Sorry Callum, we "gave" the banks precisely nothing.
First "we" as in the Govt. acquired the shares in certain banks, that is nationalised or part nationalised them. The Govt. paid for those shares. Since then, the Govt, has made about £500mn profit by selling Lloyds shares for more than they paid for them. That pretty much balanced out the loss the Treasury made offloading Northern Rock - but that's another story really). There's more profit to come. The Treasury (as in the civil servants not whoever wins the election) is also determined to NOT make a loss on the RBS shares when they are sold.
Aah, perhaps that nice bright colourful poster with very big very misleading words is referring to quantitative easing? But that can't be correct either because we "gave" the banks £375bn NOT £141bn! The only thing is that the full name for quantitative easing is quantitative easing asset purchases. So, when the BoE printed more money to hand to the banks, it was effectively paying for the securities, in the main government securities, that the banks were holding as assets. In effect swapping one liquid asset for another less liquid asset. In due course the QE will unwind and things will be back to where they were. In the meantime, on our behalf, the BoE is making shed loads of money by way of dividend payments on the bonds it is holding. Which, of course, it's handing back to Govt.
As demonstrated by your posters things are not always black and white. For example, I've no idea if the bankers bonus figure is correct. If it is, a nice hefty slice - £24bn - will have come to the Govt. in tax which will have helped certain things no end.
Someone said on here earlier ,can't remember who,that Labours promise on immigration was more stringent than the Tories. Well I've had a read through and I'm sorry, but that clearly isn't the case.
The day before the election, I reckon we should have a no holds barred, get it off your chest, political viewpoint thread. You can say what you want, stereotype to the max, offend to the hilt, and relieve that pent up tension. No flags allowed, and thread sunk post election day.
I find the whole election thing a real issue tbh, I really want to see the great things and people we have in this country get back something tangible that they can feel has made this place better,
For me I really want to see young people not being misled and in a situation where they dont see that the world goes round due to people starting life sometimes at the bottom of the career path and fighting and trying to reach up that ladder, instead they become so disenchanted so led to believe that having to do the tasks and jobs that are not full of prestige and kudos are not worthwhile, and as such seemingly give up at around 13-14 and take the option of benefits and lack of aspiration to feel a sense of pride and self respect in doing the best job no matter what and give life a go
I want to see the seeds of recovery in the financial situation and stability to not de rail that
I want a party that represents people that work and reward getting yourself self sufficient and living within your means, not encouraging you to risk it through irresponsible borrowing, I want there to be a better security blanket for those that fall off that path and assist them to get back on
I want a country that has a military strength that is something that others need to be aware of and fearful of if you piss it off
I want hardline laws on anyone who is willing to cause terror and fear through hatred of any kind whether that be racial or religion
I want rapists murders and child sex offenders never free to walk amongst us,
If someone came along with all those I'd vote for them,
So right now I have to pick from who can give some of those things
And those that I think are the most important now
That's financial stability and consistent attention to what has grown the economy so far
Getting people into work and any kind of work
Not supporting those that can work but don't and making their lives more financially difficult until they have to change for themselves
To me that only can allow me to vote tory and that's how I will vote but remembering that the decision has been heavily influenced by the decisions and actions of the last government who had sole control and a hell of a long time to make a difference, I guess I just don't trust them regardless of what they put in their manifesto as they have still never accepted or taken responsibility for their mistakes and not in the indirect way they word any of their statements
Do I think that they will make the whole country feel that they are doing the right thing no it can never happen
This! Two types of people - progressive, love the country and want the best... And those who blame x,y and z for problems with their life, their club, their country.
I might write it in a different way but I want our country to aspire to that which you articulate above. I have no allegiance to Labour but right now I see their policies of raising living standards of the many as the best way to grow the country and reduce tensions. And I have a fundamental belief that the EU followed by the Euro is the biggest and most successful peace project seen in the last century. It's leadership, structures and policies may be opaque but the success of Europe and particularly the Mediterranean countries is crucial to our prosperity.
Those countries and those to the East are our frontline for ISIS, immigration, Putin and the middle east.We simply have to find common ground with the Germans, French, Spanish and Italian governments and people to drive this forward...
The alternative is Farrage, Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Make no mistake if the Euro and EU falls over then that is the biggest single threat to our prosperity so I have absolutely no time for the little Englanders in the blue corner!
