UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Shamwow]

It's not worth it John, they aren't interested and nothing will change their minds.

I had a response ready for that drivel above that literally has zilch nothing whatsoever to do with any of the Conservative voters on here, but it's pointless.

And you are such a snowflake! It's hilarious.

 

[villain]

The Tories proposed to build 200,000 starter homes in 2015, at a cost of 2.3bn

The money is now gone, but the houses are not built
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rs-national-audit-office-report-a9185371.html

They’ve already lost the economic argument, and lost it long ago too.

@Honest John nothing to say about the Tories already failing on housing? And losing 2.3 billion at the same time?

 

[Honest John]

That's not a benefit of low taxation it's a benefit of taxation disparity. It doesn't work if the overall trend is towards low taxation and it works much less for markets such as ourselves that already have pull through access and skills. It works even less for markets leaving a trading bloc.

We could become a low tax haven for business but we'd see far less boom than the others. The government despite saying the opposite seem to now agree as they're saying that reduced corporate tax would cost the economy 7bn a year by 2022. Which begs the question what reducing it nearly every year has cost us previously? Why is this the magical rate rather than reverting to say the rate in 2013?

I think they've simply changed their mind and are looking at capex to stimulate growth.

CBI will like it and the unions should do to because it will create jobs.

As long as corporation taxes are not increasing that should be enough to keep business here.

 

[Honest John]

@Honest John nothing to say about the Tories already failing on housing? And losing 2.3 billion at the same time?

Yes they failed. And they need to do something about it. As to whether they have lost the economic argument then I don't agree with you. Not to the point at least that we need to level the whole shooting match and usher in a socialist regime. Fix the baby. Don't chuck it out with the bath water.

 

[Cheesy]

Income inequality in Singapore is improving year on year, as is wage inflation across all deciles. Likewise if you look at their education standards it's not hard to predict that this trend will inevitably continue. The same was the case in Hong Kong prior to Chinese involvement. Obviously though these are "newer" countries and so are improving from a lower base.

Ireland on the other hand is a more established economy and shows low taxes and low spend propelling fast growth, allowing both increased spending alongside a budget surplus; meaning more more is being spent on services rather than servicing debt. Likewise record unemployment and fantastic wage growth at over 3.5%. Malta has shown a similar pattern of a reduction in tax resulting in better GDP growth.

In truth though it's common sense. Imagine if local authorities set their own tax rates. What do you think would happen if Birmingham set a corporation and income tax rate much lower than anywhere else in the UK? You'd see businesses and people moving out of other cities and into Birmingham. This would result in Birmingham undergoing a large boom as we've seen with Ireland, with other "progressive" cities (as the UK) trying to tread water. Businesses and people are far more fluid now so a country like Ireland with under 23% tax to GDP will attract people and business, whereas a country like France 46% tax to GDP will repel businesses and people.

I'm curious what people think would happen to Birmingham if they and they alone reduced all taxes by a third?

This sounds potentially disastrous though, and again sort of accentuates my point: it's a policy which would potentially have a short-term benefit for cities insofar as it generating revenue is concerned but it would lead to a race to the bottom and would leave governments with much less to invest in rural areas where there's not going to be much of an incentive to invest for businesses if they can go to a city instead. And it only really works until it doesn't - as we saw with the financial crash a decade or so ago unfettered greed that's not regulated at all by the government can come back to bite you.

 

[Sweet Square]

I had a response ready for that drivel above that literally has zilch nothing whatsoever to do with any of the Conservative voters on here, but it's pointless.

Labour, especially under Jeremy Corbyn, is also a bogeyman that fits this political typing to a tee. The spending plans conjure up the mythologised Winter of Discontent, the foreign policy an Operation Sea Lion rerun with Jihadists and bolshevised Brussels bureaucrats, and any hint of making life better for working people a concession to snowflakery and idleness.

https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-problem-with-old-people.html

The results are in -

Yes and the whole workforce were taxed. But the public services were pretty crap and never reflected that take.

Mainly because the government spunked it all meeting striking workers in nationalised industries pay demands. So they could carry on producing stuff that nobody wanted to buy.

By 1979 they could not go to the taxpayer for any more to fund this lunacy and we got the Winter of Discontent - then Maggie.

Edit: Everyone remembers the medicine, not the original illness. We were called the Sick Man of Europe.

But, but...socialism?

