth and revenues. Perhaps more could have been saved while the sun was shining, accepting the costs in terms of lower quality and quantity public services. But these efforts would still have been dwarfed by the scale and severity of the crash, the worst recession since WWII.

 

So rather than play a futile game of hindsight, why don't you look forward, something which can be influenced to some extent. After all, virtually the same assumptions about growth and the sources of growth that got us into this mess continue to be made, this time with equally reckless and profligate monetary policy. Why don't you aim your sights at this -rather than gush about the Tory-led recovery. After all, it is storing up a host of problems which, I am happy to bet, will ultimately have to be met through more aggressive fiscal policy. Or is it easier to claim omniscience after the fact?

 

The reason I got started on this was to counter a post which seem to wholly plant the blame of the deficit onto falling tax receipts. I was pointing out that increased spending was as much to blame for the current predicament - I haven't "gushed" at all about Tory led recoveries.

 

The unfortunately fact that we are faced with is that we still have a circa £100bn deficit. We cannot sustain that in the longer term. We can earn more or spend less. There is limited scope to earn more unless the economy really gets going (and I don't believe that we will ever see more that a couple of % growth pa in a good year).

 

The corp tax receipt in the last 12 months were circa £40bn - even if you doubled the CT rate (assuming the large companies would stay) we would still be left with a £60bn shortfall. Mansion taxes, non doms etc, whilst it would contribute, will hardly make a dent in this.

 

The only real way left to tackle to the deficit is to spend less - how we do this and what you spend less on, I don't know but something has to give.

[badgerx16]

More UKIP dirty tricks ;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-32234567

"A UKIP parliamentary candidate is to be questioned over allegations he tried to influence voters by giving away sausage rolls at a party event"

[badgerx16]

The only real way left to tackle to the deficit is to spend less - how we do this and what you spend less on, I don't know but something has to give.

 

Well I'm doing my bit - I've just been made redundant !

[bridge too far]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/10/eric-pickles-in-radio-spat-over-volunteering-policy_n_7038968.html?1428657350

[Wes Tender]

Well I'm doing my bit - I've just been made redundant !

 

Sorry to hear that Badger. Hope that you find something else soon