Prague, I wouldn't be able to address all of the points you make but some of the answers (especially when comparing to Norway, and to a lesser extent the other Nordics and Germany) are that they are much richer countries than the UK.
Also whilst this obviously doesn't apply to Germany, I also feel that population size is relevant too just due to simple maths - small country=small problems etc.
So by that formula : Small country. Small Ecconomy, small GDP, ?
I just don't think it's a coincidence that the richest countries in the world all have tiny populations (ie. Luxembourg, Kuwait, Qatar, Norway etc.) - the likes of the Gulf states can afford to subsidise every whim of their population and still have enough set aside in enormous sovereign wealth funds.
Noting @Rob7Lee 's estimates of the cost of care homes, that seems to me an example of how yet again so few people in Britain are interested in asking the questions behind the key issues. By which I mean:
1.Why is good residential care in the UK so damn expensive? because in countries like Germany and Norway (I recently visited a care home in Oslo) they are largely State provided and very good. How come these countries can afford them through the State budget and we allegedly cannot? They are far more strict on the running of these places than we are!
2.Whyis that Germany, with a bigger population, and recently flooded with impoverished immigrants, has a state based healthcare system where there is a place for anyone in a clean well run hospital when they need it, without a wait on a trolley in a corridor (source, my niece who works in one such hospital and found the tenet of my question bizarre) They charge more for non residents health care!
3. Why is that all across the EU students can go to their own universities (or in the Nordics to any Nordic uni) and pay little or nothing in fees, yet we are told that there is an economic crisis in our unis which requires us to saddle students with prohibitive levels of debt? Because the universities here can charge, they will charge. It i down to the Govm't to over turn this.
4. Whyis it that we bicker endlessly about whether we should build HS2 or concentrate on improving the rest of the network, yet no one questions the actual cost estimate for HS2, despite the known fact that it will cost at least 10 times more per km to build than a French TGV line? It's £39bn but with a contingency of £20bn... Obviously I'd prefer that money be spent elsewhere.
5.Why is it that when it comes to tax, it's all about hitting/ not hitting the taxpayer, but nobody stops to ask whether we are correctly collecting the taxes as agreed and intended by successive Parliaments. At both ends of the tax bill spectrum those in the know say HMRC is not fit for purpose, yet what do we hear about this at election time? Not a dickie. Great shout. We're taxed quite a lot when you think about it, it would be lovely to pay less tax, but other things will suffer if we do that!
This is the thing about living on the Continent and then returning regularly. Listening to friends and family, and then opening your wallet and getting the feeling some one has nicked half of what you thought you had - you just keep asking yourself, why is everythingso damn expensive, and why does the mass of the population on the streets look in worse shape (certainly, not more affluent) than those in the big cities of Northern Europe? Of course not many have the chance to make that personal comparison regularly, I appreciate that, but benchmarking these questions internationally is possible, and some organisations do it. Why don't we listen to them, why don't we ask, WHY is Britain so damn expensive?
These are all absolute guesses, but I can't see that anyone is properly addressing any of this.
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure. So by about 2050 will the housing market the way it is, children today could face never getting on the property ladder and then if they might be in a position to inherit a property, have it pulled from underneath them if one or both of their parents suffer from dementia
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure. So by about 2050 will the housing market the way it is, children today could face never getting on the property ladder and then if they might be in a position to inherit a property, have it pulled from underneath them if one or both of their parents suffer from dementia
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
I don't care how much I inherit, but I do want to leave my son a meaningful amount. I accept social care has to be paid for, but people in residential care currently are subsidising council funded residents. Not by a little bit, but by a lot. Who on here - Conservative, Labour or UKIP wants the goverment to nick money, saved and worked for, from theri kids? If I had Alzheimers, I would rather die than live the life of confusion and bewilderment. The state won't let me do that, but will happily keep an echo of my former self alive and steal the money I want my son to have to make his life a little better, if he needs it.
When he is old enough, we plan to give our house to our son. After a few years the state can't take the asset from our family that way.
There is no time limit for a Local Authority to claim the disposal of an asset as a deliberate deprivation - the seven year rule that applies to inheritance tax does not apply in this scenario.
