Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Babylon sister said:

Nicely put, I'm glad I share his view 

No one has ever doubted that plenty share his views. The problem of an election is getting enough people who share the same views.

And Jezza's big BIG problem is that on many issues he's on the minority side, and where those issues are a big deal to people, the sorts of issues which decide if someone can vote for him or not.

Those factors were always known as very big ones to overcome - and he blew it on the nukes issue last night. He needs to wake up to the fact that as leader of the country it's not about *only* following thru on your own ideas.

In contract, May handled the questions around her being a remainer very well. She demonstrated that her personal view of it had ceased to matter to what she'd do, and she'd act for the country's view.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

I would have cheered out loud if he had the courage to say it out loud. It's enough to know that he thinks it. I get what you're saying about the electorate but having seen so many politicians who lack of integrity his stance sits easier with me than someone who'd sell their soul for a vote. 

It's not necessarily about "lacking integrity", it's about seeing the bigger picture than just me-me-me.

A leader is representing other people too, not just their own views.

Edited June 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, babyblade41 said:

but then why doesn't JC say this,?  he thinks it is only going to come from the very wealthy and that won't work. He then reneges on his pledge and how many are going to be disillusioned if that happens ?

I think you're misunderstanding the idea behind the manifesto- yes some money is coming from taxation rises (which have been costed), but the idea is that all the extra government investment will lead to big increases in economic growth, which is where the future money will come from.

 

[Babylon sister]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

The Labour party decided the policy- he has to adhere to it, unfortunately

Sad but true 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Me too- I just find Trident is a colossal waste of money that could be better spent on much more useful things that actually save lives. I laughed when that questioner said about us being attacked by North Korea and Iran- why the hell would they attack us? We won't even be in the EU! We'll be a tiny, unimportant country which is on the other side of the world from them! And even if they did get nukes, and we did somehow get into a war with them, they have no way of delivering them that distance!

No one really thinks we'll be attacked. Naming those countries was really only about giving examples of the sorts of places that might end up in conflict with us.

But the possibility that we might be attacked is still there, and it's a perfectly valid question to ask of a leader how he'd defend the people. All nation states exist as an entity by people bonding together for mutual protection from external threats as their primary purpose.

[Babylon sister]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not necessarily about "lacking integrity" it's about seeing the bigger picture than just me-me-me.

It is for me, we all know his views. It wouldn't sit easy with me if he'd said something different at this stage. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think you're misunderstanding the idea behind the manifesto- yes some money is coming from taxation rises (which have been costed), but the idea is that all the extra government investment will lead to big increases in economic growth, which is where the future money will come from.

that pre-supposes a future benefit from the investment (rather than pissed up the wall via consumption), and that there's enough slack in the economy to achieve it.

If it were the simple your words suggest Greece would be booming via it's own 'investment' of spending money it hadn't yet created the wealth to make sustainable.

There might be enough slack in the economy, but there's a big risk the slack won't be picked up by people already here, but instead by immigrants which will not achieve positive growth because on-average they cost more than they contribute (as we all do) - which means the deficit would grow and not shrink.

[bamber]

The Tories are fully pushing the "No Magic money tree" argument it seems. Labour need to counteract that argument with some sort of "No endless austerity tree" argument, as we can only cut back spending and borrowing so far. I feel this is not being presented favourably by Labour. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Babylon sister said:

It is for me, we all know his views. It wouldn't sit easy with me if he'd said something different at this stage. 

if "we all know his views" why was he shy of saying them explicitly?

He wanted to make sure that people were confused about his views, that his views were not clear rather than clear - but which only leaves people to invent anything they wish.

He doesn't need to preach to the converted, he needs to win over the not-converted.

[eFestivals]

Just now, bamber said:

The Tories are fully pushing the "No Magic money tree" argument it seems. Labour need to counteract that argument with some sort of "No endless austerity tree" argument, as we can only cut back spending and borrowing so far. I feel this is not being presented favourably by Labour. 

Oh dear. You railed against the magic money tree and then proved you believe in it.

We cannot use resources we don't have, which means that spending can be cut back to nothing (if the resources we had were also nothing [yes, it's a hypothetical, don't shoot me]).

 

[bamber]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh dear. You railed against the magic money tree and then proved you believe in it.

We cannot use resources we don't have, which means that spending can be cut back to nothing (if the resources we had were also nothing [yes, it's a hypothetical, don't shoot me]).

 

The resources we have are not nothing though. We are a rich country by any measure. We can and must borrow more (on currently favourable terms) to fund investment in our future.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, bamber said:

The resources we have are not nothing though. We are a rich country by any measure. We can and must borrow more (on currently favourable terms) to fund investment in our future.

