Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[MillionMilesAway]

Everyone can become wealthy in the same way everyone can become prime minister
In theory fine, in practice not going to happen. A decent society should look after the interests and welfare of all its citizens. By that I mean the wealth creators as well as the needy. The notion though that the wealth creators' interests should be the sole focus of government to the detriment of the less well off or less capable is unacceptable. There is a balance to be struck and the balance has tipped too far away from the needs of the less well off. It needs a correction and if we're lucky we might get one in the next election.

Yes, I agree.
It's a theory/philosophy only, and like nearly every other -ism, without balancing constraints on it will be destructive.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You do not do great things for your country without taking risks. If the richest in Britain just paid in half the tax they avoid there would be no money problems at all.

Oh, that's that sorted then. Can you have a word with them, and then we can get it fixed. Job done. How silly of us to have not spotted this.

Yet another stupid head-in-the-clouds idea from someone not actually that fussed about where the money comes from, so long as we just spend it anyway. Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), we already have one of the lowest tax avoidance and evasion rates in the entire world. We've squeezed out the easy juice and only pith and pips remain. Getting the rest of the juice is the hard yards. Very hard. Not that this matters if as you've repeatedly demonstrated you don't care financial prudence.

Sauce?

Plenty for mine. One even 129.

Here's I'll post again from a teacher at Cambridge Uni and consultant to world bank if you want to consider their logic:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tish-voters-economy-britain-welfare?CMP=fb_gu

That's not a particularly relevant article, since it doesn't mention anything about our deficit in 2010. It simply states that the need to balance the books is a myth, but provides no data nor basis for concluding why that is the case. And I might add, it's pretty much what I might expect from the Guardian.

But look, I do know about this stuff having studied it at university. There's no argument about increasing debt to fund public investment, at the right time, and in moderation. However, had we not taken action to at least bring the deficit under control, we would almost certainly have had our credit rating downgraded with the effect that our cost of borrowing would have gone up and the cost of servicing the public debt would have put even more strain on our public resources.

And whether you like it or not, the route the government took, worked. It turned us around from negative growth into the strongest growing major economy in Europe, and it's reduced the deficit by 3/4.

 

[goalmole]

Not my work, but agree with all this...

Feels like one of those step-change moments. Grenfell fire has all the threads

Huge amounts of inequality in one of the country's richest boroughs

Emergency services cut by austerity staffed with brave workers who haven't had a pay rise in years running towards danger

Work that used to be public sector being contracted out to a private sector and shareholders demanding a profit

A government that has repeatedly kicked into touch better housing regulation as "unnecessary red tape"

People shouting "don't politicise this tragedy" as if whether people preventably burn to death in their houses isn't a matter for the state

Are there guidelines somewhere what should or shouldn't be politicised. In fact how can anyone discuss any matter where bureaucracy or officialdom is involved without discussing the politics of it.
If there is anything that needs politicising it is instances like this.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Everyone can become wealthy in the same way everyone can become prime minister
In theory fine, in practice not going to happen. A decent society should look after the interests and welfare of all its citizens. By that I mean the wealth creators as well as the needy. The notion though that the wealth creators' interests should be the sole focus of government to the detriment of the less well off or less capable is unacceptable. There is a balance to be struck and the balance has tipped too far away from the needs of the less well off. It needs a correction and if we're lucky we might get one in the next election.

The vast majority of people earn a crust by selling their labour and as labour is a factor of cost there is always the incentive to drive down costs to maximise profit.

Since the early 1980s, living standards for most of the UK’s workforce have becoming progressively detached from growth. The gains from a growing economy became increasingly unevenly divided in favour of a small group at the top, leaving significant sections of the rest of the population (roughly the bottom 60 percent) lagging behind the average rise in prosperity, and at an accelerating rate. Following the Great Recession of 2008-09, average UK net incomes have declined in real terms.

 

[goalmole]

The vast majority of people earn a crust by selling their labour and as labour is a factor of cost there is always the incentive to drive down costs to maximise profit.

Since the early 1980s, living standards for most of the UK’s workforce have becoming progressively detached from growth. The gains from a growing economy became increasingly unevenly divided in favour of a small group at the top, leaving significant sections of the rest of the population (roughly the bottom 60 percent) lagging behind the average rise in prosperity, and at an accelerating rate. Following the Great Recession of 2008-09, average UK net incomes have declined in real terms.

You're preaching to the converted, mate

 

[BlueHammer85]

 

[Chippy_boy]

The vast majority of people earn a crust by selling their labour and as labour is a factor of cost there is always the incentive to drive down costs to maximise profit.

Since the early 1980s, living standards for most of the UK’s workforce have becoming progressively detached from growth. The gains from a growing economy became increasingly unevenly divided in favour of a small group at the top, leaving significant sections of the rest of the population (roughly the bottom 60 percent) lagging behind the average rise in prosperity, and at an accelerating rate. Following the Great Recession of 2008-09, average UK net incomes have declined in real terms.

It's called "austerity". Perhaps you've heard of it?