Clearly if the transfer took place a substantial time ago and it was not foreseen at that time that you would need care then it might be fine. However, if you plan to continue living in the house after you gift it to your son then a court may side with the LA and view it as a sham.
As Santa Claus has said, you should take expert advice.
This care thing in old age. Fucking hell. This could hit everyone regardless of whether or not you vote Tory, UKIP, labour or whoever. They're gonna take everything down to your last £100k if you have assets over and above that figure. So by about 2050 will the housing market the way it is, children today could face never getting on the property ladder and then if they might be in a position to inherit a property, have it pulled from underneath them if one or both of their parents suffer from dementia
So we're cultivating a future where students leave with £30k of debt from uni, ai and machine learning possibly reducing the amount of jobs in the marketplace, companies like Deliveroo commoditising people like Karl Robinson's excessive blinking, a housing market (certainly london) where you need a £50k deposit to get on the ladder, and if you haven't got it by the time you're in your 30s it's unlikely you can pay off your mortgage anyway so don't bother.
On top of this you've got to save for a pension, get some private healthcare because the NHS is on its knees. And at the end of it, if your parents get dementia, you give it all back but you keep £100k.
And to top it all off we'll still be hearing 'we've learned from our mistakes'
That looks neither strong nor stable...
It looks like several carriages all about to be in chaos... Some might say a multi-carriage coalition of chaos
I think the Tory Social Health policy is a massive own goal. I really think that May has underestimated the feeling that the average homeowner with children has for being able to pass something on.
I'm sure everyone accepts that the money to fund the increasing burden of must be found from somewhere but I really don't think that targeting the elderly and sick in this way is either fair or acceptable in the eyes of the country.
Surely the burden should be spread equally over the tax system in general. Why is it such anathema for the political classes to be honest and tell the electorate that everyone needs to pay and adjust income tax to accommodate what's needed.
I think this will impact on the conservative vote but not enough to prevent a victory.
I can't believe that this policy won't be dropped like a hot spud post election.
I think that is a view that I share, but then again I am an OAP so my view will be biased. As it happens my wife's OAP retirement age has gone from 60 to 65, and again to 66 and 4 months. Apparently, Baroness Altman knew this was unfair, but was part of the cabinet and had to accept 'collective responsibility'. So much for resigning on a matter of principle. God knows what age retirement will be in the future, for my children, it was heading towards 70 last time I looked. Not sure too many in the building trade will be able to get to that age, even if all these houses that need to be built in the next 10 years. Wishful aspirations aside by any politician is not going to see them built, regardless of how many planning applications passed.
Noting @Rob7Lee 's estimates of the cost of care homes, that seems to me an example of how yet again so few people in Britain are interested in asking the questions behind the key issues. By which I mean:
1.Why is good residential care in the UK so damn expensive? because in countries like Germany and Norway (I recently visited a care home in Oslo) they are largely State provided and very good. How come these countries can afford them through the State budget and we allegedly cannot? They are far more strict on the running of these places than we are!
2.Whyis that Germany, with a bigger population, and recently flooded with impoverished immigrants, has a state based healthcare system where there is a place for anyone in a clean well run hospital when they need it, without a wait on a trolley in a corridor (source, my niece who works in one such hospital and found the tenet of my question bizarre) They charge more for non residents health care!
3. Why is that all across the EU students can go to their own universities (or in the Nordics to any Nordic uni) and pay little or nothing in fees, yet we are told that there is an economic crisis in our unis which requires us to saddle students with prohibitive levels of debt? Because the universities here can charge, they will charge. It i down to the Govm't to over turn this.
4. Whyis it that we bicker endlessly about whether we should build HS2 or concentrate on improving the rest of the network, yet no one questions the actual cost estimate for HS2, despite the known fact that it will cost at least 10 times more per km to build than a French TGV line? It's £39bn but with a contingency of £20bn... Obviously I'd prefer that money be spent elsewhere.
