[Archived] Election

[berkshireblue]

Wrong (again). Gordon Brown has admitted with hindsight there should should have much tougher regulation of the banks but the deregulation (unregulation ???) of the banks took place in the 1980s under the Tories who, the PM revealed recently, were pushing for even further deregulation of the banks before the economic crisis struck. You need to read this, written nearly three years ago but still an insightful and relevant critique of the origins of the current financial mayhem. http://www.independe...-on-760508.html

Jim - Where abouts in Cuba is Oakdale nursing home?

You are infatuated with Thatcher, hopefully its because she is lifelong VP of Blackburn Rovers

But seriously move on, we ve had Labour for 13 years

If I had a job for 13 years and as I was leaving it in the mess Labour are leaving the country I could nt blame the bloke who did the same job 30 years ago ffs!

Perhaps I should start talking about the UNION LED country of the 1970s, half day weeks, strikes, power cuts etc all under a LABOUR govt.

Whatever shortcomings Thatcher had she moved the country on from those dark days

[jim mk2]

Labour have had 13 years to put it right, have they done? no. Have they made it worse? yes. .

Made what worse precisely ? Thanks to Labour's spending this country is immeasurably a better place than the one inherited from Major's lame-duck government in 1997. The NHS, schools, towns and cities up and down the country have been transformed and much of the fabric and infrastructure of the nation has been renewed but more, much more, needs to be spent, particularly on public transport. Already the Tories have raised doubts over vital schemes such as the Crossrail project. The modernisation of Britain needs to continue and the country does not need a return to the private affluence and public squalor of Tory Britain in the 1980s.

[Nafe_rovers]

Both the Germans & Italians have nuclear capabilities under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement, the difference is they use US weapons with their own carriers (plane, boat etc). Belgium, Netherlands & Turkey also store US nuclear weapons for their own use. Turkey in particular has (this from memory) 48 active nuclear warheads and look who they have boarders with.....

So they have no Nuclear weapons of their own... they are controlled by the U.S, same with turkey?

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

thank you Mr Brown... you truly ruined my generation and the one to come after me!

[thenodrog]

I really don't understand where Cleggy gets the Trident figures from. As I understand it, the £25bn quoted by Cleggy last night is the cost to replace Trident in 2024 and that cost includes a 30 yr operation cost. So hold on Cleggy, you claimed last night that cutting Trident NOW would put a significant amount towards the £17 BILLION tax cut your proposing. Sorry, but that doesn't add up, you were quite clearly using the figure of £25bn as an immediate figure.

As for as I'm aware Trident currently costs £30bn over 30 years/£1bn a year. So Cleggy, your're proposing to cut Trident and save £1bn a year, not quite the headline figures banded about last night. Hold on again, in 2009 Cleggy said he would support a more cost effective nuclear deterrent when Trident ends in 2024! That's a serious change of mind there old chap. For what it's worth, £1bn is a hell of a lot of money but I feel a hell of a lot safer with those subs skulking around. Maybe Clegg feels he can 'negotiate' with the likes of Iran and N.Korea.

I think in the next round of questioning Cleggy needs to be pushed much further - no mention of Lib Dems proposed joining of the Euro, their amnesty on illegal immigrants and their laughable £17bn tax cuts.

Lid Dems yet again come up a completely nonsensical manifesto. They change their mind with alarming frequency (witness Cable) and offer no genuine alternative. Study what they have to say.

And many voters have been swayed by a polished TV performance! Shows clearly the fallibilities in our democracy doesn't it? Not to mention the average intellect. I wonder if Ant and Dec fancy entering politics? I'd wager they'd get in with a landslide. First job in power after raising MP's wages and expenses would be to make voting easier by simply pushing the red button.

[LeChuck]

And many voters have been swayed by a polished TV performance! Shows clearly the fallibilities in our democracy doesn't it? Not to mention the average intellect

Does it take higher than average intellect to only be capable of voting for one of two parties?

[thenodrog]

........But that isn't acceptable to you, you're quite happy for me to pay more for the privilege of employing someone, that's on top of collecting taxes for the government, all the pathetic stealth taxes we get loaded with, rising business rates etc etc etc.

My local pub has just been informed their business rates will rise from 32k pa to just over 50k! I doubt it's even workable. Thats a grand a week for sweet FA and they stll have to pay to get the bins emptied. I wouldn't be suprised if it becomes another casualty of New Labours stealth taxes. New Labour is presiding over and fanning the flames of a break up in our society.

