Does May want to win?

[Newchodge]

The Conservatives are "better" at the economy

Actually if you check the Treasury website, borrowing always goes up under a conservative government.

Although I agree that the media has taught the public to accept the mantra.

 

[Mr D]

The Byre - yes banks could have been left to topple. Just painful for those using the banks for wages, spending, savings, receiving money etc.
Money is guaranteed for the public up to a point, they are not however going to get that guarantee paid out on day 1.
Government, for whatever reason, decided not to let the banks fail.

 

[Mr D]

Including May who is now preparing to adopt Labour policies to stay in power. Now Corby has made austerity a bad policy she is prepared to say the same.

Might as well put Lord Buckethead in charge of Brexit.

Wasn't so long ago that Labour pushed austerity too. 2010 election, only one party had started austerity. 3 main parties all promised austerity. And people voted for them. 7 years later people have changed their minds. Which of course they can do.

 

[Newchodge]

These cuts in the NHS? How much was the budget cut again since 2010?
£111 billion to £123 billion is a cut? Looks like an increase but its a cut?
Just the Conservatives have tended not to increase the NHS budget as fast as Labour did.

For NHS funding to stay still it actually has to go up by more than inflation every year, because medical inflation is much higher than ordinary inflation. We develop new medical techniques, we develop new drugs and people live longer and need more complex treatment to keep them alive.

It used to be that NHS funding had to increase by at least 4% above normal inflation per year in order to stay still. That hasn't happened. Funding per patient has dropped. The NHS is struggling to cope with people in hospital who are fit to be discharged but cannot be discharged because they are not fit enough to care for themselves and the local authorities (whose job it is) cannot afford to care for them because their funding has been slashed. That has increased NHS costs above normal levels of NHS inflation.

Plus the Tory decision to try to outsource to private providers as much as they possibly can has increased administration costs, as every decision has to be considered against the mantra of 'can we give it to the private sector' plus when it is outsourced it costs a lot more for a reduced service. Have a look at 'Virgin Care', and Branson's multi million pound lawsuit against the NHS because one of the contracts he wanted was awarded to an NHS consortium, so NHS money is spent on legal fess defending that decision.

A few days ago someone accused my quiet, sensible post about May's incompetence as a rant. (@Ian J?) This is a rant.

 

[Newchodge]

Government, for whatever reason, decided not to let the banks fail.

Self interest, greedy dishonourable and untrustworthy politicians. All their mates are *ankers.

 

[Newchodge]

Wasn't so long ago that Labour pushed austerity too. 2010 election, only one party had started austerity. 3 main parties all promised austerity. And people voted for them. 7 years later people have changed their minds. Which of course they can do.

The difference is that the Labour party since 1997 has been a pale blue colour instead of red. So when the labour party's mates in big business and banking said 'jump to austerity; they said 'of course'. That is why this election was different. For the first time in many, many years the Labour party offered a genuine alternative rather than a watered down version of more of the same.

 

[Mr D]

Austerity isn't the only solution, you know.

There's a fairly solid economic case for investing to boost GDP growth and ultimately tax receipts. Simulation models even showed that GDP growth under Labour would be far higher than that under the Tories.

It's not perfect, of course, but they aren't intending to just spend for the sake of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

Great, yes, brilliant.
OK what should government invest in that will have an impact in the next 5 years and will boost returns greater than the cost of borrowing the money?
I have heard house building touted by both main parties at times - great, a boost to foreign building firms and a boost to foreign brickmakers - but never mind the delay in getting planning permission? Ok if that was to start as an announcement next week you would not notice anything being built for 3 years? 4 years? Longer?
And can build new houses somewhere - but do people want to live there?


Anything else government could invest in that would give a return? And make a difference within a year or two?

 

[Mr D]

Self interest, greedy dishonourable and untrustworthy politicians. All their mates are *ankers.

And what do you do for money when your bank shuts its doors and switches off the cash machine links?

 

[Newchodge]

And what do you do for money when your bank shuts its doors and switches off the cash machine links?

Iceland survived. There was a struggle but there is a struggle for most people in this country.

Iceland survived and sent its bankers to prison. Worked for them.

 

[Mr D]

The difference is that the Labour party since 1997 has been a pale blue colour instead of red. So when the labour party's mates in big business and banking said 'jump to austerity; they said 'of course'. That is why this election was different. For the first time in many, many years the Labour party offered a genuine alternative rather than a watered down version of more of the same.

They offered a nice sounding fantasy.
Expensive one too - how much should they pay to nationalise power companies? I did hear a figure of £38 billion bandied about.
Not to mention your bills going up while tax receipts go down - causing government to chase you for more money or make cuts.
At what amount per year in payments do we say 'enough' for borrowing? £30 billion? £50 billion? £100 billion? That's the point austerity starts.

 

[Mr D]

Iceland survived. There was a struggle but there is a struggle for most people in this country.

Iceland survived and sent its bankers to prison. Worked for them.

Iceland is not Britain. Its a small island with a fraction of our population.

 

[Mr D]

Which misses the point.

Educating the population has a long term effect on prosperity. We all gain because we have doctors, engineers, scientists, artists etc etc. Controlling what courses are available can be done by other means than charging students.

(When I first heard that there were courses in surfing I thought it was a silly idea. Then I read the economic benefits. )

For many students its free education and free money.
Then they have a graduate tax that effectively means they won't pay much extra.

 

[Newchodge]

Anything else government could invest in that would give a return? And make a difference within a year or two?

You are seeing investment purely as an immediate return on money invested in a particular project. Invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, not just in building housing but also improving the existing housing stock. By giving more people reasonably well paid jobs you give more people money to spend on purchases, which gives retailers more income, which gives them more money to spend on growing their business. In addition higher incomes gives an improved tax take. 's'not rocket science.

 

[Mr D]

You are seeing investment purely as an immediate return on money invested in a particular project. Invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, not just in building housing but also improving the existing housing stock. By giving more people reasonably well paid jobs you give more people money to spend on purchases, which gives retailers more income, which gives them more money to spend on growing their business. In addition higher incomes gives an improved tax take. 's'not rocket science.

If borrowing to pay wages to workers from Poland, Germany, Spain...? And import the bricks?
Is this a bit like the car scrappage scheme that we had, a scheme that proved very popular in Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy?

If borrowing money to do something would it not be a good idea to think long term? Like what is got for the money besides paying a portion to UK workers? If adding say £5 billion a year to repayments from the budget, would it not be a good idea to increase government income by at least £5 billion a year one way or another?
Or just pass the debt on to the kids?

At what point do we say the loan repayments are enough and no more?

 

[Newchodge]

At what point do we say the loan repayments are enough and no more?

When we have a society in which no one is homeless or unable to afford to eat or heat their homes.

 

[Mr D]

When we have a society in which no one is homeless or unable to afford to eat or heat their homes.

Well good luck with that. Will not solve the problem with money, not on the homeless side.
Local examples - a pensioner who has lost several tenancies through complaints by other people. Alcohol dependent and cannot stay in a hostel. An aggressive drunk that no shelter can take in due to risk assessment and who has smashed glass in a rage every time he has had his own place.
A guy drinking meths who burnt two previous houses due to liking a fire.

In the meantime what level of repayment is enough? 10% of total budget? 15% of total budget?
The repayment money is money of course that cannot be spent on other things, it goes on servicing the debt.

Heating home - try it with a £290 gas payment. When not earning that much.
Cutting gas use is not an option, and that is fully insulated house (beyond minimum) with relatively new gas boiler.

 

[Newchodge]

Well good luck with that. Will not solve the problem with money, not on the homeless side.
Local examples - a pensioner who has lost several tenancies through complaints by other people. Alcohol dependent and cannot stay in a hostel. An aggressive drunk that no shelter can take in due to risk assessment and who has smashed glass in a rage every time he has had his own place.

What do you suggest will solve the problems of these 2? Leaving them on the streets to starve?

Heating home - try it with a £290 gas payment. When not earning that much.
Cutting gas use is not an option, and that is fully insulated house (beyond minimum) with relatively new gas boiler.

I haven't he faintest idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[sirearl]

Local examples - a pensioner who has lost several tenancies through complaints by other people. Alcohol dependent and cannot stay in a hostel. An aggressive drunk that no shelter can take in due to risk assessment and who has smashed glass in a rage every time he has had his own place.
A guy drinking meths who burnt two previous houses due to liking a fire.

You need to move to a better area.

 

[STDFR33]

You need to move to a better area.

These are the typically the people that will help you when you are in need.

It's the snobs that wouldn't p1ss on you if you were on fire because they once saw you pick a 20 pence coin off the floor that need to be watched.

 

[Mr D]

What do you suggest will solve the problems of these 2? Leaving them on the streets to starve?