5.Why is it that when it comes to tax, it's all about hitting/ not hitting the taxpayer, but nobody stops to ask whether we are correctly collecting the taxes as agreed and intended by successive Parliaments. At both ends of the tax bill spectrum those in the know say HMRC is not fit for purpose, yet what do we hear about this at election time? Not a dickie. Great shout. We're taxed quite a lot when you think about it, it would be lovely to pay less tax, but other things will suffer if we do that!
This is the thing about living on the Continent and then returning regularly. Listening to friends and family, and then opening your wallet and getting the feeling some one has nicked half of what you thought you had - you just keep asking yourself, why is everythingso damn expensive, and why does the mass of the population on the streets look in worse shape (certainly, not more affluent) than those in the big cities of Northern Europe? Of course not many have the chance to make that personal comparison regularly, I appreciate that, but benchmarking these questions internationally is possible, and some organisations do it. Why don't we listen to them, why don't we ask, WHY is Britain so damn expensive?
These are all absolute guesses, but I can't see that anyone is properly addressing any of this.
I think the Tory Social Health policy is a massive own goal. I really think that May has underestimated the feeling that the average homeowner with children has for being able to pass something on.
I'm sure everyone accepts that the money to fund the increasing burden of must be found from somewhere but I really don't think that targeting the elderly and sick in this way is either fair or acceptable in the eyes of the country.
Surely the burden should be spread equally over the tax system in general. Why is it such anathema for the political classes to be honest and tell the electorate that everyone needs to pay and adjust income tax to accommodate what's needed.
I think this will impact on the conservative vote but not enough to prevent a victory.
I can't believe that this policy won't be dropped like a hot spud post election.
I think that is a view that I share, but then again I am an OAP so my view will be biased. As it happens my wife's OAP retirement age has gone from 60 to 65, and again to 66 and 4 months. Apparently, Baroness Altman knew this was unfair, but was part of the cabinet and had to accept 'collective responsibility'. So much for resigning on a matter of principle. God knows what age retirement will be in the future, for my children, it was heading towards 70 last time I looked. Not sure too many in the building trade will be able to get to that age, even if all these houses that need to be built in the next 10 years. Wishful aspirations aside by any politician is not going to see them built, regardless of how many planning applications passed.
I think your opening sentence Ken sums up why I think this is an own goal by May.
There will be an awful lot of post 55 "middle class" naturally voting conservatives that feel this is targeted at them and aggrieved by this. Maybe not enough to effect the 8th June result but enough to scare the conservatives enough to drop this at the first opportunity.
think the Conservatives have shot themselves in the foot more than once in their manifesto, and that comes from someone who has always voted Tory. I also actually like some of Corbyn's ideas but there is no way they can be funded as suggested imo. There is no doubt May will win but whether she will get an increased majority is doubtful.
You were doing okay, some of the stuff you said was impressive, some of it damn right backwards and idiotic.
Then yesterday you released your manifesto.
That was breaking point. You f***ed up.
You are literally concentrating solely on yourself and those within your earning bracket and the big wig companies that use britain like a tax haven compared to some of the neighbouring countries...
I won't vote for you, you will still win, but maybe one of your competitors will be breathing down your neck far more than you had anticipated...
I offer you no thanks as you've become lost in your own selfish goals
think the Conservatives have shot themselves in the foot more than once in their manifesto, and that comes from someone who has always voted Tory. I also actually like some of Corbyn's ideas but there is no way they can be funded as suggested imo. There is no doubt May will win but whether she will get an increased majority is doubtful.
I think it is clear how they will be funded - just because the press tells you it can't you shouldn't believe them. The NHS, Education, Social Care committments - commitments in those areas will be funded by tax rises which do not start until you earn £80k. These CAN be funded as the maths clearly add up. You might not agree with the policy, but they add up.
Borrowing will fund the more capital orientated projects. The intention is to grow the economy outstriping the cost of the borrowing and making the country more prosperous and vibrant. Again, you can disagree with this on economic principles, but the arguments currently against are from the nursey school playground - you cant spend what you don't have. Well America has been spending what it doesn't have since the Civil War. There is a clear case how the borrowing can be funded,and economists with no affilaition to the Labour party will tell you so. In fact there was an independant economist commenting on the news saying just that. Because the conservatives and the daily mail says they can't fund it, why does everybody believe it? It is a big con.