Raising the minimum wage is the most striking policy from the red corner - the original introduction was opposed. The thing is that a large chunk of the benefits bill is for the working poor - our government is basically subsidising wages which are below a living wage and many of these jobs are provided by big corporations who can afford a slightly higher hourly rate. I could research it but my guess is workers in retail, cleaning and hotels / restaurants are on minimum wage. All of these activities add value to the property where the activities happe. And these are owned by the richer people - none will close because costs rise marginally.
And people on low wages spend every penny so it goes around again in local economies.
Plus the red party are proposing a cut in tuition fees - another path for our youth. Perhaps apprenticeships are on the agenda too but I've not looked?
I like what you are saying and respect that you are a floating voter so you have your take on the various offerings. And that you've struck out on your own...But perhaps I have a different view of 1997-2010? An era where the first four years were run on surplus ( to rectify the reputatational damage from the 1970s). A time where we trod water during a potential crash due to the .com bubble and other events... A time when employment went up and NHS waiting lists went down. And when global interest rates halved which in turn fuelled cheap credit. Totally up to the individual what they did with that but we all had the chance to borrow money and invest in business and property.
Iraq was a complete disaster and paying GPs a fat contract to work 9-5 was not the best use of money. And I am appalled at the number of public sector managers earning > £100k+ pa even though there is no risk and no entrepreneurial reward for the stakeholders. Not to mention their six figure pension payouts which they take aged 55!
Where I fundamentally disagree with Labour is that I believe they should sell / privatise any mature asset to raise cash as politicians are simply not good operational managers... Trains, tracks, banks, houses etc. Sell the lot and then use the money to build more stuff! Creating jobs and supplying affordable housing to cut the housing benefit bill.
But the Tories are further right than the Tea Party and their rhetoric is divisive and irritating to our partners. Their economics is particularly misleading as I've posted higher up the thread. In the front page of the Times today they are criticised for suggesting an implied £30bn cut to Welfare and other budgets which is NOT in their manifesto.
Just as they said no change to the NHS then reformed it six months after entering power.
Let's see what happens in the run in - perhaps we might even have a second election if deals can't be done?
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
.
A good post from Seth SR but I would urge caution with this point of view. Financing debt relies on an imbalance between nations, those with a net surplus and those with a net deficit which tends to be developed nations borrowing from newly developing nations. There is only so much wealth being created in the World and the more developing nations develop, the less will be the imbalance between nations and the less capital will be available to be lent to nations who spend more than they earn.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
I thank you sir for the clarity. In my lengthy contribution I was attempting to juxtapose debt with services for the next generation. If they are paying for their own higher education and the retirement age rises then why should they have to pay for those currently aged 40-60 too?
Either a major party will kop on to this ( and it won't be the blue one because of their demographic being older than the East stand!) or a new political force will emerge. Imagine UKYP (y for youth) but instead of blaming immigrants they will blame the over 65s. If the governments of the day across Europe ignore youth unemployment then a political force will be unleashed. And it might not be as democratic as the older generation like.
I think this stuff should go on a different thread, but it's something I'm very interested in. I think pensions will be a massive issue in about 15-20 years' time, in a similar way to benefits fraud is a big issue right now, and likely with similar language. The effects would be even stronger if the UK did decide to leave the EU and seal the border, and will grow the more that state pensions are protected (eg triple-lock).
Ironically, the generation likely to feel the brunt of this will be people who are in their 40s now. I say ironically, because this is the first generation in 200 years or so to have real incomes lower than their parents' generation.
The accumulation of debt (using future generations' incomes to pay for stuff now) may be linked in to the above, but I think pensions are much easier to understand as an issue.
We could easily have separate threads for: The union and the SNP The deficit and tax / spending Europe and the Euro The value and costs of immigration And the vision for 2030 as you suggest.
Here's the thing: we are in an election and there is more clarity and hyperlinks here than I see anywhere else. Surely today's politicians should be painting a picture for 2030? Nobody is likely to win an outright majority.
Then again all three losing leaders are likely to be out of a job the morning after and Farage and Clegg might not even be elected. So what do they care about unsustainable pension and health expenditure?!
On a lighter note, there's a website for building your Fantasy Front Bench. You can create it from as many parties as you want and I believe even MPs that should be outgoing are included for some reason, as well as all the candidates standing this year.
If you were wondering about some of my choices...Bercow as Welsh Sec would be sent to Wales, far away from his London penthouse.
Boris Johnson as Health Sec for the inevitable Carry On Nurse/Benny Hill style antics we would see.