Look forward to similar if Corbyn gets in

Wasting Billions re nationalising everything?

Very sensible.

Never trust anyone with a beard.

Just because he's consistent doesn't mean he's consistently right. Hitler was also consistent. Alright, Mao and Stalin were (I think).

Corbyn's view of this country is as much, if not more, in line with National Socialism. Taking over business, forcibly if necessary, big government and control over people's lives. Don't forget, it's actually called Socialism.

Just as curious to know why young people would support Labour. Unless they are naive enough to believe in their bribes from the magic money tree.

Yep. He's a bigger snake than any of the Tories. He has no interests outside of his own Palestinian loving, tree-hugging, IRA supporting, Jew hating agenda. To even consider him as a leader of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is beyond madness.

Kids. Unless there's freebies involved.

Yes they failed. And they need to do something about it. As to whether they have lost the economic argument then I don't agree with you. Not to the point at least that we need to level the whole shooting match and usher in a socialist regime. Fix the baby. Don't chuck it out with the bath water.

Also this gem

And one of the reasons they cannot address this is because high property prices and the proliferation of renting is very much in the interests of their coalition of older voters. For among the ranks of retirees are a not inconsiderable number of petty landlords who rent out their old family homes or other properties. Therefore keeping them sweet and onside means screwing younger workers, even if the price the party will pay is their decreasing political viability in the medium to long-term.

https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-problem-with-old-people.html

Wow, how far off the mark are you?

Firstly shamwow, I’m not and never have fecked anyone off, let alone the disabled, what a pathetic sentence.

And you refer to ‘my own’. What do you know about who or what ‘my own’ is. Do you think I’m rich?

I lost my parents last year and inherited their house which I now rent out. I work very hard and earn literally the national average wage and because of my rental income, and for the first time in my life, I can afford things and not be in my overdraft every month.

I am divorced and have two kids who live with me 50% of the time and my dream is to be in a position to leave them a (very modest) house each on my death. That’s it. I’m not dreaming of having billions in the bank or ‘fecking over’ the disabled as you put it.

I was born and raised in a labour household and have largely voted labour my whole adult life. I would happily pay more tax to fund better social support and I still feel aligned more with labour than Tory.

But I am also a centrist at heart and believe in aspiration and wealth creation and I don’t feel the current state of the Labour Party reflect where I’m at in life.

They have discussed directly their proposals / plans for a very important area of my life and if their plans came into place it would have a very negative impact on me.

It’s one thing trying to get billionaires to pay more tax but quite another to sling a death tax lasso around totally normal people like me and I bet a lot of people on this forum will be affected by Labours plans. If that’s ok with you then fine, good on you.

You can call me selfish if you want but you’re wrong. Like i said, I won’t be alone in this.

You really might want to give it another read, Colin.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Aw it's a little mini echo chamber. What a luvly widdle echo chamber.

 

[villain]

Yes they failed. And they need to do something about it. As to whether they have lost the economic argument then I don't agree with you. Not to the point at least that we need to level the whole shooting match and usher in a socialist regime. Fix the baby. Don't chuck it out with the bath water.

Despite them losing 2.3 billion in funds, the economy growing 0.1% despite 10 years of austerity - and many more damning indictments. You still suggest that the Tories haven’t failed on economic & fiscal policies?

 

[Sassy Colin]

Despite them losing 2.3 billion in funds, the economy growing 0.1% despite 10 years of austerity - and many more damning indictments. You still suggest that the Tories haven’t failed on economic & fiscal policies?

Brexit has fecked everything up, we really have no idea where we would be if it wasn't for Brexit, but it is fair to say it has been a terrible drain on the economy. I would suggest that, if it hadn't been for this idiocy, then we would be much further along in terms of the real end of austerity, not this phoney vote winning end which is being bandied about, and growth in the economy.

 

[Sweet Square]

Yes they failed. And they need to do something about it. As to whether they have lost the economic argument then I don't agree with you. Not to the point at least that we need to level the whole shooting match and usher in a socialist regime. Fix the baby. Don't chuck it out with the bath water.

The Conservatives refused to build more social housing because they worried it would create more Labour voters, Nick Clegg has said.

Speaking ahead of the release of his new book, Politics Between the Extremes, the former Deputy Prime Minister said top figures on David Cameron’s team viewed housing as a “petri dish”.