The conservatives managed to make most of us believe that the GLOBAL financial crisis was due to public spending. Actually, Labour was increasing public spending but paying off the deficit the Conservative government had left at the same time. The whole crux of the Tory position on this is, if we had a smaller economy, we would have less of a deficit. Economics don't work like that. It is stupid to argue this in relation to household budgets, but I'll give an example in the spirit of the Tories tactics. On paper, the poorest I have ever been is when I took out my mortgage. But the reality was, despite me being in more debt than I have ever been, I became richer!
You can now borrow money at record low rates. It is stupid borrowing and wasting, but if you borrow and spend in ways that grow the economy, you don't lose and now is a great time to do it. But you have to pay it back sometime don't you - yes of course you do. That is what the Labour party was doing every year before the credit crunch. As John Maynard Keynes said 'The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity'.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
Prague, I wouldn't be able to address all of the points you make but some of the answers (especially when comparing to Norway, and to a lesser extent the other Nordics and Germany) are that they are much richer countries than the UK.
Also whilst this obviously doesn't apply to Germany, I also feel that population size is relevant too just due to simple maths - small country=small problems etc.
So by that formula : Small country. Small Ecconomy, small GDP, ?
I just don't think it's a coincidence that the richest countries in the world all have tiny populations (ie. Luxembourg, Kuwait, Qatar, Norway etc.) - the likes of the Gulf states can afford to subsidise every whim of their population and still have enough set aside in enormous sovereign wealth funds.
Obviously by GDP I'm referring to GDP per capita.
How are you defining "rich", first of all? (Edit, GDP per capita, OK; but then that measure automatically favours smaller countries)
Clearly, Germany and indeed the USA drive a coach and horses through the overall argument. I do agree that it is easier to organise for a decent health service in a smaller country. But, Germany. And indeed in that context, France.
Norway is a rich country. Well in 1960 it wasn't. It was frozen wasteland with only fish and logging to get buy on. Yes its energy discoveries are the foundation for its current prosperity but they are much the same discoveries as the UK made, at the same time. The Norwegians were smart and took much of the money to set up their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Thatcher & co did not. Those were political decisions in both countries. The results can now be seen. Why do so few of us stop and consider the implications?
Germany, similarly is where it is today because of political and collective decisions. "It is good to make things. We make cars. We will continue making them and make them world class (Audi wasn't world class in the 60s by a long way, and BMW was only just starting). We will allow in large numbers of immigrants to build them. We will invest in our infrastructure. We won't argue about road vs rail like the island monkeys do, because we need both." etc etc to include housing policy, welfare, caution about financial services, supporting regions, decentralising politics. Then there is the humungously expensive, historic decision they took regarding Eastern Germany.
We could have made all of the decisions the Germans have made (although we never had as pressing a problem to confront as the East). And implemented them, successfully. Including, by the way, in football. The Germans are far more similar to us than most Brits care to admit. There is one way in which they are different. They think long term. Yet for years most Brits have just sneered at them and at various times predicted their economic downfall. (Professor Wyn Grant, to name one we know) I can remember in 1992 when the sneering was rampant, as their economy sagged while they started to absorb the East. One of my more enlightened English mates, a very successful businessman, said to me "People are laughing at the Germans, but you just wait and see, they'll be back, stronger than ever".
We can sneer, we can make excuses, we can pull up the drawbridge and retreat into our British isolation. Or we can learn from our friends around Europe....
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
This election is already decided, the best outcome is if May isn't granted a blank cheque/free ride. There is an alternative presented which is an improvement on 2015, and it looks as if it is easier to identify the differences between Labour and Tory. May started this all off saying it has to be about Brexit, but it looks like many people have wanted to re focus on the domestic agenda, so the narrative is not entirely what she wanted. I haven't monitored the polls, but I wonder if there is anything to be gleaned from the direction of travel suggested by the polls.
What are the odds all the fuckwits who leave registering to vote until half an hour before the deadline will crash the website again then piss and moan about it afterwards like last time?