Since Ed Miliband enjoys riding in First Class so much, he can spend as much time as he wants making sure all trains have good enough first class and champagne as Transport Sec
Plus I found a good brief for Ed Davey, it'll be fairly quiet so plenty of time to be in his constituency office to listen to the plight of his constituents such as being probed by border control at Ebbsfleet ;-)
All the others were largely picked to either annoy those affected by the brief, the country as a whole, or just the person who has picked up the brief. Bet Diane Abbott would love touring some warzones.
I think the electorate have become smarter. History is littered with examples of Tory press and party attempts, sometimes successful, contemptuously to belittle Labour leaders who have never or not yet been prime minister as “not up to the job”, lacking the necessary weight and gravitas, small political figures with big disqualifying character defects. Churchill’s did it to Attlee before he was elected prime minister in a landslide in 1945. Harold Wilson was systematically dismissed as a light-weight and left-wing extremist until he became one of the most effective (and still most widely underrated) prime ministers of the 20th century. Now Ed Miliband has been the victim of a similar campaign of vilification.
I have found his speeches to be some of the most powerful I have heard from a Labour leader. This is what somebody wrote about him that I think is very true. A few months ago I was in the small audience for a set-piece policy speech by Ed Miliband at the Battersea Power Station conference centre. From the time when he strode into the hall he dominated the proceedings by the force of his intelligence, mastery of detail, courtesy in answering questions without resorting to cheap debating points, confidence in his own ability to expound new policies without the need for prompting by aides, and his obvious commitment to humane, effective, economically literate government in place of the harsh incompetent shambles of coalition rule. He looked and sounded like the big man that he really is. If he could project these qualities to the wider electorate there would be little doubt about his prime ministerial credentials. I think he is projecting these during this election and that is why Cameron has been reluctant to openly debate with him.
What he did a couple of years ago was set the agenda, Living standards for hard working people. Not scroungers, but people that haven't felt the benefits of this recovery. It forced the other parties to fight him on his ground. Any great leader gets his opponent to fight on his ground. I long to see what he can do for this country. Disagree with the bloke by all means, but please respect his abilities and qualities and see the slurs for what they are. The Labour party are lucky to have such a leader. The tory press barons know it and think the british people don't have the intelligence to see beyond their hatchet job. But they do.
Churchill was a great wartime leader, but Attlee was also a prominent supporting rock to him when the country had to be united during those dark days. After the war they became Conservative and Labour leaders again. It was considered by many that Churchills attacks on Attlee, a man who supported him so well were not right - but that is politics isn't it and shouldn't detract from any reputations. Attlee was very clever and manipulated Churchill more than the other way round in all that, but in a way that resonated with the people. Working people who had risked their lives and lost family members wanted something better for their own after their sacrifice. In 1948 the NHS was born. Many will say that Clement Attlee was the UK's greatest prime minister. He didn't just scrape into power, it was a landslide victory.
With all due respect Damo, the more you look into it the easier it is to understand. That should never take anything away from Churchill's leadership - he was what the country needed during the war and is rightfully a national hero. But Attlee was what the country needed after the war and also a great man.
Quote from New Statesman
'Miliband like Attlee, is a quiet, private man with a decision-making process like a steel trap, which is why we and the Americans are not bombing Syria and why the bosses at News International are sticking pins into a wax model of him.'
Attlee was deputy prime minister and part of a wartime coalition - a lot of people do not realise that.
Then in 1950 and into 51 it all swung the other way again. What the feck was going on poltically in those post war years?
Looking at the policies that got Labour in after the war - lots of new jobs, social housing, helping people get back on their feet. They are core left wing policies that are still being debated back and forth today. Many Tories / centre - rights place more emphasis on self improvement and giving people opportunity to better themselves. I guess after a gruelling war the nation was feeling justified in getting as much help from the government as they could - based on the sacrifices made.
It is that age old balance of how much you do for yourself, how much you do based on opportunity created for the nation, and how much assistance you get from the government. Post war - the final point seems to have carried more strength but ran out of steam once people were back on their feet.
I think they wanted a fairer society - Churchill was always seen as a hero and loved. It is wrong to say what you have about people after the war. They didn't want help in the way you imply they wanted a fair society. If you study the war, Churchill was a national hero, but Attlee was Deputy Prime minister and both parties worked together like they never did and never will again. He was a hero too. But the biggest heroes were the British people. Those that gave their lives and those that sacrificed all for victory. Churchill would not have disagreed with that and it is wrong to suggest they wanted help from the government after the war. Fairness isn't help.
