We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Labour seen as more competent
Comments
-
paulmapp8306 wrote: »yeh, but the companies and the home owners EARN enough to support their borrowing. THose that dont default and either go under (companies) or cant get further credit, and need benefits to survive.
As a country you cant go that. There should be a consitution that gives a max % of GDP that can be spent on interest for borrowing, and it shouldnt exceed around 20%. what are we at now? around 60% of something?
I dont actuall know, I seem to recall a figure in that region. no company, or individual that spent 60% of its income just serving interest payments would survive.
the government interest payments are about 2% of GDP0 -
Fair enough. Maybe it wasnt GDP then - maybe it was tax revenue.
Still think we pay way too much in interest payments. If Labour get in next election (by which time Im out of the forces) i am definately emigrating.0 -
paulmapp8306 wrote: »yeh, but the companies and the home owners EARN enough to support their borrowing. THose that dont default and either go under (companies) or cant get further credit, and need benefits to survive.
As a country you cant go that. There should be a consitution that gives a max % of GDP that can be spent on interest for borrowing, and it shouldnt exceed around 20%. what are we at now? around 60% of something?
I dont actuall know, I seem to recall a figure in that region. no company, or individual that spent 60% of its income just serving interest payments would survive.
And if you can't afford it you have three choices 1.) sell up 2.) reduce/stop spending 3.) get another job.
We did 1.) in 80s, 2.) we are doing but without removing the cause of the expense there isn't that far you can go 3.) get the country working again.
2.) is the easy bit it involves bean counters
3.) Is the difficult bit and why it is routinely pushed to the side.
The last point is the one we need to concentrate on IMO, navel gazing into all the failures of late isn't taking us forward. A convenient smokescreen perhaps.
If 3.) is successful it also allows you to borrow more against it for the future."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
How soon us thick ole public forget all Labours guffs. 6 Home Office ministers in 6 years, not fit for purpose, Jhon Reid hoping we could be confident we'd be in and out of Helmand without firing a shot, Mandelsons bent mortgages, Jeffrey Robinson, Patricia Hewitt slow clapped by nurses, the Milenium dome debarcle, £20bn super computer that failed, the list is vast.
Worst of all they unblanced the economy and really achieved nothing more than an illusion of wealth.0 -
paulmapp8306 wrote: »Fair enough. Maybe it wasnt GDP then - maybe it was tax revenue.
Still think we pay way too much in interest payments. If Labour get in next election (by which time Im out of the forces) i am definately emigrating.
about 4% of government spending
as it's almost certain that Labour will one day return to power why not go now?0 -
How soon us thick ole public forget all Labours guffs. 6 Home Office ministers in 6 years, not fit for purpose, Jhon Reid hoping we could be confident we'd be in and out of Helmand without firing a shot, Mandelsons bent mortgages, Jeffrey Robinson, Patricia Hewitt slow clapped by nurses, the Milenium dome debarcle, £20bn super computer that failed, the list is vast.
Worst of all they unblanced the economy and really achieved nothing more than an illusion of wealth.
The illusion of wealth hasn't just been labour the conservatives also fueled it years before.
The conservatives sold off our state utilities, in the same way Greece are being urged to do, to keep in the balls in the air a bit longer. They never reduced basic taxation for the man in the street either.
The conservative just unbalance the economy the other way hence we have me to you politics and the inevitable pendulum swings.
I also think the Conservatives would have spent whilst they were on the crest of the wave too until the wheels came off. I also believe they would have bailed out the banks too.
I just tire of the constant point scoring non of them deserve a vote."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It is difficult to see how anyone could really believe that Labour is more competent, or even competent, unless either they have a vested interest in Labour in power, vote with their heart not their head, or are stupid and ignorant. Among the Uk electorate we probably have large swathes of all of these, some of whom belong to all three categories.
It is Labour's managerial incompetence which has largely contributed to their downfall each time they have formed a government, in the same way that it is the Conservatives' over-tolerance of greed, exploitation, and sharp practice that has been largely responsible for theirs.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
However, the recent IMF figures suggest Germany and France are still outperforming us in the growth stakes. I'd be looking over my shoulder for a lion if I were us!
Put this into context though. The credit boom gave the UK far higher GDP than a number of G20 countries for a number of years.
In effect consumption was brought forward. As the UK became fat and lazy are feasting on the debt carcass.
Until the hunger returns (need to survive takes over) then the UK will continue to mull around in self pity. .0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »that's the point, innit. it's hard to believe that anyone considers milliband / balls to be a competent team to govern the country, until you consider the diabolical mess the current administration are making of pretty much everything they touch.
the question that people are answering is not really "who do you think is most competent to run the economy" it is "who do you currently think is the least contemptible bunch of incompetent morons".
True. Labour got everything wrong. The Conservatives have got everything wrong except for deficit reduction (though it is early days on no really tough decisions have been made on that yet).0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards