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!
The Polls - Labour Lead At 14 - Is It The Economy?
Comments
-
angrypirate wrote: »This was discussed to death in another thread.
The West Coast Main Line deal was financially assessed by Whitehall civil servants and the mess up was with the base line economic model. This incompetent mess would have happened regardless of who was in power because it was the civil servants who messed up. MPs dont (and cannot be expected to) backcheck every single piece of work done by civil servants.
No, I'm sorry but a report just published yesterday stated it was short staffing due to Conservative 'Staff Cuts!'
Frightened Broke Voters Don't Spend0 -
Government con number 1 - make people believe that a more modern building provides a better service than an older one.
Obviously people who live in new build houses are much better at doing things than those in older ones....0 -
Ok fair point, the last time we were at this level was after the war and like you say the debt was caused by the wars.No, the last time the national debt was as high was not in war time; the debts may well have been initially caused by wars but they extended well into peace time and we managed to pay them back as well as invest, expand and enjoy a good life.
They didn't cause the end of life as we know it.
The future generations will indeed face major problems but they will also inherit a country with good infrastructure, good education, good health services if we so decide.
Some of that will be funded by debt.
The debt, with common policies agreed by all the major parties are being steadily inflated away and future generations will see the real value of debt fall.
One must form one's own view on what makes foreign companies invest in the UK but low growth and a stagnant economy, would I would guess, be a more discouraging factor than a high national debt (at very low interest rates).
The balance today is between investing for the future which benefits all (specifically future generations) and increasing debts which are a disadvantage for all.
Debt reduction, however desirable is only one side of the balance sheet.
Sadly we are once again playing with a single golf club.
This time round however poor government management of finances have caused the debt and the debt is still going up. The other big difference of course was that last time there was the North Sea oil and gas tax revenues to help pay back the tax. This time, its not going to happen. The North sea just doesnt have the production and reserves anymore.
I disagree that one must form their own view on what makes a foreign company invest in the UK. I would think most economists have an idea and agree. I think the problem is a lot of the public dont have a clue and dont want to know. They hear of Moodys, Fitch, credit ratings, and they think nasty bonus grabbing banks.0 -
paulmapp8306 wrote: »It really gets to me how self centered EVERYONE is.
I ger up in the 80s recession, in a northern Town built on coal and steel. We were hit hard, I didnt have work etc - but unlike others who seem to think they have a right, I realise that the reasons behind what happened were economical. The "workers" wouldnt accept what was affordable. It was a choice of subsidisation to the hilt or shut things down.
Labour would have (and did in the 70s) subsidised as is their belief, and would have bankrupted the country (if it wasnt already). The Cons didnt, which led to hardship for some, but let the country as a whole much much better off - and was responisble for 10-15 ytears of very good living and prosperity.
There is NO right way - there are only Opinions and options. Both have pros and cons. Currently however, we cannot as a county afford one of the options. There is no choice at present, and it wouldnt matter which party was in control.
Ultimately - as was said at the time - the worst thing that could have happened was a co-alition. All the policies are watered down and thers compromise anywhere. We needed strong/firm leadership from whichever party was in power, but you never get that with a co-alition.
So you've fallen for the Con line spun for unsuspecting uneducated voters? The 'No Choice' mirage. There is a choice and OsBean was forced to change tack to it in his Autumn Statement. The Americans made a different choice and so did some European countries and now their economies are growing. (Don't know if anyone realises it but we are at the bottom - on a par only with Italy!) People should read a bit more widely than what's on TV or in papers!0 -
No - Im well educated, and have looked at the options.
There are parts of Labours policy I agree with - that of spending to kick start the economy. But there are also parts i dont agree with. We need to cut spending, and things that DONT kick start the economy - like welfare, NHS, Defence and much local government spending need big cuts. We cant fund what we as a country actually want in the way of social facilities.
The thing is - Labour are never going to cut these things, so are an absolutely suicidal option. The cons dont have it all right - but there the closest we have that will potentially stop the UK going completely bancrupt.
If one party - either of them - come up with a plan to DRASTICALLY cut general spending (not just minor adjustments that have been made to date), while at the same time investing in TRUE economy building projects - then they will have my vote. Any party who doesnt see the need to cut spending drastically will NEVER get my vote.0 -
The public have got short memories.
Two and a half years ago Brown and Labour bankrupted the country but now they are ahead in the polls because the public don`t like the way things are going with Cameron/Clegg.
How does that square with a 'AAA' rating, I am confused
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
angrypirate wrote: »MPs dont (and cannot be expected to) backcheck every single piece of work done by civil servants.
No but obvious gaffs shouldn't get through.
I take it that someone with responsibility has to sign these plans off.
If things look too good to be true (WCML) or are patently stupid (Pasty & Caravan Tax) you would expect them think and question not rubber stamp."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 -
I presume you mean this oneDecentLivingWage wrote: »No, I'm sorry but a report just published yesterday stated it was short staffing due to Conservative 'Staff Cuts!'
Frightened Broke Voters Don't Spend
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/16895/report-of-the-laidlaw-inquiry.pdf
Which lists a number of contributory factors, of which organisational restructuring and the cut of expenditure on external financial advisors are only 2 of a number of findings. Nowhere in the report does it say or even imply that it was solely due to tory staff cuts0 -
paulmapp8306 wrote: »Opinion - not fact. for me:
1. 18 years of Tory rule set the country right - to where it could afford to be. Lets face it we all want what we cant have. There was nothing wrong with the schools/hospitals etc from my POV at the time, and they actually went down under Labor.
2. The RATE of debt increase is lower than under Labor. You have to slow the increaes before you can reduce the total.
3. Not as incompetant as the last lot.
Don't be ridiculous.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
DecentLivingWage wrote: »So you've fallen for the Con line spun for unsuspecting uneducated voters? The 'No Choice' mirage. There is a choice and OsBean was forced to change tack to it in his Autumn Statement. The Americans made a different choice and so did some European countries and now their economies are growing. (Don't know if anyone realises it but we are at the bottom - on a par only with Italy!) People should read a bit more widely than what's on TV or in papers!
The bold bit is something that annoys me, and something thats prevelant in discussion time.
Anyone with their own opinion is written off as "falling for the toffs spin" etc etc. It's not quite that black or white, though some obviously believe it is...to their detriment.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards