the snap general election thread

bobbymotors

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But it really isn't hat simple, is it?

I run a business - part retail and part service.

Let's say for a minute that the drop in high street spending has hit my profits so hard that I'm going to struggle to meet my bills. I've already cut back expenses to the bone but it's still not enough. I can't increase prices because I'll lose customers and I'm already working as many hours as I can, so I can't drop prices to try to increase customers.

I essentially have 3 possibilities:

• I can close the business down before it fails and walk away. That's an option for me, but it's not an option for a country.
  
• I can borrow the minimum possible (within what I can afford) to provide cashflow and hope things improve.
  
• I can borrow more than I can afford at the moment in order to invest in growing the business to the point that I can afford what I borrow and more.

Out of those, option 2 is, effectively, "austerity".

Option 3 is likely to be the smart business decision. Yes, there's risk involved, but it's only the risk that every venture capitalist accepts every time they invest in a start-up or business expansion.

If the business plan is good and the projected growth from the borrowing is realistic then the risk is minimal and it's set against the likelihood of high returns.

Which is why businesses do it and why investors get such good returns as the business thrives. If it didn't work there'd be no such thing as investors.

actually, it really is that simple. Household to the whole uk....at some point you HAVE to spend less than you've got coming in, or you will go skint.

I get excited too when i get offered something for nothing, but there's always but always a catch.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

i did find it strange that the media were tip toeing around the possible numbers of fatalitys.
Reporters on the ground could surely have reported the number of missing. These numbers are now beginning to circulate.

Do you know how many people were in the building at the time?

Thrugelmir

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's a loose analogy but makes the point that borrowing more than you can afford to pay at the moment isn't the cardinal sin that Maggienomics held it to be.

When you've managed finances in the real business world. That's the time to write analogies. Trying to connect more recent events to a bygone era is pointless. As the world has moved on. Now a very different place.

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

Repeating the same old lines time and time again changes nothing Hallmark. This is a little forum for people to discuss things ..........not vent their spleen of hate. Just sling your hook mate....no offence I'm really not interested in what you think.:)

You seem confused. I'm not pointing out the inconsistencies & hypocrisy of your position for your benefit. I'm highlighting them so that anybody reading the forum will be fully aware that you are continually quoting anything in sight that blames the Tories whilst ignoring anything that points the same blame at Labour.

Rather than sling my hook I think I'll carry on pointing it out when you do this.

BTW it's been at least 5 minutes since you copied & pasted a Guardian article, probably time for you to check their site again in case there's another biased article you can repeat on here.

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

Fair point...all Govmt's whatever colour bear some responsibility.
My point is that the present position we are now in is much further beyond that. There is a growing vocalised view that 'Austerity' has been turned into something else and taken to extremes. Also that the poor suffer the consequences, because the richer are more able to protect themselves. I also give credit to people like Corbyn because he has always said these things. He is not politicking over a tragedy. It's unfair to say that, he has been consistent! To accuse him of politicking is imo another smear by those who have their own agenda.

Spot on.
As a public sector worker I've got 'skin in the game' and I do admit to being appropriately biased on the subject. My entire time in public sector has been dominated by the continuous rationalisation of resources.The process started with Thatcher and didn't slow down with the Blair/Brown years either. At the start of my career people in my job were given taxpayer subsidised housing, meals and even social clubs. Probably quite rightly these perks have slowly disappeared. Where the recent policy of austerity has hit particularly hard is that our core function is now being severely affected and even targeted by the cuts. There has been a slow, deliberate and inexorable retreat by the state and its politicians from areas that it used to be directly responsible for. In the event of an embarrassing prison escape in the past, Home Secretaries used to fall on their sword and resign, now the head of some government agency is scapegoated and sacked instead. Politicians can now run our public services on a wing and prayer basis, usually safe in the knowledge that some unelected irk lower down the food chain can ultimately carry the can.
If the proper funding of public services and the accountability of politicians is going to be a major battleground at the next election, then it bring it on. I've personally had enough of this cheap and nasty country we've become.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

If the proper funding of public services and the accountability of politicians is going to be a major battleground at the next election, then it bring it on. I've personally had enough of this cheap and nasty country we've become.

There's the whole of the EU to choose from. Is the grass really greener on the other side?

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's the whole of the EU to choose from. Is the grass really greener on the other side?

I have aspirations for my country of birth, you clearly don't share them.

chucknorris

Tromking wrote: »

Spot on.
I've personally had enough of this cheap and nasty country we've become.

I've only just started becoming aware of how cheap and nasty it is becoming, from recent events like far left activists using the grief of others to jump on the bandwagon and organise protests, and calling our prime minister amongst other things a murderer. I don't think she is much good at the job, but she doesn't deserve that. You can't get much cheaper and nastier than that.

Tromking

chucknorris wrote: »

I've only just started becoming aware of how cheap and nasty it is becoming, from recent events like far left activists using the grief of others to jump on the bandwagon and organise protests, and calling our prime minister amongst other things a murderer. I don't think she is much good at the job, but she doesn't deserve that. You can't get much cheaper and nastier than that.

That's right fella, you concentrate on the irrelevant and let the grown ups discuss the big stuff.

chucknorris

Tromking wrote: »

That's right fella, you concentrate on the irrelevant and let the grown ups discuss the big stuff.

It is only irrelevant to trash talking yobs, decent people do not act that way, or condone that sort of behaviour.