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Really enjoyed the scenes of those in Yorkshire telling May she wasn't welcome up there.
Did you? I had a different view. I wondered what they were doing there. They looked like a nasty strident rent-a-mob. Would it leave the majority of viewers watching the news after they had got home from a hard day's work speculating about whether they would want to be associated with a party whose members were acting like the political equivalent of Milwall supporters? I suspect such scenes if repeated frequently will do nothing but damage Corbyn's chances further.
Commoners eh?
More like professional agitators I thought.
I think you are starting to look a little ridiculous on this one @cafcfan.
Yes, I know. But I live in Essex. I have an inkling about how they think. There are a number of marginal seats here that Labour ought to feel they have a chance in. Harlow, Thurrock, South Basildon, perhaps Castle Point. To get elected, Labour will need gains like this. The infamous "Essex Man" having got home from a hard day at work and wondering where his vote might go now UKIP is pointless is going to be thinking badly about theses childish scenes:
Frankly it looks like what it is. People who have plenty of time on their hands to make and dress up in a very bad dalek suit rather than do any actual work. (You'll note the traditional Socialist Worker banners.)
Two points, from different angles.
1. You do know that the Socialist Workers Party are not the Labour Party don't you? If I remember rightly the Labour Party is like The Peoples Front of Judea to them.
2. Effing Democracy eh, allowing people to non-violent demonstrations. Although the Dalek could be handy if it turns nasty.
Noting @Rob7Lee 's estimates of the cost of care homes, that seems to me an example of how yet again so few people in Britain are interested in asking the questions behind the key issues. By which I mean:
4. Whyis it that we bicker endlessly about whether we should build HS2 or concentrate on improving the rest of the network, yet no one questions the actual cost estimate for HS2, despite the known fact that it will cost at least 10 times more per km to build than a French TGV line?
This is the thing about living on the Continent and then returning regularly. Listening to friends and family, and then opening your wallet and getting the feeling some one has nicked half of what you thought you had - you just keep asking yourself, why is everythingso damn expensive, and why does the mass of the population on the streets look in worse shape (certainly, not more affluent) than those in the big cities of Northern Europe? Of course not many have the chance to make that personal comparison regularly, I appreciate that, but benchmarking these questions internationally is possible, and some organisations do it. Why don't we listen to them, why don't we ask, WHY is Britain so damn expensive?
Point taken about everything being expensive in Britain.
But the quotes for HS2 include new stations, complete redevelopment of the Euston area, a long tunnel into London as well as new train depots and everything you need to create a new railway. Sometimes they even include the cost of trains and upgrading the tube in London to cope with extra passengers.
It is not fair to compare this to the per km cost of building a section of straight LGV across flat French countryside.
Please don't resort to HS2 bashing!
Jeremy Corbyn originally said he would cancel HS2 because he thought it would be a popular decision. But the Labour party seem to have realised that we just cannot afford to keep mixing express and commuter traffic on the three major lines from the north into London. The cost of upgrading or even keeping these lines as they are would be far greater than anything spent on building HS2 over the next twenty years.
Noting @Rob7Lee 's estimates of the cost of care homes, that seems to me an example of how yet again so few people in Britain are interested in asking the questions behind the key issues. By which I mean:
1.Why is good residential care in the UK so damn expensive? because in countries like Germany and Norway (I recently visited a care home in Oslo) they are largely State provided and very good. How come these countries can afford them through the State budget and we allegedly cannot?
2.Whyis that Germany, with a bigger population, and recently flooded with impoverished immigrants, has a state based healthcare system where there is a place for anyone in a clean well run hospital when they need it, without a wait on a trolley in a corridor (source, my niece who works in one such hospital and found the tenet of my question bizarre)
3. Why is that all across the EU students can go to their own universities (or in the Nordics to any Nordic uni) and pay little or nothing in fees, yet we are told that there is an economic crisis in our unis which requires us to saddle students with prohibitive levels of debt?
