the snap general election thread

Herzlos

Some of us think that "austerity" doesn't actually work - all we're doing by slashing front line services is making services more expensive. Cutting in-home care for a few quid an hour resulting in people staying in hospital when they don't need to (for a few hundred quid a night); Cutting benefits so that people go with out, become ill due to poor conditions/nutrition and end up in hospital. Overworking teaching, health, police resources until they burn out and go off with stress, meaning that agency staff need to be brought in at 3x the normal rate.

We're probably wasting more on interrogating the disabled than we're saving from cutting money to those that actually need it.

Each public sector staff member that did something useful but was laid off means:
1. Some redundancy pay, which they'll horde due to instability
2. Another unemployed person, who'll need help until they find something.
3. Less income tax and cash flowing through the economy.
4. Some poor !!!!!! having more work to do, meaning more likelihood of going off sick

And so on. We've had years of "austerity" so far; it's not made a dent in the budget and just made the lives of a lot of people miserable.

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

And so on. We've had years of "austerity" so far; it's not made a dent in the budget and just made the lives of a lot of people miserable.

That's simply you fundamentally not comprehending just how bad a state Labour left the finances in in 2010.

The rest of your argument is basically a repeat of the idea that you can "spend your way out of debt" which was precisely the kind of attitude that put our finances in this state during Labour's last time in charge.

(Of course you can always blame it on the Global Financial Crash, what a convenient crash that was).

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

This has all been discussed and explained very clearly earlier in this thread.

Thanks. I never get bored of the winking smilie.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

Some of us think that "austerity" doesn't actually work - all we're doing by slashing front line services is making services more expensive. Cutting in-home care for a few quid an hour resulting in people staying in hospital when they don't need to (for a few hundred quid a night); Cutting benefits so that people go with out, become ill due to poor conditions/nutrition and end up in hospital. Overworking teaching, health, police resources until they burn out and go off with stress, meaning that agency staff need to be brought in at 3x the normal rate.

We're probably wasting more on interrogating the disabled than we're saving from cutting money to those that actually need it.

Each public sector staff member that did something useful but was laid off means:
1. Some redundancy pay, which they'll horde due to instability
2. Another unemployed person, who'll need help until they find something.
3. Less income tax and cash flowing through the economy.
4. Some poor !!!!!! having more work to do, meaning more likelihood of going off sick

And so on. We've had years of "austerity" so far; it's not made a dent in the budget and just made the lives of a lot of people miserable.

Why is growth so much lower in socialist Scotland? They spend more State money per head.


The more the State takes care of your needs, the more needs you find you have, it's a road to oblivion


Instead of taking out critical illness cover in your early 20's for £25 pm, you instead rely on the State to give you free money when you cannot work - aid begets aid

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Some of us think that "austerity" doesn't actually work - all we're doing by slashing front line services is making services more expensive. Cutting in-home care for a few quid an hour resulting in people staying in hospital when they don't need to (for a few hundred quid a night); Cutting benefits so that people go with out, become ill due to poor conditions/nutrition and end up in hospital. Overworking teaching, health, police resources until they burn out and go off with stress, meaning that agency staff need to be brought in at 3x the normal rate.

We're probably wasting more on interrogating the disabled than we're saving from cutting money to those that actually need it.

Each public sector staff member that did something useful but was laid off means:
1. Some redundancy pay, which they'll horde due to instability
2. Another unemployed person, who'll need help until they find something.
3. Less income tax and cash flowing through the economy.
4. Some poor !!!!!! having more work to do, meaning more likelihood of going off sick

And so on. We've had years of "austerity" so far; it's not made a dent in the budget and just made the lives of a lot of people miserable.

I agree with your sentiment and indeed IIRC I have posted about for example the Tax Credit switch to Universal Benefit nightmare and exorbitant cost.

The big problem really is that throwing more money at problems and increasing debt to do so doesn't work either, does it?
We cannot spend tomorrows money today.
Or rather we cannot continue to spend tomorrows money today.

Oh, and:

While on a monthly basis the deficit increased, on an annualised basis, the deficit fell in the financial year ending in March compared to the end of March 2016.

"Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £23.4 billion to £48.7 billion in the financial year ending March 2017 (April 2016 to March 2017), compared with the financial year ending March 2016," the ONS said.

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/5/23/britains-budget-deficit-unexpectedly-increased-in-april

A decrease of £23.4 billion is a considerable dent in my opinion if not in yours.

Conrad

Fella wrote: »

The rest of your argument is basically a repeat of the idea that you can "spend your way out of debt" which was precisely the kind of attitude that put our finances in this state during Labour's last time in charge.

These spend merchants never stop to ask themselves what happens if another global crisis unfolds and we're left high n dry with vastly more debt

wotsthat

Fella wrote: »

Indeed. And the people criticizing them for that are the same people who criticize them for cuts & "austerity". Utter hypocrisy.

It's possible to think the government has borrowed too much and has compounded this by making poor spending choices.

Fella wrote: »

Some of us agree the increasing debt is unacceptable & think the "austerity" hasn't gone nearly far enough. An opinion anybody is free to disagree with but at least it's consistent.

I agree but note there isn't a party promising to stop increasing debt whilst increasing austerity.

'Fortunately' for me my constituency has returned a Labour MP since WWII (and will do so again this time) so I don't have to overly worry about wanting to vote for something which isn't on offer.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

There isn't a party for that.

The Tories have racked up (and will continue to do so) a shedload more debt. There seems to be an idea that if the PM wears blue knickers rather than red Y-fronts it's something we can turn a blind eye to.

Different sides of the same coin. One spends money like a drunk sailor on shore leave and the other like a drunk squaddy on pay day. Take your pick which is which.

I'm also surprised tax take seems to be ratcheting up with little mention. The media were squealing about stealth taxes when the last Labour government hit similar tax vs gdp rates.

Has the personal allowance continued to increase. Lifting many low paid workers, and the rest of us out of a bit of taxation?

We're on course to reduce the deficit, once we've done that and we're getting a surplus we can begin to pay down the debt. Once we've paid down sufficient amounts of the debt more money will become available to use on the NHS, welfare, investment, etc...

It's a long game, but the right game. Labour would rather borrow now to buy votes, and that's all it is. Well meaning vote purchasing policies.

I cannot trust Labour with their constant giveaways to be responsible enough to bring the deficit down and begin to pay the debt off to right the ship. The Conservative don't appear to have a problem being hated for doing so, ergo there is a party for that and its the Conservatives. Doing away with the "no tax rise" pledge is more evidence of that.

Honestly don't believe you will ever be able to paint Labour in a positive light with regards to debt and deficit management. Particularly not with John McDonnell in that hot seat.

Corbyn
Abbott
McDonnell
Thornberry

To a lesser extent:

Rayner
Long-Bailey
Chakrabati

Mr Starmer seems reasonable, they need more of that. The 3 in bold are terrible though.

mayonnaise

Conrad wrote: »

I voted Labour in 2010. I did threads on this very forum about it if anyone can be bothered to go digging (I cant)

I had some free time to go digging.

04/05/2010:

Conrad wrote:

I was going to vote Labour, but in my postal ballot when it came to the crunch I put my cross on conservative.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32463819&postcount=115

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

I had some free time to go digging.

04/05/2010:


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32463819&postcount=115

Damn the memory is shot to bits, I honestly thought I'd plumped for Labour


I really did do threads on why to vote Labour, mocking the Tory toffs, see if you can find it.