“It would have been in a Quad meeting, so either Cameron or Osborne. One of them – I honestly can’t remember whom – looked genuinely nonplussed and said, ‘I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters.’ They genuinely saw housing as a petri dish for voters. It was unbelievable,” he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-labour-voters-nick-clegg-says-a7223796.html

Despite them losing 2.3 billion in funds, the economy growing 0.1% despite 10 years of austerity - and many more damning indictments. You still suggest that the Tories haven’t failed on economic & fiscal policies?

It's worked for him.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

The Conservatives could have teachers on board and, indirectly, the ear of millions of young people. Thank the lord they've been too busy shafting them over the mid to long term to realise. I wouldn't be surprised if left leaning political bias slips through the net in schools when they're barely earning the average wage.

I think this I'd the key point. There would be more Tory voting teachers if the Tories hadn't been squeezing them for 10 years.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

In truth I'm not really a Tory, certainly not a tax and spend Johnson Tory. I'm a proponent of low taxation (which Tories haven't been in decades) allowing for maximum civil liberties (which Tories have never been).

Likewise I'm not really pissed because the Tories haven't been a party of low taxation whilst I've been old enough to vote, hence me only voting Tory once in the past which was solely an anti-Corbyn vote (although I'm only 31). Quite the opposite in that they're taxing the populace at record non-recession peacetime levels.

In terms of not reducing corporation tax from a personal point of view I'm apathetic as I generally budget my corporation tax declaration based on annual performance and work backwards, so the % is often irrelevant (19/20 will be a record as a figure and as a % of turnover, despite it being the lowest governmental figure since I ran my business). Likewise even when I can't fully legally manipulate the figures the market price of products increases/decreases to reflect the tax rate so I merely follow suit and charge more/less.

Its strange though when we look to first world countries that are quickly growing in the current climate and disregard the fact that the ones performing best have low taxation and low spend as a % of GDP.

If I were running the UK as a business for example the first thing I'd do is look at Ireland and their great growth whilst maintaining low corporate taxes and extraordinary low spend to GDP and tax to GDP. Likewise Hong Kong pre-China involvement or Singapore. There seems to be a lack of understanding that a rising tide initiated by low taxes lifts all boats.

Yay. An international race to the bottom. Which country can get there first.

 

[finneh]

That's not a benefit of low taxation it's a benefit of taxation disparity. It doesn't work if the overall trend is towards low taxation and it works much less for markets such as ourselves that already have pull through access and skills. It works even less for markets leaving a trading bloc.

We could become a low tax haven for business but we'd see far less boom than the others. The government despite saying the opposite seem to now agree as they're saying that reduced corporate tax would cost the economy 7bn a year by 2022. Which begs the question what reducing it nearly every year has cost us previously? Why is this the magical rate rather than reverting to say the rate in 2013?

I agree it's to do with tax disparity, but in a global world we're competing with other countries (like Ireland) who're far more competitive. Of course the UK has pull through access/skills/infrastructure but my belief is we should have pull through more competitive taxation also. Again I disagree with forecasts on all sides that merely equate reductions in taxation with equivalent drops in tax revenue. I likewise disagree with Corbynomics where you add to the tax % and come up with a perfectly proportional increase in tax take as if people's habits don't change dependant on tax policy.

As I said previously these tax and spend Tories aren't a party I've ever aligned with. They're partaking in Corbynomics Lite... Although even the "Lite" part is up for discussion.

This sounds potentially disastrous though, and again sort of accentuates my point: it's a policy which would potentially have a short-term benefit for cities insofar as it generating revenue is concerned but it would lead to a race to the bottom and would leave governments with much less to invest in rural areas where there's not going to be much of an incentive to invest for businesses if they can go to a city instead. And it only really works until it doesn't - as we saw with the financial crash a decade or so ago unfettered greed that's not regulated at all by the government can come back to bite you.

The problem is we're competing against countries like Ireland (let alone tax havens etc), so having much higher taxes means we're putting off investment, growing at a slower rate and therefore have less to spend. Given that we're already spending more money than we can bring in through taxes and given that most people want to spend more on public services; I'm unsure how we square this circle.

The Tories are currently engaging in a law of diminishing returns. We're increasing taxes in order to increase public spending. The problem is increasing taxes is stifling our growth, so to fill the gap caused by stifled growth we're increasing taxes, which again stifles growth. We're like a business who's losing customers but instead of cutting our prices to encourage more business, were increasing our prices to maintain turnover. The problem with that approach is increasing costs causes a loss in more custom, which with the same process eventually causes ever fewer customers; as the aren't willing to pay the ever greater costs. In my view low tax and high growth is much more effective long term compared with high tax and low growth.