What you have to consider is what changes the Conservatives had to make after that victory. Supporting a NHS for instance is not Tory instinct but they do, or have said they do, since it's introduction.
Comments
Also a lot of regurgitated bollocks, and grown men squabbling like over-tired 5 year olds.
Get a grip guys, it's just embarrassing.
Genuinely interested not a pop
Apologies.
First "we" as in the Govt. acquired the shares in certain banks, that is nationalised or part nationalised them. The Govt. paid for those shares. Since then, the Govt, has made about £500mn profit by selling Lloyds shares for more than they paid for them. That pretty much balanced out the loss the Treasury made offloading Northern Rock - but that's another story really). There's more profit to come. The Treasury (as in the civil servants not whoever wins the election) is also determined to NOT make a loss on the RBS shares when they are sold.
Aah, perhaps that nice bright colourful poster with very big very misleading words is referring to quantitative easing? But that can't be correct either because we "gave" the banks £375bn NOT £141bn!
The only thing is that the full name for quantitative easing is quantitative easing asset purchases. So, when the BoE printed more money to hand to the banks, it was effectively paying for the securities, in the main government securities, that the banks were holding as assets. In effect swapping one liquid asset for another less liquid asset. In due course the QE will unwind and things will be back to where they were. In the meantime, on our behalf, the BoE is making shed loads of money by way of dividend payments on the bonds it is holding. Which, of course, it's handing back to Govt.
As demonstrated by your posters things are not always black and white.
Well I've had a read through and I'm sorry, but that clearly isn't the case.
Callum?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/you-sounded-like-a-nazi-julie-andrews#.fq9jnk9zx
(personal favourite is the Shapps one I think)
Sorry, have I got the date wrong ?
Two types of people - progressive, love the country and want the best...
And those who blame x,y and z for problems with their life, their club, their country.
I might write it in a different way but I want our country to aspire to that which you articulate above. I have no allegiance to Labour but right now I see their policies of raising living standards of the many as the best way to grow the country and reduce tensions.
And I have a fundamental belief that the EU followed by the Euro is the biggest and most successful peace project seen in the last century. It's leadership, structures and policies may be opaque but the success of Europe and particularly the Mediterranean countries is crucial to our prosperity.
Those countries and those to the East are our frontline for ISIS, immigration, Putin and the middle east.We simply have to find common ground with the Germans, French, Spanish and Italian governments and people to drive this forward...
The alternative is Farrage, Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Make no mistake if the Euro and EU falls over then that is the biggest single threat to our prosperity so I have absolutely no time for the little Englanders in the blue corner!
Raising the minimum wage is the most striking policy from the red corner - the original introduction was opposed. The thing is that a large chunk of the benefits bill is for the working poor - our government is basically subsidising wages which are below a living wage and many of these jobs are provided by big corporations who can afford a slightly higher hourly rate. I could research it but my guess is workers in retail, cleaning and hotels / restaurants are on minimum wage. All of these activities add value to the property where the activities happe. And these are owned by the richer people - none will close because costs rise marginally.
And people on low wages spend every penny so it goes around again in local economies.
Plus the red party are proposing a cut in tuition fees - another path for our youth. Perhaps apprenticeships are on the agenda too but I've not looked?
I like what you are saying and respect that you are a floating voter so you have your take on the various offerings. And that you've struck out on your own...But perhaps I have a different view of 1997-2010? An era where the first four years were run on surplus ( to rectify the reputatational damage from the 1970s). A time where we trod water during a potential crash due to the .com bubble and other events... A time when employment went up and NHS waiting lists went down. And when global interest rates halved which in turn fuelled cheap credit. Totally up to the individual what they did with that but we all had the chance to borrow money and invest in business and property.
Iraq was a complete disaster and paying GPs a fat contract to work 9-5 was not the best use of money. And I am appalled at the number of public sector managers earning > £100k+ pa even though there is no risk and no entrepreneurial reward for the stakeholders. Not to mention their six figure pension payouts which they take aged 55!
Where I fundamentally disagree with Labour is that I believe they should sell / privatise any mature asset to raise cash as politicians are simply not good operational managers... Trains, tracks, banks, houses etc. Sell the lot and then use the money to build more stuff! Creating jobs and supplying affordable housing to cut the housing benefit bill.