4. Whyis it that we bicker endlessly about whether we should build HS2 or concentrate on improving the rest of the network, yet no one questions the actual cost estimate for HS2, despite the known fact that it will cost at least 10 times more per km to build than a French TGV line?
5.Why is it that when it comes to tax, it's all about hitting/ not hitting the taxpayer, but nobody stops to ask whether we are correctly collecting the taxes as agreed and intended by successive Parliaments. At both ends of the tax bill spectrum those in the know say HMRC is not fit for purpose, yet what do we hear about this at election time? Not a dickie.
This is the thing about living on the Continent and then returning regularly. Listening to friends and family, and then opening your wallet and getting the feeling some one has nicked half of what you thought you had - you just keep asking yourself, why is everythingso damn expensive, and why does the mass of the population on the streets look in worse shape (certainly, not more affluent) than those in the big cities of Northern Europe? Of course not many have the chance to make that personal comparison regularly, I appreciate that, but benchmarking these questions internationally is possible, and some organisations do it. Why don't we listen to them, why don't we ask, WHY is Britain so damn expensive?
Really good post @PragueAddick and I echo what another person said about bringing different slants to the debate.
Having lived abroad (Spain incidentally) in a poorer country we often came home to buy furniture, home-ware (whatever that is) and electrical items. As it was much cheaper to buy reasonably good quality stuff in the UK.
What strikes me from your list is all the things that the UK is much more expensive for are things that used to be provided by the British state and have now been privatised. Public transport is the easiest to compare and contrast as we can see it with our eyes and the relatively small sums you pay are easier to get your head around. Yesterday I paid £8 to get a return bus between two towns in Devon. 30 minutes each way as it went via a few other places, it was a bloody awful bus as well. I have journeyed between regional capitals in Spain in comfortable trains for less.
It is more expensive in the UK to use public transport on a daily basis in most cases than it is to buy and run a car over a period of time. That defeats the whole point.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Or indeed, a system that allows "investors" (vulture funds?) to buy up vast swathes of property/debt at a fraction of their value and then extort full value repayment through the courts (often overseas - as Argentina found to its cost).
There is nobody on CL who could be more pro-railway than me. Heaven knows, I quite often travel back to Prague that way despite air being cheaper. I understand also that a lot of France, and Germany, is suitable for high speed line building. And I understand entirely the argument for HS2. However, a lot of the excuses you provide don't bear scrutiny: 1. look at the French railway map. If you see a station called xxx-TGV, that is a new station. There are loads of them 2. Trust me, TGV lines have tunnels too. 3. If you say that there are different estimates for HS2, including different things, well that is part of the problem. There should be one, transparent figure, which can then be fully benchmarked against the cost of TGV/ICE lines and with any caveats such as you mention which hold water.
What is in fact needed is both HS2, and further North asap, and an upgrade to increase capacity on other lines. But we haven't apparently got the money because HS2 is so expensive. Personally I have no confidence either that it will be delivered on time or on budget. That's because, unlike the French and Germans, we have virtually no experience of building such lines. We have HS1, it is 70 miles long. The French and Germans have been building these things progressively for 30 years. Have we had the humility to perhaps get French or German experience involved with this project? If not, why not? Why do we think we know best on this, when for idealogical reasons we allow the French and germans to actually run, at a profit, most of our utilities?
I am not bashing HS2. I am bashing the fact that nobody independent (unless you can show me otherwise) has scrutinised the numbers, and that the railway project management skills of the DoT have been found wanting far too often since it became clear that a national railway as a strategic asset was not apparently what the British wanted.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Not sure if you are serious, but someone has to buy the country's government bonds and they might conclude a 1.1% coupon for 10 years isn't very attractive in that context.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Or indeed, a system that allows "investors" (vulture funds?) to buy up vast swathes of property/debt at a fraction of their value and then extort full value repayment through the courts (often overseas - as Argentina found to its cost).
It was only a small fraction of the total bond issue in Argentina's case (not necessarily a defence of the funds' actions).
However if there was not a route for creditors to maximise the recovery on defaulted bonds, then the additional credit premium that all future emerging market borrowers would have to pay on any newly issued bonds would quickly offset any benefit from writing off previous debts.
