Shameless labour

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

What about all the crap about how the Tories would have swerved the great recession, built up pension fund like the Norwegians and had a positive balance of payments higher than Mt Everest, if only they had been in power since 1997

I don't know what you are on about.

All I asked, is what Labour would do.

So far the only answer is, they would have carried on what they were doing with a bank levy.

Any further offers on that, or is it just going to be more finger pointing and no answers?

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know what you are on about.

All I asked, is what Labour would do.

So far the only answer is, they would have carried on what they were doing with a bank levy.

Any further offers on that, or is it just going to be more finger pointing and no answers?

I thought Labour had made it quite clear that their plan was to half the deficit in four years.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/08/how-labour-and-coalition-deficit-reduction-plans-match-up/

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought Labour had made it quite clear that their plan was to half the deficit in four years.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/08/how-labour-and-coalition-deficit-reduction-plans-match-up/

Ok, I give up. No point asking how as it just gets completely ignored constantly.

IronWolf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, I give up. No point asking how as it just gets completely ignored constantly.

I think noone can answer it because Labour have never said how they would cut the deficit by half. They don't want to have policies otherwise people might criticise them.

StevieJ

IronWolf wrote: »

I think noone can answer it because Labour have never said how they would cut the deficit by half. They don't want to have policies otherwise people might criticise them.

Do you want a detailed budget?

lynzpower

StevieJ wrote: »

Do you want a detailed budget?

the whole point was that labours approach would be to work flexibly, responding to differing needs.

Its all quite clear in the bloomberg speech as above.

I think people seem to think that there is "no plan" because the approach set out does not involve, slash and burn in public service, that actually further investment would be needed, including support for businesses to grow.

Slashing peoples entitlements puts people out of work.

It is best to pay down deficits when you have a booming/ growing economy.

Not when your economy is decimated and many many more people are unemployed and consumer confidence ( ie Spending ) low.

I dont get whats so difficult tio get about this.

Surely it is obvious that the more you tax people the less that they have available to spend, which in turn means job losses and further dependence on th state in terms of health, social care, housing, crime etc etc.

Surely it is bonkers to talk as this government have done, for boosting the UKs fortunes by building up a science knolwdge economy, whilst meanwhile pulling most funding for universities. including for IT and psychology- clearly sciences!

Am I missing something here?

Wheezy_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So thats it?

Yes, that's it. Is it so hard to understand that only growth is gonna get us out of this hole?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, I give up. No point asking how as it just gets completely ignored constantly.

The thing is you chose to ignore every single argument that doesn't fit your agenda. You could start by clicking on lynzpower's link a couple of posts above. I know it's a bit long article, but please take the effort.

Then switch on your telly and watch PMQ, newsnight, QT, This Week or whatever. The argument has been made over and over again. There are clear differences on policy between the tories and labour on VAT, NI, income tax, rate and timing of deficit reduction etc,... if you chose to ignore them, fine. But don't act like a fool telling there is no labour policy.
And FYI, Labour is not in power.
Tories and Libdems are. Yes, the same Libdems you voted for in May and who back then had an agenda left of Labour.

ILW

lynzpower wrote: »

the whole point was that labours approach would be to work flexibly, responding to differing needs.

Its all quite clear in the bloomberg speech as above.

I think people seem to think that there is "no plan" because the approach set out does not involve, slash and burn in public service, that actually further investment would be needed, including support for businesses to grow.

Slashing peoples entitlements puts people out of work.

It is best to pay down deficits when you have a booming/ growing economy.

Not when your economy is decimated and many many more people are unemployed and consumer confidence ( ie Spending ) low.

I dont get whats so difficult tio get about this.

Surely it is obvious that the more you tax people the less that they have available to spend, which in turn means job losses and further dependence on th state in terms of health, social care, housing, crime etc etc.

Surely it is bonkers to talk as this government have done, for boosting the UKs fortunes by building up a science knolwdge economy, whilst meanwhile pulling most funding for universities. including for IT and psychology- clearly sciences!

Am I missing something here?

Yes, the fact that there is not an endless pot of free money out there. Spend more than you earn on a regular basis and it all goes tits up.

Wheezy_2

lynzpower wrote: »

the whole point was that labours approach would be to work flexibly, responding to differing needs.

Its all quite clear in the bloomberg speech as above.

I think people seem to think that there is "no plan" because the approach set out does not involve, slash and burn in public service, that actually further investment would be needed, including support for businesses to grow.

Slashing peoples entitlements puts people out of work.

It is best to pay down deficits when you have a booming/ growing economy.

Not when your economy is decimated and many many more people are unemployed and consumer confidence ( ie Spending ) low.

I dont get whats so difficult tio get about this.

Surely it is obvious that the more you tax people the less that they have available to spend, which in turn means job losses and further dependence on th state in terms of health, social care, housing, crime etc etc.

Surely it is bonkers to talk as this government have done, for boosting the UKs fortunes by building up a science knolwdge economy, whilst meanwhile pulling most funding for universities. including for IT and psychology- clearly sciences!

Am I missing something here?

Good post, lynzpower.
Will probably be ignored by the tory and libdem hacks on here, but good post anyway.

lynzpower

ILW wrote: »

Yes, the fact that there is not an endless pot of free money out there. Spend more than you earn on a regular basis and it all goes tits up.

I never said there was endless pots of money out there. What is it with this black and white thinking?

That unless you slash to bits you are in someway a spendaholic.

You simply have to spend money sometimes to prevent things getting worse. Preventative work in the NHS for example, support for small businesses.

Keep universities going for gods sake, yes trim if neccesary but dont decimate the whole show.

Increased tax revenues from eg people who are working, earning, growing thier business and dont let the giants like vodaphone off with millions of tax breaks, when the little guy has to pay his way.

It is an absolute disaster for this country in my view to let the likes of tesco design communties, is this really what the country wants?http://www.publicpropertyuk.com/2010/08/17/lsh-and-tesco-back-hertfordshire-lep-bid/