But the Tories are further right than the Tea Party and their rhetoric is divisive and irritating to our partners. Their economics is particularly misleading as I've posted higher up the thread. In the front page of the Times today they are criticised for suggesting an implied £30bn cut to Welfare and other budgets which is NOT in their manifesto.
Just as they said no change to the NHS then reformed it six months after entering power.
Let's see what happens in the run in - perhaps we might even have a second election if deals can't be done?
;-)
The union and the SNP
The deficit and tax / spending
Europe and the Euro
The value and costs of immigration
And the vision for 2030 as you suggest.
Here's the thing: we are in an election and there is more clarity and hyperlinks here than I see anywhere else. Surely today's politicians should be painting a picture for 2030? Nobody is likely to win an outright majority.
Then again all three losing leaders are likely to be out of a job the morning after and Farage and Clegg might not even be elected. So what do they care about unsustainable pension and health expenditure?!
Anyway, I present my Trollalition...
If you were wondering about some of my choices...Bercow as Welsh Sec would be sent to Wales, far away from his London penthouse.
Boris Johnson as Health Sec for the inevitable Carry On Nurse/Benny Hill style antics we would see.
Since Ed Miliband enjoys riding in First Class so much, he can spend as much time as he wants making sure all trains have good enough first class and champagne as Transport Sec
Plus I found a good brief for Ed Davey, it'll be fairly quiet so plenty of time to be in his constituency office to listen to the plight of his constituents such as being probed by border control at Ebbsfleet ;-)
All the others were largely picked to either annoy those affected by the brief, the country as a whole, or just the person who has picked up the brief. Bet Diane Abbott would love touring some warzones.
I'd like to see who other Lifers would pick.
Big is just fine.
I have found his speeches to be some of the most powerful I have heard from a Labour leader. This is what somebody wrote about him that I think is very true. A few months ago I was in the small audience for a set-piece policy speech by Ed Miliband at the Battersea Power Station conference centre. From the time when he strode into the hall he dominated the proceedings by the force of his intelligence, mastery of detail, courtesy in answering questions without resorting to cheap debating points, confidence in his own ability to expound new policies without the need for prompting by aides, and his obvious commitment to humane, effective, economically literate government in place of the harsh incompetent shambles of coalition rule. He looked and sounded like the big man that he really is. If he could project these qualities to the wider electorate there would be little doubt about his prime ministerial credentials. I think he is projecting these during this election and that is why Cameron has been reluctant to openly debate with him.
What he did a couple of years ago was set the agenda, Living standards for hard working people. Not scroungers, but people that haven't felt the benefits of this recovery. It forced the other parties to fight him on his ground. Any great leader gets his opponent to fight on his ground. I long to see what he can do for this country. Disagree with the bloke by all means, but please respect his abilities and qualities and see the slurs for what they are. The Labour party are lucky to have such a leader. The tory press barons know it and think the british people don't have the intelligence to see beyond their hatchet job. But they do.
This story from Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-cameron-to-blame-for-failing-to-lead-labour-in-polls-says-lord-ashcroft-10203132.html
With all due respect Damo, the more you look into it the easier it is to understand. That should never take anything away from Churchill's leadership - he was what the country needed during the war and is rightfully a national hero. But Attlee was what the country needed after the war and also a great man.
Quote from New Statesman
'Miliband like Attlee, is a quiet, private man with a decision-making process like a steel trap, which is why we and the Americans are not bombing Syria and why the bosses at News International are sticking pins into a wax model of him.'
Attlee was deputy prime minister and part of a wartime coalition - a lot of people do not realise that.
http://www.ibtauris.com/Books/Humanities/History/Military history/Second World War/Attlees War World War II and the Making of a Labour Leader.aspx?menuitem={6D00AE6F-976D-4418-ACF0-B75CB610346A}
Looking at the policies that got Labour in after the war - lots of new jobs, social housing, helping people get back on their feet. They are core left wing policies that are still being debated back and forth today. Many Tories / centre - rights place more emphasis on self improvement and giving people opportunity to better themselves. I guess after a gruelling war the nation was feeling justified in getting as much help from the government as they could - based on the sacrifices made.
It is that age old balance of how much you do for yourself, how much you do based on opportunity created for the nation, and how much assistance you get from the government. Post war - the final point seems to have carried more strength but ran out of steam once people were back on their feet.
What you have to consider is what changes the Conservatives had to make after that victory. Supporting a NHS for instance is not Tory instinct but they do, or have said they do, since it's introduction.