Why "must" we? It's a political wish, not an absolute.

And it's a wish that comes with attached consequences. It's only an investment if there's a future pay-back from that current extra spend - otherwise it makes us *all* poorer.

As for the favourable terms, they only exist at the moment. The UK borrows money for 10 or 15 years and then a new loan is taken to pay the original back - and the new loan is always at that day's rate and not today's cheap rate.

We're currently spending about £50Bn a year on debt servicing. If future interest rates are double today's rates - which is very easily possible given today's very low rates - then we're pissing more up the wall each year in future than Jezza plans to spend for our benefit now.

(want to say 'don't pay the money back'? wave bye-bye to your private pension).

[Mr.Tease]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that pre-supposes a future benefit from the investment (rather than pissed up the wall via consumption), and that there's enough slack in the economy to achieve it.

If it were the simple your words suggest Greece would be booming via it's own 'investment' of spending money it hadn't yet created the wealth to make sustainable.

There might be enough slack in the economy, but there's a big risk the slack won't be picked up by people already here, but instead by immigrants which will not achieve positive growth because on-average they cost more than they contribute (as we all do) - which means the deficit would grow and not shrink.

Oh absolutely, its an uncertainty (which is why when they did the manifesto costings they didn't take extra growth into account).

But I have always felt there needs to be more of an investment element in tackling the deficit, as well as safeguarding preventative stuff spending if you're not going to end the crisis stuff (it's pointless- the money you save by cutting the preventative services is wiped out by the increase in more expensive crisis interventions, which is one of the reasons why the deficit does not go down as quickly as forecast).

I think the problem with the Tory cuts wasn't that they needed to be made, but they weren't really strategically thought out- they just said to each department "cut x number by the end of the year". Led to a lot of short term cuts that had long term costs (and unforeseen short term costs)- like deciding you're going to save money by not sending your kid to school. Yep that year you save lunch money, travel money, school uniform money, but in actual fact, long term thats a disaster because they'll struggle to get a job, and b), you then end up having to spend money on non-school uniform clothes, non-school meals, etc.

Another example- with mental health, the government cut money going to local government, which meant local government funded third sector providers of counselling went bust (money saved!), which meant those service users had to go the NHS, which in turn couldn't cope with the extra demand (having also cut its staff), which meant they then had to hire extra, more expensive agency staff to meet the demand, and those waiting so long ended up in crisis (which is much, much more expensive to treat) which wiped out the savings of cutting the local government spending.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[bamber]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why "must" we? It's a political wish, not an absolute.

And it's a wish that comes with attached consequences. It's only an investment if there's a future pay-back from that current extra spend - otherwise it makes us *all* poorer.

As for the favourable terms, they only exist at the moment. The UK borrows money for 10 or 15 years and then a new loan is taken to pay the original back - and the new loan is always at that day's rate and not today's cheap rate.

We're currently spending about £50Bn a year on debt servicing. If future interest rates are double today's rates - which is very easily possible given today's very low rates - then we're pissing more up the wall each year in future than Jezza plans to spend for our benefit now.

(want to say 'don't pay the money back'? wave bye-bye to your private pension).

If we borrow now we get the benefits of higher wages and higher GDP, which leads to higher tax take and that makes the debt repayments more serviceable.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, bamber said:

If we borrow now we get the benefits of higher wages and higher GDP, which leads to higher tax take and that makes the debt repayments more serviceable.

pmlsl

the tax take from a spend is less than the spend. And we're particularly fucked with that when we're running a balance of payments deficit of around 8% (and growing).

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

I feel in time if JC does become PM he will realise that wont work and you will all feel the belt tightening .

Sure, but the belts will be tightening around our waists, not their necks. And frankly we could do with losing the flab anyway.

[babyblade41]

It's been an interesting thread and I have learnt a lot and seen many views on the subject.

I think we all want the same thing but it's how we get to that point that we differ.

 

I will carry on lurking here but I'm not as knowledgeable on past facts and figures as some of you to my shame.

 

I hope next Thursday is a close run thing and hope we are all going to listen through the night and wish you all good luck .

As much as some of you despise my view, I'd like to think you don't despise me and you never know you might be glad of my hand wash in a couple of weeks time !!

Have a safe trip from wherever you are all coming from and a safe 5 days at the farm , xxxx

[bamber]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

pmlsl

the tax take from a spend is less than the spend. And we're particularly fucked with that when we're running a balance of payments deficit of around 8% (and growing).