[thenodrog]

Well yes, a weak pound is good if you're exporting as it makes the product cheaper to buy (obviously). The problem is input prices continue to rise (and would rise further with an increase in NIC) which offsets those gains. Of course, if you import goods (and I do) it's not such a good thing particularly when raw material costs are rising so much.

It's good if you are fighting imports too Koi. The large retailers etc use a strong pound as a huge club to hammer local suppliers into the ground. A weak pound means they have to eat a bit of humble pie and stump up the going rate.

[BRFC Casuals]

Here is an interesting little tool to match your attitudes to the parties.

Interestingly, when the lifelong Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan did it, he came out more Lib Dem than Tory!

I scored 75% on the Lib Dem scale.

Thanks for that link philip most interesting .... my results were

British National Party: 77%

UK Independence Party: 72%

Conservative Party: 41%

Im a bit surprised at how high up UKIP is in my line of thoughts maybe i should be more "PC" and vote for them

[thenodrog]

Made what worse precisely ? Thanks to Labour's spending this country is immeasurably a better place than the one inherited from Major's lame-duck government in 1997.

You say that but its undeniable that New Lab inherited a strong economy and will be handing back one in ruins. So spin your way out of that if you can.

[philipl]

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies on the credibility or otherwise of each of the three main parties' tax and spend proposals here:

Concluding para on the Lib Dems:

We can be pretty confident that the Liberal Democrats' headline giveaway would cost roughly what they claim. Whether the revenue raising measures would yield what they expect is much more uncertain - and we cannot even say with confidence whether they are more likely to raise too much revenue or too little. On the one hand, their estimates of the revenue to be raised from tackling avoidance and evasion seem optimistic; on the other hand, the estimates of the revenue to be raised from the rest of the package if anything look pessimistic. The only way to find out for sure would be to suck it and see.

Conclusion on the Tories:

Given the current forecasts, let alone the uncertainties surrounding them, the Conservatives were wise not to make a "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge in their manifesto. William Hague only went so far yesterday as to say: "We are not looking for tax rises", which does not rule anything out. The Conservatives also eschewed Labour's manifesto promise not to increase income tax rates or extend VAT, a pledge that leaves the door open to many other tax increases - just as similar pledges in Labour's last three manifestos left the door open to the substantial tax increases they have implemented since 1997.

Of course, the Conservatives are left having to identify an even bigger spending cut overall than Labour in the next Spending Review and beyond. And, like Labour, they have only identified where a small proportion of the cuts will come from.

An obvious question is whether it is really realistic to expect spending cuts to bear as much of the burden of the fiscal tightening as the Conservatives intend, given the likely consequences for public services and the generosity of the welfare system. Bear in mind that the ratio of discretionary spending cuts to tax increases in the last big fiscal tightening undertaken by a Conservative government, under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke in the early 1990s, looks to us to have been around 1:1.

Whoever forms the next Government, it is hard to escape the conclusion that there are likely to be more tax increases to come.

Conclusion on Labour:

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that one result of the pre-crisis rise was a big increase in the quantity and quality of public services we enjoy. It estimates that public services output (adjusted for quality as best it can) had increased by more than 33% between 1997 and 2007. But the amount of inputs required - and the cost of those inputs -increased even more.

We therefore estimate that the "bang for each buck" that we get from public services spending has fallen by more than 13% over the same period. If Labour had managed to maintain the "bang" it inherited in 1997, it could have delivered the same quality and quantity of services that it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less - or it could have provided 15.5% more or better services for the same money.

But this is not necessarily proof of unnecessary waste. The quality of public services may have improved in ways that the ONS does not measure. Some cost increases may have been unavoidable. And some increases in public sector inputs may only be fully reflected in the quantity and quality of service outputs after a significant lag - if so, we may not yet have seen the full benefit.

Whatever the case, the outlook for spending on public services looks much bleaker over the next few years, and it would futile to hope that the quality and quantity of services will be unaffected. Labour's manifesto has left us none the wiser as to where exactly the axe will fall, but fall it will.

Looks like koi is well wide of the mark in most of his posts.

[berkshireblue]

Made what worse precisely ? Thanks to Labour's spending this country is immeasurably a better place than the one inherited from Major's lame-duck government in 1997. The NHS, schools, towns and cities up and down the country have been transformed and much of the fabric and infrastructure of the nation has been renewed but more, much more, needs to be spent, particularly on public transport. Already the Tories have raised doubts over vital schemes such as the Crossrail project. The modernisation of Britain needs to continue and the country does not need a return to the private affluence and public squalor of Tory Britain in the 1980s.

towns and cities up and down the country have been transformed and much of the fabric and infrastructure of the nation has been renewed

Jim you really must live in Cuba

On a different topic you called London a dump & squalor

Which towns and cities up and down the country are you talking about

Perhaps you are a closet claret if you lived in Burnley you d probably think everywhere else was 5 star

Shame you wont take up my pint and £6billion cuts challenge

[jim mk2]

You say that but its undeniable that New Lab inherited a strong economy and will be handing back one in ruins. So spin your way out of that if you can.