Comments
I see that care home ownership have changed quite dramatically, and thankfully improved since three years ago when I worked for Bexley council Adult education, and had to produce some information for the borough. It was rather shocked at the results, especially the amount of homes that needed improvement, including two local homes.
http://www.cqc.org.uk/search/services/care-homes?page=2&location=Bexley, United Kingdom&latitude=51.439933&longitude=0.15432699999996657&sort=default&la=&distance=15&mode=html
Obviously by GDP I'm referring to GDP per capita.
Not sure too many in the building trade will be able to get to that age, even if all these houses that need to be built in the next 10 years.
Wishful aspirations aside by any politician is not going to see them built, regardless of how many planning applications passed.
There will be an awful lot of post 55 "middle class" naturally voting conservatives that feel this is targeted at them and aggrieved by this. Maybe not enough to effect the 8th June result but enough to scare the conservatives enough to drop this at the first opportunity.
You were doing okay, some of the stuff you said was impressive, some of it damn right backwards and idiotic.
Then yesterday you released your manifesto.
That was breaking point. You f***ed up.
You are literally concentrating solely on yourself and those within your earning bracket and the big wig companies that use britain like a tax haven compared to some of the neighbouring countries...
I won't vote for you, you will still win, but maybe one of your competitors will be breathing down your neck far more than you had anticipated...
I offer you no thanks as you've become lost in your own selfish goals
Borrowing will fund the more capital orientated projects. The intention is to grow the economy outstriping the cost of the borrowing and making the country more prosperous and vibrant. Again, you can disagree with this on economic principles, but the arguments currently against are from the nursey school playground - you cant spend what you don't have. Well America has been spending what it doesn't have since the Civil War. There is a clear case how the borrowing can be funded,and economists with no affilaition to the Labour party will tell you so. In fact there was an independant economist commenting on the news saying just that. Because the conservatives and the daily mail says they can't fund it, why does everybody believe it? It is a big con.
The conservatives managed to make most of us believe that the GLOBAL financial crisis was due to public spending. Actually, Labour was increasing public spending but paying off the deficit the Conservative government had left at the same time. The whole crux of the Tory position on this is, if we had a smaller economy, we would have less of a deficit. Economics don't work like that. It is stupid to argue this in relation to household budgets, but I'll give an example in the spirit of the Tories tactics. On paper, the poorest I have ever been is when I took out my mortgage. But the reality was, despite me being in more debt than I have ever been, I became richer!
You can now borrow money at record low rates. It is stupid borrowing and wasting, but if you borrow and spend in ways that grow the economy, you don't lose and now is a great time to do it. But you have to pay it back sometime don't you - yes of course you do. That is what the Labour party was doing every year before the credit crunch. As John Maynard Keynes said 'The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity'.
Clearly, Germany and indeed the USA drive a coach and horses through the overall argument. I do agree that it is easier to organise for a decent health service in a smaller country. But, Germany. And indeed in that context, France.
Norway is a rich country. Well in 1960 it wasn't. It was frozen wasteland with only fish and logging to get buy on. Yes its energy discoveries are the foundation for its current prosperity but they are much the same discoveries as the UK made, at the same time. The Norwegians were smart and took much of the money to set up their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Thatcher & co did not. Those were political decisions in both countries. The results can now be seen. Why do so few of us stop and consider the implications?
Germany, similarly is where it is today because of political and collective decisions. "It is good to make things. We make cars. We will continue making them and make them world class (Audi wasn't world class in the 60s by a long way, and BMW was only just starting). We will allow in large numbers of immigrants to build them. We will invest in our infrastructure. We won't argue about road vs rail like the island monkeys do, because we need both." etc etc to include housing policy, welfare, caution about financial services, supporting regions, decentralising politics. Then there is the humungously expensive, historic decision they took regarding Eastern Germany.