The question therefore is would you prefer to be Birmingham who in my example are a fast growing, prosperous region whereby spend/tax to GDP is low but long term spend itself grows quickly with the region; or would you prefer to be the other cities that see repressed investment, repressed growth and a continual cycle of greater borrowing, greater tax burden and repression of civil liberties to fund stagnant growth; due to people choosing Birmingham's competitive environment over their uncompetitive one.

Yay. An international race to the bottom. Which country can get there first.

It's called dealing with the realities of the world, rather than believing in rainbows and unicorns. In the real world I'd prefer the UK to be a dynamic and fast growing country attracting global investment resulting in salary increases across all deciles via competitve taxation (ala Singapore and Ireland) rather than a poor stagnating one ideologically driving itself into the ground through onerous taxation (ala France with the UK not far behind).

 

[villain]

Brexit has fecked everything up, we really have no idea where we would be if it wasn't for Brexit, but it is fair to say it has been a terrible drain on the economy. I would suggest that, if it hadn't been for this idiocy, then we would be much further along in terms of the real end of austerity, not this phoney vote winning end which is being bandied about, and growth in the economy.

Not really, because before Brexit the peak GDP growth we saw under Conservative rule was 3.1%*, that's after 5 years of austerity cuts which (according to Cameron & Osborne) were necessary to boost growth, yet our peak, was lower than under Blair. Right now we're growing at a rate slower than post-recession.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281734/gdp-growth-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
This is supposed to be the party that promotes fiscal growth.

Brexit will make the economy worse, yes, but it was hardly in a position of strength to begin with. And we can blame the Tories for Brexit too.

*edit- it was 3.1% not 3.4

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yeah but I need the rent from my second home and my kid needs to go to private school. Honestly though I'm actually a very caring person.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Not really, because before Brexit the peak GDP growth we saw under Conservative rule was 3.4%, that's after 5 years of austerity cuts which (according to Cameron & Osborne) were necessary to boost growth, yet our peak, was lower than under Blair. Right now we're growing at a rate slower than post-recession.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281734/gdp-growth-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
This is supposed to be the party that promotes fiscal growth.

Brexit will make the economy worse, yes, but it was hardly in a position of strength to begin with. And we can blame the Tories for Brexit too.

He is right in a sense, if you're looking at just GDP growth then the UK under the Tory government 2010-16 was performing well against other similar economies. After the Brexit vote we went from the best performing economy in the G7 (GDP growth) to the worst. They have brought the deficit under control too, although it took them longer than the pledged. Looking at other economic markers like real wage growth etc, the UK performed very badly in the same period, however.

The Brexit project has already cost us hundreds of billions and will continue to do so. In the absence of that I think they'd have a much better case for arguing that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Brexit should have really killed that idea but general global prosperity since then has kept us afloat with poor growth but not at a level where it has noticeably hurt enough of the electorate to have a real impact politically.

 

[Honest John]

Despite them losing 2.3 billion in funds, the economy growing 0.1% despite 10 years of austerity - and many more damning indictments. You still suggest that the Tories haven’t failed on economic & fiscal policies?

In the light of what happened in 2008 what measures do you think would have been the correct ones? How would you have addressed the deficit and what evidence to you have that it would have worked?

As I see it now we have less than 4% unemployed (that's virtual full employment by most peoples reckoning), inflation at 1.5%, Interest rates are 0.75%. The deficit is down. Wage growth is at an 11 year high at around 3.5%. Yes austerity hurt and hopefully that will now be addressed. But I would be interested in a proper summary of just how any other method would have addressed the biggest financial issue to hit the country since the Wall St crash.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Not really, because before Brexit the peak GDP growth we saw under Conservative rule was 3.1%*, that's after 5 years of austerity cuts which (according to Cameron & Osborne) were necessary to boost growth, yet our peak, was lower than under Blair. Right now we're growing at a rate slower than post-recession.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281734/gdp-growth-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
This is supposed to be the party that promotes fiscal growth.

Brexit will make the economy worse, yes, but it was hardly in a position of strength to begin with. And we can blame the Tories for Brexit too.