Labour inherited an economy finally recovering in the last two years of 18 years of Tory mis-rule. That's all three of your stumps knocked out of the ground by a googly, a chinaman and an arm-ball rolled into one.

[berkshireblue]

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies on the credibility or otherwise of each of the three main parties' tax and spend proposals here:

Concluding para on the Lib Dems:

We can be pretty confident that the Liberal Democrats' headline giveaway would cost roughly what they claim. Whether the revenue raising measures would yield what they expect is much more uncertain - and we cannot even say with confidence whether they are more likely to raise too much revenue or too little. On the one hand, their estimates of the revenue to be raised from tackling avoidance and evasion seem optimistic; on the other hand, the estimates of the revenue to be raised from the rest of the package if anything look pessimistic. The only way to find out for sure would be to suck it and see.

Conclusion on the Tories:

Given the current forecasts, let alone the uncertainties surrounding them, the Conservatives were wise not to make a "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge in their manifesto. William Hague only went so far yesterday as to say: "We are not looking for tax rises", which does not rule anything out. The Conservatives also eschewed Labour's manifesto promise not to increase income tax rates or extend VAT, a pledge that leaves the door open to many other tax increases - just as similar pledges in Labour's last three manifestos left the door open to the substantial tax increases they have implemented since 1997.

Of course, the Conservatives are left having to identify an even bigger spending cut overall than Labour in the next Spending Review and beyond. And, like Labour, they have only identified where a small proportion of the cuts will come from.

An obvious question is whether it is really realistic to expect spending cuts to bear as much of the burden of the fiscal tightening as the Conservatives intend, given the likely consequences for public services and the generosity of the welfare system. Bear in mind that the ratio of discretionary spending cuts to tax increases in the last big fiscal tightening undertaken by a Conservative government, under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke in the early 1990s, looks to us to have been around 1:1.

Whoever forms the next Government, it is hard to escape the conclusion that there are likely to be more tax increases to come.

Conclusion on Labour:

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that one result of the pre-crisis rise was a big increase in the quantity and quality of public services we enjoy. It estimates that public services output (adjusted for quality as best it can) had increased by more than 33% between 1997 and 2007. But the amount of inputs required - and the cost of those inputs -increased even more.

We therefore estimate that the "bang for each buck" that we get from public services spending has fallen by more than 13% over the same period. If Labour had managed to maintain the "bang" it inherited in 1997, it could have delivered the same quality and quantity of services that it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less - or it could have provided 15.5% more or better services for the same money.

But this is not necessarily proof of unnecessary waste. The quality of public services may have improved in ways that the ONS does not measure. Some cost increases may have been unavoidable. And some increases in public sector inputs may only be fully reflected in the quantity and quality of service outputs after a significant lag - if so, we may not yet have seen the full benefit.

Whatever the case, the outlook for spending on public services looks much bleaker over the next few years, and it would futile to hope that the quality and quantity of services will be unaffected. Labour's manifesto has left us none the wiser as to where exactly the axe will fall, but fall it will.

Looks like koi is well wide of the mark in most of his posts.

Phil - dont believe Koi is wide of the mark

One sentence sums your whole quote up - The Country is in a mess for whoever governs due to Brown, he will hand over, when i say he, I mean as chancellor and now PM , a hospital pass

Labour inherited an economy finally recovering in the final two years of 18 years of Tory mis-rule. That all three of your stumps knocked out of the ground by a googly, a chinaman and an arm-ball rolled into one.

Jim

Is your silence on my 3 previous posts today and the questions asked

an admittance of a flawed argument

[jim mk2]

Jim

Is your silence on my 3 previous posts today and the questions asked

an admittance of a flawed argument

Look back.

[koi]

Well philip we can all choose a financial study to suit our argument can't we? How about the Tories using Labours own financial advisers to work on their policy? what about the 100+ business leaders who are opposed to the increase on NIC? the list goes on. You pick and choose what ever you want my judgements are based on my reality. I'm a 'man on the street' trying to run a small business, trying to make a living for my family. I'm an employer, a supplier to other business, a retailer. I deal with banks, government, legal institutions on a regular basis. So philip I say as I see, whereas you have proved many times on this board that you're quite prone to, erm, debatable judgements on these reports you like to read...