We could have made all of the decisions the Germans have made (although we never had as pressing a problem to confront as the East). And implemented them, successfully. Including, by the way, in football. The Germans are far more similar to us than most Brits care to admit. There is one way in which they are different. They think long term. Yet for years most Brits have just sneered at them and at various times predicted their economic downfall. (Professor Wyn Grant, to name one we know) I can remember in 1992 when the sneering was rampant, as their economy sagged while they started to absorb the East. One of my more enlightened English mates, a very successful businessman, said to me "People are laughing at the Germans, but you just wait and see, they'll be back, stronger than ever".
We can sneer, we can make excuses, we can pull up the drawbridge and retreat into our British isolation. Or we can learn from our friends around Europe....
There is an alternative presented which is an improvement on 2015, and it looks as if it is easier to identify the differences between Labour and Tory.
May started this all off saying it has to be about Brexit, but it looks like many people have wanted to re focus on the domestic agenda, so the narrative is not entirely what she wanted.
I haven't monitored the polls, but I wonder if there is anything to be gleaned from the direction of travel suggested by the polls.
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
No hypocrisy to see here. Please move along.
1. You do know that the Socialist Workers Party are not the Labour Party don't you? If I remember rightly the Labour Party is like The Peoples Front of Judea to them.
2. Effing Democracy eh, allowing people to non-violent demonstrations. Although the Dalek could be handy if it turns nasty.
But the quotes for HS2 include new stations, complete redevelopment of the Euston area, a long tunnel into London as well as new train depots and everything you need to create a new railway. Sometimes they even include the cost of trains and upgrading the tube in London to cope with extra passengers.
It is not fair to compare this to the per km cost of building a section of straight LGV across flat French countryside.
Please don't resort to HS2 bashing!
Jeremy Corbyn originally said he would cancel HS2 because he thought it would be a popular decision. But the Labour party seem to have realised that we just cannot afford to keep mixing express and commuter traffic on the three major lines from the north into London. The cost of upgrading or even keeping these lines as they are would be far greater than anything spent on building HS2 over the next twenty years.
Having lived abroad (Spain incidentally) in a poorer country we often came home to buy furniture, home-ware (whatever that is) and electrical items. As it was much cheaper to buy reasonably good quality stuff in the UK.
What strikes me from your list is all the things that the UK is much more expensive for are things that used to be provided by the British state and have now been privatised. Public transport is the easiest to compare and contrast as we can see it with our eyes and the relatively small sums you pay are easier to get your head around. Yesterday I paid £8 to get a return bus between two towns in Devon. 30 minutes each way as it went via a few other places, it was a bloody awful bus as well. I have journeyed between regional capitals in Spain in comfortable trains for less.
There is nobody on CL who could be more pro-railway than me. Heaven knows, I quite often travel back to Prague that way despite air being cheaper. I understand also that a lot of France, and Germany, is suitable for high speed line building. And I understand entirely the argument for HS2. However, a lot of the excuses you provide don't bear scrutiny:
1. look at the French railway map. If you see a station called xxx-TGV, that is a new station. There are loads of them
2. Trust me, TGV lines have tunnels too.
3. If you say that there are different estimates for HS2, including different things, well that is part of the problem. There should be one, transparent figure, which can then be fully benchmarked against the cost of TGV/ICE lines and with any caveats such as you mention which hold water.
What is in fact needed is both HS2, and further North asap, and an upgrade to increase capacity on other lines. But we haven't apparently got the money because HS2 is so expensive. Personally I have no confidence either that it will be delivered on time or on budget. That's because, unlike the French and Germans, we have virtually no experience of building such lines. We have HS1, it is 70 miles long. The French and Germans have been building these things progressively for 30 years. Have we had the humility to perhaps get French or German experience involved with this project? If not, why not? Why do we think we know best on this, when for idealogical reasons we allow the French and germans to actually run, at a profit, most of our utilities?
I am not bashing HS2. I am bashing the fact that nobody independent (unless you can show me otherwise) has scrutinised the numbers, and that the railway project management skills of the DoT have been found wanting far too often since it became clear that a national railway as a strategic asset was not apparently what the British wanted.
However if there was not a route for creditors to maximise the recovery on defaulted bonds, then the additional credit premium that all future emerging market borrowers would have to pay on any newly issued bonds would quickly offset any benefit from writing off previous debts.