It's absolutely astonishing to me that we embark on a path of austerity 6 years ago, at a time when the country is in crisis. The conservatives tell everyone, look, this is going to be tough. And they get elected on that basis. Once with the Lib Dems and later, outright. People voted for them because they (a) didn't trust Labour after the mess they left it in and (b) believed the Tories message, that we needed to pull our reigns in.

Now, 6 years later, you have people on here saying what a state our public services are in. We haven't seen any real terms pay increases in ages.

WTF did you expect? Did you not know what austerity actually meant? Did you think it meant tea and cakes for all?

It's been very painful and necessary, and it's worked. Hopefully we can soon ease off on it a bit and start to put more money into public services, but this horror at police cuts and the rest: The people voted for it, twice. Arguably three times.

 

[CitizenTID]

Oh, that's that sorted then. Can you have a word with them, and then we can get it fixed. Job done. How silly of us to have not spotted this.

Yet another stupid head-in-the-clouds idea from someone not actually that fussed about where the money comes from, so long as we just spend it anyway. Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), we already have one of the lowest tax avoidance and evasion rates in the entire world. We've squeezed out the easy juice and only pith and pips remain. Getting the rest of the juice is the hard yards. Very hard. Not that this matters if as you've repeatedly demonstrated you don't care financial prudence.



That's not a particularly relevant article, since it doesn't mention anything about our deficit in 2010. It simply states that the need to balance the books is a myth, but provides no data nor basis for concluding why that is the case. And I might add, it's pretty much what I might expect from the Guardian.

But look, I do know about this stuff having studied it at university. There's no argument about increasing debt to fund public investment, at the right time, and in moderation. However, had we not taken action to at least bring the deficit under control, we would almost certainly have had our credit rating downgraded with the effect that our cost of borrowing would have gone up and the cost of servicing the public debt would have put even more strain on our public resources.

And whether you like it or not, the route the government took, worked. It turned us around from negative growth into the strongest growing major economy in Europe, and it's reduced the deficit by 3/4.

I'm not talking about the past I'm talking about going forward.

My critique of Tory was on what they've done, not a myth created about them that doesn't have a simple answer but of which there are many routes at any given time. I want to see the Govt investing in long-term money-making schemes for the country - rlnationionalising the railways as oppose to selling services off for short-term boosts but a loss of profitable assets in the long-term for example. I'm sure a team of experts could be drafted to come up with brilliant ideas. You never see groundbreaking or radical ideas from the Tories though, they only seek to squeeze what they've got. Then when they leave their position, they take up huge wages elsewhere and are pleased with what they've done - because they've done it for themselves, not the country. This is me generalising very much so, but it's a gripe I can apply cross-party depending on the politician.

 

[CitizenTID]

It's called "austerity". Perhaps you've heard of it?

It's absolutely astonishing to me that we embark on a path of austerity 6 years ago, at a time when the country is in crisis. The conservatives tell everyone, look, this is going to be tough. And they get elected on that basis. Once with the Lib Dems and later, outright. People voted for them because they (a) didn't trust Labour after the mess they left it in and (b) believed the Tories message, that we needed to pull our reigns in.

Now, 6 years later, you have people on here saying what a state our public services are in. We haven't seen any real terms pay increases in ages.

WTF did you expect? Did you not know what austerity actually meant? Did you think it meant tea and cakes for all?

It's been very painful and necessary, and it's worked. Hopefully we can soon ease off on it a bit and start to put more money into public services, but this horror at police cuts and the rest: The people voted for it, twice. Arguably three times.

The public, as an entity, are thick and very easily manipulated by things they don't understand or aren't familiar with. It's basis off which advertising works so the public prove nothing to your points.

Of course it's going to be "oh we're in the shit, it must be the Government's fault, they're the one's responsible for the economy - let's vote for this party that are making all the right noises and are going with the simple, first logical solution that I can't think past because I'm not educated in the field." Austerity has proved to be a good call at the time, but that was stage 1 and the Tories have continued stage 1 over the long-term without proposing anything going forward and whilst commissioning things that suit them, not the people.

 

[goalmole]

It's called "austerity". Perhaps you've heard of it?

It's absolutely astonishing to me that we embark on a path of austerity 6 years ago, at a time when the country is in crisis. The conservatives tell everyone, look, this is going to be tough. And they get elected on that basis. Once with the Lib Dems and later, outright. People voted for them because they (a) didn't trust Labour after the mess they left it in and (b) believed the Tories message, that we needed to pull our reigns in.

Now, 6 years later, you have people on here saying what a state our public services are in. We haven't seen any real terms pay increases in ages.

WTF did you expect? Did you not know what austerity actually meant? Did you think it meant tea and cakes for all?

It's been very painful and necessary, and it's worked. Hopefully we can soon ease off on it a bit and start to put more money into public services, but this feigned horror at police cuts and the rest: The people voted for it, twice. Arguably three times.

You're right about the fact that we will be easing up on it soon. It's not because the government thinks that the people have suffered enough. It's because the worm has finally turned. If Corbyn hadn't given the people a different choice we'd have austerity indefinitely. The medicine tastes quite sweet when it's always someone else that has to take it.