If you look around though, there are a lot of countries that are doing just fine with deficits way above 8%. Why do you seem buy into the perpetual balance the books argument? Horses for courses, and this (rich) horse needs investment right now.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Sure, but the belts will be tightening around our waists, not their necks. And frankly we could do with losing the flab anyway.

so it's now about voting ourselves poorer, not richer?

That's not in the Labour manifesto.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

It's been an interesting thread and I have learnt a lot and seen many views on the subject.

I think we all want the same thing but it's how we get to that point that we differ.

 

I will carry on lurking here but I'm not as knowledgeable on past facts and figures as some of you to my shame.

 

I hope next Thursday is a close run thing and hope we are all going to listen through the night and wish you all good luck .

As much as some of you despise my view, I'd like to think you don't despise me and you never know you might be glad of my hand wash in a couple of weeks time !!

Have a safe trip from wherever you are all coming from and a safe 5 days at the farm , xxxx

Take care and I hope you have a great festival.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, bamber said:

If you look around though, there are a lot of countries that are doing just fine with deficits way above 8%.

That b-o-p's deficit is the UK getting poorer in relation to other countries. 

There's 'doing fine' and there's 'getting poorer'. In you take just there they've become the same thing.

 

20 minutes ago, bamber said:

Why do you seem buy into the perpetual balance the books argument? Horses for courses, and this (rich) horse needs investment right now.

Money is just bits of pretty paper. After all, you can take the money away and we still have all the same resources. What *really* matters are resources. 

Now, care to tell me how you can eat a biscuit that you don't have?

That's why the 'balance the books' argument is important. If you use someone else's resources (which is borrowing those resources from them), they'll want them back. This is essentially what international finance manages for us.

There's ways to fiddle the 'balance the books' thing by printing money - but it doesn't avoid the *real* consequences around the resources.

[bamber]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

That b-o-p's deficit is the UK getting poorer in relation to other countries. 

There's 'doing fine' and there's 'getting poorer'. In you take just there they've become the same thing.

 

Money is just bits of pretty paper. After all, you can take the money away and we still have all the same resources. What *really* matters are resources. 

Now, care to tell me how you can eat a biscuit that you don't have?

That's why the 'balance the books' argument is important. If you use someone else's resources (which is borrowing those resources from them), they'll want them back. This is essentially what international finance manages for us.

There's ways to fiddle the 'balance the books' thing by printing money - but it doesn't avoid the *real* consequences around the resources.

Don't print money. Borrow money at favourable terms. Stoke wage inflation, skew the tax rates for the rich, reap the rewards of higher tax take.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, bamber said:

Borrow money at favourable terms.

That's something which is only available if the favourable terms are available, and those terms are set by the lender not the borrower - and as i've already pointed out, they are favourable today but might not be tomorrow.

10 minutes ago, bamber said:

Stoke wage inflation

which stokes price inflation, from which the poorest lose most.

10 minutes ago, bamber said:

reap the rewards of higher tax take.

there's only a reward if that higher tax take covers the higher borrowings. :rolleyes:

Jezza plans to add around 30%+ to debt costs - which is about another £15bn to the bankers each year. Will £50bn of extra borrowing create an extra £15Bn of tax revenues?

Or will a significant chunk of that borrowed money (8%) flow abroad and ensure the expected revenues don't happen?

People love to talk about the tories greed, but if that greed thing is right and Corbyn's ideas are right and make us more wealthy, why aren't the greedy doing what will make them more wealthy? 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, bamber said:

Don't print money. Borrow money at favourable terms. Stoke wage inflation, skew the tax rates for the rich, reap the rewards of higher tax take.

So wages go up, then prices (usually by more) and everyone's poorer. Great. Meanwhile the rich start paying themselves in shares or moving money abroad in order to avoid paying the extra tax and your extra revenue has disappeared as well.

[bamber]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's something which is only available if the favourable terms are available, and those terms are set by the lender not the borrower - and as i've already pointed out, they are favourable today but might not be tomorrow.

which stokes price inflation, from which the poorest lose most.

there's only a reward if that higher tax take covers the higher borrowings.

Jezza plans to add around 30%+ to debt costs - which is about another £15bn to the bankers each year. Will £50bn of extra borrowing create an extra £15Bn of tax revenues?

Or will a significant chunk of that borrowed money (8%) flow abroad and ensure the expected revenues don't happen?

People love to talk about the tories greed, but if that greed thing is right and Corbyn's ideas are right and make us more wealthy, why aren't the greedy doing what will make them more wealthy? 

If labour gain power (which they won't) that £15bn would be more than recouped if the top rate of income tax moved to 60% territory (which it is in other countries and has been historically) and corporation tax for large companies was 25%