*edit- it was 3.1% not 3.4

Blair presided over the longest sustained period of economic growth since, what, the 1920s? Despite that, when the inevitable crash came (remember no more boom & bust?) there was nothing in the coffers to cushion the fall, leading to austerity.

No doubt you are going to bleat on about it all being the bankers fault, but it still remains that, there was an opportunity to put some money aside to cushion the inevitable bust, whoever's fault it would turn out to be, and that opportunity was not taken.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

Corbyn is only any good at campaigning, he loves the adoration of his followers and feeds off it.

He has gone from this incompetent, unelectable, idiot to the great statesmen again.

Aren't you guys worried that he'll just revert to type if he gets in?

Nope

 

[Honest John]

It's worked for him.

And millions like me - by the latest reckoning the vast majority of voters in the UK.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

Something has changed in the atmosphere on social media. Corbyn is suddenly not getting anywhere as much stick as he has over the past few weeks. I read the comments in the news pages and up to this point it will always be anti corbyn, today it just seems different.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Something has changed in the atmosphere on social media. Corbyn is suddenly not getting anywhere as much stick as he has over the past few weeks. I read the comments in the news pages and up to this point it will always be anti corbyn, today it just seems different.

Your reply to my post on the subject was "Nope".

 

[Fluctuation0161]

In the light of what happened in 2008 what measures do you think would have been the correct ones? How would you have addressed the deficit and what evidence to you have that it would have worked?

As I see it now we have less than 4% unemployed (that's virtual full employment by most peoples reckoning), inflation at 1.5%, Interest rates are 0.75%. The deficit is down. Wage growth is at an 11 year high at around 3.5%. Yes austerity hurt and hopefully that will now be addressed. But I would be interested in a proper summary of just how any other method would have addressed the biggest financial issue to hit the country since the Wall St crash.

800,000 people on zero hour contracts. Great success.

 

[Grinner]

There is some truth here. I was socially conditioned to think that Uni was beyond my reach when I left school. Plus I had some pressure from my parents regarding having to pay my way and so I chose an apprenticeship. Ten years later later I returned to Uni as a mature student. I was means tested. My fees were paid and I received a mature student maintenance grant.

I also question the standards when there is such a push to get so many kids though university.

More kids going to university is a good thing but standards do have to be maintained. I'd like to know where all the fees are going though.

 

[Stanley Road]

In the light of what happened in 2008 what measures do you think would have been the correct ones? How would you have addressed the deficit and what evidence to you have that it would have worked?

As I see it now we have less than 4% unemployed (that's virtual full employment by most peoples reckoning), inflation at 1.5%, Interest rates are 0.75%. The deficit is down. Wage growth is at an 11 year high at around 3.5%. Yes austerity hurt and hopefully that will now be addressed. But I would be interested in a proper summary of just how any other method would have addressed the biggest financial issue to hit the country since the Wall St crash.

Simple, investment.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Honest John]

Simple, investment.

You need money to invest we had none.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

Your reply to my post on the subject was "Nope".

Yeah I was just being flippant to be honest.

Look, I don’t particularly agree with everything corbyn says or does, but at the end of the day as a voter I will decide between party manifesto and previous voting record. Based on that alone indicates that I could never vote Tory.

Not only that, but as far as I can tell most of the usual narrative that is used to condemn corbyn In particular is sensationalist rubbish that is relatively easily disproved in terms of his character. Although I’m happy to admit that he does tend to leave himself open to attack and I find that very frustrating at times.

At the end of the day, it’s up to the individual voter to decide where their vote goes on December 12th. As it stands mine will be going to Labour, but it’s up to you to choose who you vote for and why. I have no problem with you voting Tory (or whoever) that is your democratic right mate.

 

[Honest John]

800,000 people on zero hour contracts. Great success.

Do you have any data on how many of those are happy to be on those contracts. It does actually suit a lot of people.

 

[Grinner]

Do you have any data on how many of those are happy to be on those contracts. It does actually suit a lot of people.

Can you explain please?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Do you have any data on how many of those are happy to be on those contracts. It does actually suit a lot of people.