[koi]

Labour inherited an economy finally recovering in the last two years of 18 years of Tory mis-rule. That's all three of your stumps knocked out of the ground by a googly, a chinaman and an arm-ball rolled into one.

And should the Tories win they'll inherit the worst economy since the 1930s after 13 years of Labour mis-rule, at least Labour had a recovering economy to work with.....Again Jim, I'll remind you of the economy the Tories inherited in '79, well, if you can call it an economy. I'm not a cricket person but I am a rugby league person and I think you've just knocked-on on your own line.

[Jonnolad]

Push 'em too far and they will go, it's economics. Why do we not have a manufacturing industry? Coz it's cheaper elsewhere.

Italy and Germany share weapons with the US and both have nuclear weapons stored and ready to deploy. Germany have openly admitted they can produce their own weapons in a short time if needed.

I'm guessing "sharing" weapons (which surely means just literally lending them for pretty much nothing) is far far cheaper than the billions and billions needed for our own indepedent deterent though.

[Nafe_rovers]

Thanks for that link philip most interesting .... my results were

British National Party: 77%

UK Independence Party: 72%

Conservative Party: 41%

Im a bit surprised at how high up UKIP is in my line of thoughts maybe i should be more "PC" and vote for them

If you want your vote to count you may as well vote conservative!

[broadsword]

Made what worse precisely ? Thanks to Labour's spending ...

... and calamitous regulation of the financial services sector, we're now lumbered with an enormous public debt which will take god knows how long to pay off.

Spend spend spend spend spend, all they know how to do is spend. And they've made a right pig's ear out of things.

[1864roverite]

Jim

you remind me of my old grandad (now deceased bless him). He couldnt see past mr foot and his crew until I posted Tory stickers all over his car. I never ever saw him so angry but he was very stubborn and a fool when it came to politics and in particular labour.

I have served Q and C since I was 16 and believe me this country is a god damned worse place to live since the new labour came to power.

We are debt ridden, we are over taxed, we are over spent, our standard of living is costly, our taxes are not spent right, the pc brigade are prevailent because of spineless mps, schooling is a mess, the local councils are a disgrace, money is filtered away and wasted, no one can everf give a difrect answer, the courts are useless, etc etc etc etc.

The wrongs in our society are endless lists of failures by this government failing to keep its promises.

The biggest one is immigration and thre referendum. Brown should never be forgiven for taking the public for a ride on that one.

It is time for a change and if the Tories cannot get it right then its time for parliament to dissolve completely and for the public to rid itself of idiots who think they can make a change.

oh yes, forgot to mention the spiralling council tax system and what it is worth !

labour out forever.

[jim mk2]

Jim

you remind me of my old grandad (now deceased bless him). He couldnt see past mr foot and his crew until I posted Tory stickers all over his car. I never ever saw him so angry

With an idiot grandson I'm not surprised your old grandad was angry.

[koi]

I'm guessing "sharing" weapons (which surely means just literally lending them for pretty much nothing) is far far cheaper than the billions and billions needed for our own indepedent deterent though.

We do share with the US - Trident, and it's on a completely different level.

[berkshireblue]

And should the Tories win they'll inherit the worst economy since the 1930s after 13 years of Labour mis-rule, at least Labour had a recovering economy to work with.....Again Jim, I'll remind you of the economy the Tories inherited in '79, well, if you can call it an economy. I'm not a cricket person but I am a rugby league person and I think you've just knocked-on on your own line.

I dont think Jim knocked-on on his own line, he merely passed the ball to the opposition and ran away

[jim mk2]

The Tories have far more to fear than Labour from the apparent rise of Nick Clegg after last night's TV debate.

http://www.ft.com

[jim mk2]

What I struggle to handle is how people seem to think things will be better under the Conservatives. Wait for these fantastic ideas of spending cuts, under the Toryism cliches of 'common sense' and 'sensibility', to kick in. Jobs will directly be lost over this and that's one darn good reason I'm not going to vote that way. I won't play party to voting for a party that knows jobs will be lost and they will not have lifted a finger to put these people in other jobs.

What I also find amazing is that people are naive enough to think that the Tories would have avoided this banking crisis. Get real. People who are voting Tory this time are voting for change for the sake of change when in reality I don't think ANY government could have helped avoid this recession unless they had absolutely amazing foresight. This thing has been global, not local.

The only thing this TV debate has done is highlight charisma. Gordon Brown has no charisma and is certainly not strong enough to be a real leader but IMO he has the brains to get us out of this. The Tory policy is simple - reduce the public spending and hope for the best. I despair.

Good post. But be prepared for a slating from the loony right.