I haven't he faintest idea what you are trying to say here.

They were on the streets, they were taken off the streets and then they were back on the streets.
There are homeless that are not suddenly got off the street permanently simply by giving them keys to a house or flat.
The solution for them isn't a property. No idea what is - and many thousands of people have been looking for a solution.
And if the person doesn't want help or cannot access help? How do you force someone to be helped?

There are homeless children - under age 16, the authorities cannot officially help them even if the kids would let them.

You want people to be able to afford fuel. Its not always easy, disabled people do not get disability benefits for being disabled.
And when general election impacts selling what can be done?
And usually good reason not to get help from authorities. I know a couple of cities have them, likely other cities too.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mr D]

You need to move to a better area.

Nice area where I live, only 2 murders in past dozen years or so.
Pretty safe.

 

[Newchodge]

They were on the streets, they were taken off the streets and then they were back on the streets.
There are homeless that are not suddenly got off the street permanently simply by giving them keys to a house or flat.
The solution for them isn't a property. No idea what is - and many thousands of people have been looking for a solution.
And if the person doesn't want help or cannot access help? How do you force someone to be helped?

There are homeless children - under age 16, the authorities cannot officially help them even if the kids would let them.

You want people to be able to afford fuel. Its not always easy, disabled people do not get disability benefits for being disabled.
And when general election impacts selling what can be done?
And usually good reason not to get help from authorities. I know a couple of cities have them, likely other cities too.

[/QUOTE]

Nope. Still haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say.

 

[Clinton]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40264755

Thoughts, @Clinton ?

Sorry, haven't been following this thread, but will answer this question addressed to me.

What the BBC article doesn't say is that this is just one of three options the EU is considering. At this point the EU's main concern is not grabbing business from London, as they have stated very clearly over the last few days (yes!), but in containing systemic risks. To that end they have multiple options including the option of giving the UK "regulatory equivalence". And there are options involving direct ECB regulatory oversight (should the BoE be willing to relinquish or share responsibility). All this is entirely possible within existing legislative frameworks.

Ignore politically motivated grandstanding from irrelevant EU officials and focus on actual comments from the organ grinders (including Valdis Dombrovskis). There is a keen appreciation of how a fragmentation of this market could play out. Forced relocation of Euro clearing could play out badly for EU institutions and businesses causing widespread cost increases on the continent of tens of billions of Euros (which would impact on inflation and, possibly, force the ECB's hand on interest rates).

But, more importantly, fragmentation could actually increase systemic risk. And that's the biggest issue - the systemic risk exposure which could potentially sink the common currency.

If the EU has any sense they'll leave (euro) clearing in London - where all the other clearing is happening - and choose alternate routes to ensuring they still have a say in the policing of those clearing transactions on which their economies and their currency are so dependent. That is, strategically, the most sensible option.

 

[Newchodge]

If the EU has any sense they'll leave (euro) clearing in London - where all the other clearing is happening

Possibly. But if the UK had any sense we would not be leaving the EU in the first place. Given the way we view the EU, as a useless bunch of non-thinkers, why should we expect the EU to do that?

 

[Newchodge]

Nice area where I live, only 2 murders in past dozen years or so.
Pretty safe.

If I had experienced 2 murders in my household in the past dozen years or so I would move to Midsomer. Much safer.

 

[Cobby]

What austerity?

See how the "savage cuts" have reduced the national debt.

I know, it's amazing that despite the austerity/cuts they still couldn't effectively manage the debt.

These cuts in the NHS? How much was the budget cut again since 2010?
£111 billion to £123 billion is a cut? Looks like an increase but its a cut?
Just the Conservatives have tended not to increase the NHS budget as fast as Labour did.

And bread, at £1.50 a loaf is waaaay more expensive than the 5p it cost when I were a lad...

 

[Cobby]

It used to be that NHS funding had to increase by at least 4% above normal inflation per year in order to stay still. That hasn't happened. Funding per patient has dropped. The NHS is struggling to cope with people in hospital who are fit to be discharged but cannot be discharged because they are not fit enough to care for themselves and the local authorities (whose job it is) cannot afford to care for them because their funding has been slashed. That has increased NHS costs above normal levels of NHS inflation.

It's also exacerbated by the funds to other care-related sectors and home-help benefits. These generally reduce the pressure on the more mainstream NHS services and are a more cost effective 'treatment' than just funneling everyone into A&E whereupon the system begins to fail.

