Faith in the British electorate - RESTORED

silverwhistle

robin61 wrote: »

There has never ever been a Labour Government who left the economy in a better state than the one they inherited.

Absolute b*****ks. The problem after 17 years of Tory rule last time Labour got in was that money had to be spent to restore some of the crumbling infrastructure: the NHS, schools and so forth. The economy was recovering from a global economic shock (due partly to deregulation, a strong Tory policy) when the Tories got back in and pulled out the drip, with predictable results, particularly for the vulnerable. But they're not vulnerable, so hey ho. Nor am I for that matter: home owner, very nice Sauvignon with prawn risotto tonight, so according to some self interested people on here I should be rubbing my hands like Uriah Heep or Wackford Squeers Gove. But I still hate the negative, vindictive and sociopathic tendencies of people like IDS and Grayling who haven't a clue about the realities of some people's lives.

They don't even have much clue about economics: exactly what proportion of somebody's wage should be spent on housing? What proportion of national wealth shopuld consist of unproductive housing? To what extent should the current trend of the concentration of wealth continue:, do they understand the circulation/velocity of money and the benefit that brings? Who will keep the economy going when a large percentage spend it all on accommodation? I've got some shares, but I'd look very carefully where I invest as the money gets concentrated in fewer hands.

If the Scots voted now the result would be different: they might be worse off overall but more equal societies tend to be happier. It's going to be a c**p 5 years, it really is.

Thrugelmir

silverwhistle wrote: »

Absolute b*****ks.

They don't even have much clue about economics: exactly what proportion of somebody's wage should be spent on housing? What proportion of national wealth shopuld consist of unproductive housing?

Under whose watch was the property boom? i.e. 1999-2003.

cells

silverwhistle wrote: »

Absolute b*****ks. The problem after 17 years of Tory rule last time Labour got in was that money had to be spent to restore some of the crumbling infrastructure: the NHS, schools and so forth. The economy was recovering from a global economic shock (due partly to deregulation, a strong Tory policy) when the Tories got back in and pulled out the drip, with predictable results, particularly for the vulnerable. But they're not vulnerable, so hey ho. Nor am I for that matter: home owner, very nice Sauvignon with prawn risotto tonight, so according to some self interested people on here I should be rubbing my hands like Uriah Heep or Wackford Squeers Gove. But I still hate the negative, vindictive and sociopathic tendencies of people like IDS and Grayling who haven't a clue about the realities of some people's lives.

They don't even have much clue about economics: exactly what proportion of somebody's wage should be spent on housing? What proportion of national wealth shopuld consist of unproductive housing? To what extent should the current trend of the concentration of wealth continue:, do they understand the circulation/velocity of money and the benefit that brings? Who will keep the economy going when a large percentage spend it all on accommodation? I've got some shares, but I'd look very carefully where I invest as the money gets concentrated in fewer hands.

If the Scots voted now the result would be different: they might be worse off overall but more equal societies tend to be happier. It's going to be a c**p 5 years, it really is.

Its more reasonable to assume both sides do honestly think they and their policies will benefit the majority of the country. They could be wrong but its not worth getting angry about someone who believes what they are doing is right.

I don't think the tories govern for 'the rich' which at best is 10% of the population (the well off) and more like <1% of the population as 'the rich'.

I would say the tories govern for 'the economy' which would mean 95% of us and think a strong economy is perhaps the best but not the only way to help the 95%

labour or the left are more for 'the workers' which again is a group of about 95% of the people. They believe that redistribution is probably the best but not the only way to help the 95%

And of course they are both right and neither party is stupid enough to think just maximising the economy or just distributing what exists is the answer.
There is plenty of redistribution under tory governments and there is plenty of trying to grow the economy under labour governments.




Personally I think the most important thing in the long term is technology and that as the decades pass we will become more and more 'social' as the technology allows us to afford to be so


Labor needs to remind themselves, their party, and the country, that they are pro growth pro economy pro success. You can be all of thise things and still think lower taxes for average workers and high ones on the wealthy.