Zero-hours work takes huge physical and mental toll
Flexible contracts suit employers but many workers pay the price with their own health
https://www.ft.com/content/d8d82ebe-9cbc-11e8-88de-49c908b1f264

 

[villain]

He is right in a sense, if you're looking at just GDP growth then the UK under the Tory government 2010-16 was performing well against other similar economies. After the Brexit vote we went from the best performing economy in the G7 (GDP growth) to the worst. They have brought the deficit under control too, although it took them longer than the pledged. Looking at other economics markers like real wage growth etc, the UK performed very badly in the same period. The Brexit project has already cost us hundreds of billions and will continue to do so. In the absence of that I think they'd have a much better case for arguing that the are the party of fiscal responsibility. Brexit should have really killed that idea but general global prosperity since then has kept us with poor growth but not at a level where it has noticeably hurting enough of the electorate to have a real impact politically.

The deficit is just one measure used as a reason for austerity - most economists actually agree that in order to boost economic growth you need to allow the deficit to expand. The tories hid behind the deficit as a means to cut down on public spending & welfare cuts, to pay for banker bailouts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
Also it wasn't just that 'it took them longer than they pledged", that implies they simply missed a deadline. Osborne said austerity would end in 2015, the latest estimates are that it will end in 2025, that's a gross miscalculation - especially when you consider that the poorest in society are dying & being forced out of their homes because of cuts to their benefits, as a result of austerity measures.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So even by their own misguided measures, they have failed - miserably so.

That's before we even get into the fact that they have admitted to losing £2.3 billion and have nothing to show for it.

Austerity might not be "hurting enough of the electorate" but it's killing thousands of people, and just because the majority of us are in a privileged position to not have to rely on benefits & food banks, doesn't mean we should put faith in a party that hides behind dated terms of fiscal responsibility, with no recent results to show for it.

In the light of what happened in 2008 what measures do you think would have been the correct ones? How would you have addressed the deficit and what evidence to you have that it would have worked?

As I see it now we have less than 4% unemployed (that's virtual full employment by most peoples reckoning), inflation at 1.5%, Interest rates are 0.75%. The deficit is down. Wage growth is at an 11 year high at around 3.5%. Yes austerity hurt and hopefully that will now be addressed. But I would be interested in a proper summary of just how any other method would have addressed the biggest financial issue to hit the country since the Wall St crash.

The unemployment rate is pretty misleading, considering 2/3's of the recent 3 million hired are self-employed or on zero-contract hours because there's not enough jobs - so yes they have a job, but they have no stable or reliable income. This, plus an increase in state-pension age thus forcing people to work while they're much older, added on to the fact that a large amount of migrants make up for recent job hires, plus many people living longer, thus working more - you should have the comprehension that a simple 4% unemployment rate doesn't even begin to tell the whole story. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/03/record-job-figures-hide-true-story-of-uk-economy

So yes, unemployment is down, but 6 million jobs pay below the 'living wage', therefore 6 million employed are classified as in poverty, and rely on foodbanks - this includes many Teachers, Nurses, Firefighters etc.
It's all well & good stating numbers, but wage growth affects the privileged, most public workers have had their wages stagnated, but CEO's, MP's, C-level executives have seen their wages double in the same time period, when you take that average of course you'll be led to believe that wages are increases - in reality, for most people they are not - not at the rate to keep up with cost of living.
https://fullfact.org/economy/pay-rises-how-much-do-nurses-police-teachers-and-mps-get-paid/

Nurses, Police Officers, Teachers etc have actually seen their wages go down on average in the last 10 years when you take inflation into account.

If you don't think there are alternatives to growing an economy than austerity, then I really don't feel like revisiting my A-level economics books - these are things which are easily researchable online. My point remains that the Tory being the part of fiscal responsibility is a delusion.

Blair presided over the longest sustained period of economic growth since, what, the 1920s? Despite that, when the inevitable crash came (remember no more boom & bust?) there was nothing in the coffers to cushion the fall, leading to austerity.

No doubt you are going to bleat on about it all being the bankers fault, but it still remains that, there was an opportunity to put some money aside to cushion the inevitable bust, whoever's fault it would turn out to be, and that opportunity was not taken.

See above.

 

[Smores]

I think they've simply changed their mind and are looking at capex to stimulate growth.

CBI will like it and the unions should do to because it will create jobs.

As long as corporation taxes are not increasing that should be enough to keep business here.

As I've said a million times on here, the opinion always seems to be the current level is the highest acceptable to business. Then it gets lowered and that becomes the only acceptable level to business. So on and so forth from 28% to 18% (think that's right).

It makes it look like the Tory base don't actually have an opinion on taxation levels beyond a blind "they shouldn't increase it" mantra. If this cut had gone ahead then a return to 20% would be deemed armageddon for our country. It's always the same mantra.

 

[finneh]

You need money to invest we had none.

Whenever I hear the idea of spending more money to reduce the deficit I always think of the "dig up, stupid" Simpsons meme.

As I've said a million times on here, the opinion always seems to be the current level is the highest acceptable to business. Then it gets lowered and that becomes the only acceptable level to business. So on and so forth from 28% to 18% (think that's right).

It makes it look like the Tory base don't actually have an opinion on taxation levels beyond a blind "they shouldn't increase it" mantra. If this cut had gone ahead then a return to 20% would be deemed armageddon for our country. It's always the same mantra.

The Tory base, like most bases though, are just acolytes of the current leadership.

Anyone who talks about corporation tax in isolation is either being intentionally disingenuous or unintentionally dense. Corporation tax currently being lower is against a backdrop of other (often stealth taxes) being higher such as SDLT, Insurance Premium Tax, VAT, Business Rates etc.

You can abolish corporation tax entirely but you'll still be taxing businesses too much if other taxes are aggressively increased to compensate (as they have been over the last decade).

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The deficit is just one measure used as a reason for austerity - most economists actually agree that in order to boost economic growth you need to allow the deficit to expand. The tories hid behind the deficit as a means to cut down on public spending & welfare cuts, to pay for banker bailouts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
Also it wasn't just that 'it took them longer than they pledged", that implies they simply missed a deadline. Osborne said austerity would end in 2015, the latest estimates are that it will end in 2025, that's a gross miscalculation - especially when you consider that the poorest in society are dying & being forced out of their homes because of cuts to their benefits, as a result of austerity measures.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So even by their own misguided measures, they have failed - miserably so.

That's before we even get into the fact that they have admitted to losing £2.3 billion and have nothing to show for it.

Austerity might not be "hurting enough of the electorate" but it's killing thousands of people, and just because the majority of us are in a privileged position to not have to rely on benefits & food banks, doesn't mean we should put faith in a party that hides behind dated terms of fiscal responsibility, with no recent results to show for it.

I won't be putting faith in the Tories don't worry. I have never voted for them and never will. I used to have some sympathy with their idea of being more fiscally responsible than Labour but no longer.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[villain]

I won't be putting faith in the Tories don't worry. I have never voted for them and never will. I used to have some sympathy with their idea of being more fiscally responsible than Labour but no longer.

Exactly the same as me

 

[Sassy Colin]

Yeah I was just being flippant to be honest.

Look, I don’t particularly agree with everything corbyn says or does, but at the end of the day as a voter I will decide between party manifesto and previous voting record. Based on that alone indicates that I could never vote Tory.

Not only that, but as far as I can tell most of the usual narrative that is used to condemn corbyn In particular is sensationalist rubbish that is relatively easily disproved in terms of his character. Although I’m happy to admit that he does tend to leave himself open to attack and I find that very frustrating at times.

At the end of the day, it’s up to the individual voter to decide where their vote goes on December 12th. As it stands mine will be going to Labour, but it’s up to you to choose who you vote for and why. I have no problem with you voting Tory (or whoever) that is your democratic right mate.

I have no intention of voting Conservative in the election, as that means I am condoning the madness of Brexit. May is my MP, so whoever I vote for will only be a protest vote, as she is getting in anyway.

 

[EwanI Ted]

Zero-hours work takes huge physical and mental toll
Flexible contracts suit employers but many workers pay the price with their own health
https://www.ft.com/content/d8d82ebe-9cbc-11e8-88de-49c908b1f264

That’s not the whole picture though. We have occasional staff who pick up shifts to cover staff sickness and holiday. They’re on zero hours contracts technically speaking. In our case they’re mainly students doing social work or similar courses who can’t commit to fixed hours all year. Suits everyone to pick and choose when they work. They get paid £12.50 an hour, more than the living wage round here, and get sick and holiday pay. Hardly exploitative. We’d have a big problem if we couldn’t use them.

Besides, exploitative places like Sports Direct will just switch to one or four hour contracts.

 

[villain]

I have no intention of voting Conservative in the election, as that means I am condoning the madness of Brexit. May is my MP, so whoever I vote for will only be a protest vote, as she is getting in anyway.

This means I live close to you, what a horrifying reality.