A few days ago someone accused my quiet, sensible post about May's incompetence as a rant.

Honestly it just read as a "Calm down, dear" moment because you'd hit a nerve.

Well good luck with that. Will not solve the problem with money, not on the homeless side.
Local examples - a pensioner who has lost several tenancies through complaints by other people. Alcohol dependent and cannot stay in a hostel. An aggressive drunk that no shelter can take in due to risk assessment and who has smashed glass in a rage every time he has had his own place.
A guy drinking meths who burnt two previous houses due to liking a fire.

Why do you take every opportunity you can to pour blame on the poor and those in need?

What you describe is why we, as a society, need an effective and well funded system/social safety net - not just housing but the health services to back it up, from drug rehabilitation programs and clinics to effective mental health services (which has been woefully underfunded by every government). It may seem costly, but keeping people healthy makes them more productive for society, so we all benefit. There are no mono-causal solutions here, despite what the tabloids may say.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Nope. Still haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say.

Nor me!

And I sincerely wish Mr D could avoid posting all those question marks.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Great, yes, brilliant.
OK what should government invest in that will have an impact in the next 5 years and will boost returns greater than the cost of borrowing the money?

Note that we have had austerity going on for about 7 years now, yet we have borrowed hundreds of billions every year during that time, and even this year, we are due to borrow another £50 billion just to plug the gap between income and expenditure.

And if predictions are correct, we won't reach a surplus until well after 2020, and perhaps much further beyond considering that both chancellors since 2010 have pushed it back every year.

Why do you ask that question as though austerity is any quicker?

It's important to remember that austerity often brings a downside: slower economic growth and a slower increase in tax receipts. That's the trade-off.

Whether you reduce spending by 2%, or increase tax receipts by 2% (via economic growth/tax increases), both have the same impact on the deficit. And until there's a surplus, both options continue to add to the national debt.

Austerity should be part of a wider fiscal plan, but it should only be used sparingly. Push it too far, and it can start to make the situation worse (i.e. by contributing to a recession which starts to increase the deficit again).

This country is struggling as it is. Just imagine how it's going to be when we try to find another £50 billion in cuts.

Now we've trimmed what we can, it's time to invest. Maintain day-to-day spending, but pump a couple hundred billion into infrastructure, investment schemes and business support. Give people more disposable income to spend in the economy.

Will it increase the national debt? Sure. But the increase in economic growth will neutralise the increased interest payments, and then some, to start whittling down the annual deficit at a quicker rate without such hardship for the UK.

That being said, I'm a fan of some Labour spending policies and not others. The main idea I'm a fan of is the UK investment bank. Germany has something similar with the KfW. In my view, a similar system in the UK would work wonders.

 

[Paul Norman]

If I had experienced 2 murders in my household in the past dozen years or so I would move to Midsomer. Much safer.

I am pretty sure I could top that by a fair bit in terms of murders.

Move?

That really is not a possibility.

 

[Mr D]

If I had experienced 2 murders in my household in the past dozen years or so I would move to Midsomer. Much safer.

So would I.

Who gets murders in their household?

 

[Mr D]

Nope. Still haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say.[/QUOTE]


The issue of homelessness is far more than simply providing keys to a flat. Deal with the reality of people rather than the fantasy of ideology.

 

[Mr D]

I am pretty sure I could top that by a fair bit in terms of murders.

Move?

That really is not a possibility.

Yes, they do say that you are more at risk of murder from someone known to you....

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Yes, they do say that you are more at risk of murder from someone known to you....

I have a friend who has had 6 people she knew murdered. This is in a quiet country area.

 

[The Byre]

Germany has something similar with the KfW. In my view, a similar system in the UK would work wonders.

Except that the KfW was set up in 1948 with the money from the Marshal plan. In the UK the Marshal Plan money as used by the Labour government to nationalise anything and everything that they could.

When lunatic plans were unveiled to nationalise farming, that was when the US government called a halt and stopped handing out money.

The KfW is and always was full self funding - those grants really were all paid back, so today there is a €50bn p.a. fund administered by over 5,000 employees that is of real benefit to the economy.

Austerity - yet another UK government is discovering that it has been believing in a bogus economic fallacy. The stupidity of Westminster politicians is truly astounding. Whether it is the post-war Labour government, or the Tories today, they just refuse point-blank to drop their asinine preconceptions of how an economy works and allow proper economists to run that part of the government.

