the snap general election thread

CKhalvashi

michaels wrote: »

I can't understand - if Labour are in favour of 'borrowing to invest' what would be the attraction of a pfi deal to the party? The benefit of (allegedly) transferring the risk must surely be outweighed by the additional financing costs?

OF course 'borrowing to invest' by a company means that you expect additional revenues to cover both the interest cost and the original capital so for me any govt 'borrowing to invest' should be expected to generate additional tax revenue (or I guess at a stretch cost savings on current govt expenditure) in order to pay back the capital and interest costs. I have never seen any of Labour's proposed 'investments' costed in this way so in general they must all imply higher future taxation which is what govt borrowing is.

This is what I'd like to see from a government manifesto to an extent; a huge extension to existing EFG, and SME-led growth, helping more startups to the s, to the m.

Labour are closest to this IMO with that plan, however mine doesn't involve borrowing but does involve government revenue, where Labour seem to have gone down the opposite route.

gfplux

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life wrote: »

Not exactly.
There is a tendency to decry what some attempt to tell us is the norm when in fact it is an exception.

My experiences (and there are quite a few) have without exception been positive if not always the exceptionally good which are the norm from my POV.

That is wonderful to hear. You should make sure your opinion and experience is heard often. There are too many negative comments about the NHS appearing in the media.
You need to fight back. Thank you.

antrobus

gfplux wrote: »

That is wonderful to hear. You should make sure your opinion and experience is heard often. There are too many negative comments about the NHS appearing in the media.
You need to fight back. Thank you.

Well, I wouldn't say that my experience of the NHS is 100% positive. Maybe 95%. But they have and are doing their best to keep me alive.

In other news, the Grauniad reports that;

Patrick O’Flynn, the party’s economics spokesman, said Ukip could have managed to field candidates across the country but chose to stand only 377 because of promises made to its local branches by many pro-Brexit Conservative candidates and two Labour candidates.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/conservative-candidates-making-electoral-pacts-with-ukip

I'm not surprised that UKIP is doing local deals with the Conservatives, but I wonder if anyone has a clue as to the identity of the two Labour candidates that have sealed a pact with the devil?

Filo25

antrobus wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't say that my experience of the NHS is 100% positive. Maybe 95%. But they have and are doing their best to keep me alive.

In other news, the Grauniad reports that;

Patrick O’Flynn, the party’s economics spokesman, said Ukip could have managed to field candidates across the country but chose to stand only 377 because of promises made to its local branches by many pro-Brexit Conservative candidates and two Labour candidates.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/conservative-candidates-making-electoral-pacts-with-ukip

I'm not surprised that UKIP is doing local deals with the Conservatives, but I wonder if anyone has a clue as to the identity of the two Labour candidates that have sealed a pact with the devil?

Kate Hoey is one of them, not sure about the other one

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

This is what I'd like to see from a government manifesto to an extent; a huge extension to existing EFG, and SME-led growth, helping more startups to the s, to the m.

Governments can do little more than create a suitable environment. Whether a Company succeeds or fails is as much about the people in the organisation, it's products, the competition it faces, generating revenue etc. The statistics on SME start up's are pretty stark. Many fall by the wayside. Watch Dragons Den and you'll get a flavour of why. More often or not is the understanding of financial matters that's the downfall.

sevenhills

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Governments can do little more than create a suitable environment.

“strong and stable”

With a stable currency?

Fella

sevenhills wrote: »

With a stable currency?

Like the Euro? Like the Euro would be if Greece went bust & wasn't bailed out yet again)? Or if Italy went bust? Or if France left? Or if any of a zillion other scenarios.

Sterling is as stable a currency as any other & that's all you can ask for.

Thrugelmir

sevenhills wrote: »

“strong and stable”

With a stable currency?

Exchange rates have fluctuated and always have done. Just one of the many challenges that you'll encounter if you run any business. I was referring more to aspects such as employment law and taxation. To encourage people to take risk. There cannot be a burden imposed from day one. That makes the business unlikely to succeed. Nor where banks, angels and institutions etc are unwilling to invest.

Malthusian

sevenhills wrote: »

“strong and stable”

With a stable currency?

No currency is ever stable. Even a supposedly stable currency like the American dollar fluctuates in value against all the unstable ones. What are you proposing, a return to the gold standard? A central-planning price committee?

antrobus

Mr Wells explains one of the reasons why polls can produce (slightly) different results;

ICM and ComRes have adopted new approaches. Rather than basing their turnout model on people’s self-reported likelihood to vote, they base it on their demographics – estimating respondent’s likelihood to vote based on their age and social grade – the assumption being that younger people and working class people will remain less likely than older, more middle class people to vote. This tends to have the effect of making the results substantially more Conservative, less Labour, meaning that ICM and ComRes tend to produce some of the biggest Tory leads.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9882