The drive for austerity is based on three fundamental misunderstandings of basic economics -

1. The first fallacy derives from the false diagnosis that the present crisis is the outcome of lax public spending, when it is actually the outcome of private credit-based speculation.

2. The second fallacy assumes the possibility or even the generality of the so-called ‘expansionary fiscal contractions’, neglecting the short-term negative effects on domestic demand and the multiplier effect of those contractions.

3. The third fallacy is to assume that the UK can become as productive as Germany or Denmark. UK productive, institutional, educational and political conditions differ drastically and therefore require different policies.

If we were to adopt @Clinton's idea of an aggressive 'beggar-thy-neighbour' low-tax economy, we would then be deluding ourselves into the belief that wealth is a magic, zero-sum gain - yet another fallacy!

This is unbelievably basic post-grad stuff, the sort of thing that spawns a thousand MSc and PhD papers.

And if you don't believe that austerity is not the answer, try it at home. Save a few hundred a month by giving up the family car and see if your overall wealth and well-being goes up or down!

 

[Mr D]

The Byre - we've had cut in corporation tax rate in Britain in recent years. Has the corporation tax paid gone up or down?

These proper economists you want to run that part of government - any of them stood for election?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And if you don't believe that austerity is not the answer, try it at home. Save a few hundred a month by giving up the family car and see if your overall wealth and well-being goes up or down!

Interesting idea but it assumes that your wealth and well-being is at the correct level to begin with. Just a glimpse at the insolvency forum will show that many so-called business people haven't a clue.

I have had many ups and downs in business and am now fairly well off because I always found it easier to tighten my own belt rather than to run to the bank for more overdraft.

The difficulty with our governments is that they do not differentiate between essential expenditure on the public, ie the NHS and unessential spending on their power base; Defence.

Its significant that Costa Rica does not have a military, is one of the happiest countries in the world, is reaching environmental sustainability before any other country and does not have terrorist outrages. And they do have the ability to punch well above their weight on the world stage. The Paris Climate Change Treaty was their initiative.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The Byre - we've had cut in corporation tax rate in Britain in recent years. Has the corporation tax paid gone up or down?

A competitive, low-pressure corporation tax rate certainly helps, but it's not enough on its own.

In fact, doing that on its own is a bit of a wasted opportunity.

Combine favourable taxation with investment funding, infrastructure spending and a generally more buoyant economy, and then we'll see business growth turning into more jobs, faster pay growth and even more income for the Government.

It's quite frustrating that Labour proposed all these investment plans (good), but pledged to ramp up corporation tax as well (bad). The Lib Dems were the only party who got that right, in my view. Not too far in either direction, but a balanced mixture of both.

 

[Mr D]

Interesting idea but it assumes that your wealth and well-being is at the correct level to begin with. Just a glimpse at the insolvency forum will show that many so-called business people haven't a clue.

I have had many ups and downs in business and am now fairly well off because I always found it easier to tighten my own belt rather than to run to the bank for more overdraft.

The difficulty with our governments is that they do not differentiate between essential expenditure on the public, ie the NHS and unessential spending on their power base; Defence.

Its significant that Costa Rica does not have a military, is one of the happiest countries in the world, is reaching environmental sustainability before any other country and does not have terrorist outrages. And they do have the ability to punch well above their weight on the world stage. The Paris Climate Change Treaty was their initiative.

Is defence worth spending money on?
Is home & contents insurance worth spending money on?

We could cut defence, there are issues of areas reliant on government spending and jobs. Just like any large local employer. However its one of those things that if you need to use it then the timescale is long and cost is high when you do not have the equipment, facilities and people ready.
We've cut defence quite a bit since the cold war.

Perhaps we don't need to invade Iraq for a 4th time.

 

[Mr D]

A competitive, low-pressure corporation tax rate certainly helps, but it's not enough on its own.

In fact, doing that on its own is a bit of a wasted opportunity.

Combine favourable taxation with investment funding, infrastructure spending and a generally more buoyant economy, and then we'll see business growth turning into more jobs, faster pay growth and even more income for the Government.

It's quite frustrating that Labour proposed all these investment plans (good), but pledged to ramp up corporation tax as well (bad). The Lib Dems were the only party who got that right, in my view. Not too far in either direction, but a balanced mixture of both.

Infrastructure funding - like HS2?
Investment funding - like paying for so many people to go to uni?