Labour ?

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

You should think yourself fortunate to have that level of income. 

It's time we woke up to the fact that services cost money. People want a great NHS and they want lots of police to keep us all safe, yet they still want to pay less. Sure there are some efficiencies still to be made, though most of them have been taken, and sure there are tax avoidance loops still to be closed, but at the end of the day we need to pay more tax. 

As I've said before, people seem to want German or Scandinavian standards of state provision yet pay US levels of tax. That's simply impossible. Under the story policies, our great public services - schools, health, police and so on are under a real threat. May won't face up to the fact that we need to pay more, and her only policy to address the issue so far - the so called dementia tax - has been an unmitigated disaster. Labour have costed what needs to be done and made proposals on how it should be funded. At least that's open and honest. What do we want - failing schools, inadequate health provision, a threadbare police service? Or for those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more tax that they can easily afford? It's a simple choice. 

Hungryhalibut posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

You should think yourself fortunate to have that level of income. 

It's time we woke up to the fact that services cost money. People want a great NHS and they want lots of police to keep us all safe, yet they still want to pay less. Sure there are some efficiencies still to be made, though most of them have been taken, and sure there are tax avoidance loops still to be closed, but at the end of the day we need to pay more tax. 

As I've said before, people seem to want German or Scandinavian standards of state provision yet pay US levels of tax. That's simply impossible. Under the story policies, our great public services - schools, health, police and so on are under a real threat. May won't face up to the fact that we need to pay more, and her only policy to address the issue so far - the so called dementia tax - has been an unmitigated disaster. Labour have costed what needs to be done and made proposals on how it should be funded. At least that's open and honest. What do we want - failing schools, inadequate health provision, a threadbare police service? Or for those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more tax that they can easily afford? It's a simple choice. 

My comments ' a Statement or two '.

I was using my newly acquired Diane Abbott calculator,  but safe to say I have paid an eye-watering  amount of tax.

I do not wish to pay a penny more....., the NHS, police, schools, will always need more and more money.

Far better to come up with a policy that deals with those that abuse these fine institutions ....

 

wenger2015 posted:

Spend more = Higher Taxes , I can't say that its a formula that is very appealing.

If I were to add up what I have had to pay in personal tax and Company tax over the past 10 years, it would pay for a Statement or two....

Well, this is what democracy is all about.

Do we to pay for things on an individual basis as and when the need arises, such as dental treatment, hospital treatment, home care, age-related residential care. Or do we want to cover these costs collectively and use them on an "as needed" basis.

Likewise with infrastructure. Power  supplies, water, sewage, even roads, railways, airports and seaports. Do we want these to be private enterprises paid for as and when we use them, or collectively provided, operated and maintained.

Law & Order, foreign relationships, defence. Difficult to do on an individual basis, but we need to decide how much of our national effort is allocated to these and other "esentials" of life.

We each will have our own views as to which method is to our own liking, and which method we consider to be most efficient/effective.

Like jermey, I would prefer to live in a world of peace. And we should devote a lot of effort to that end. But........we have a long way to go. Our territorial imperative has to be overcome and that is an instinct that we have inherited. Not too easy to re-evolve in the reverse direction.

Timmo1341 posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The worrying thing for me is that May thought this was a sensible policy. But it wasn't thought through. The manifesto was not costed. It all smacks of hubris. The desire to get a massive majority is overriding the needs of the nation. Yet if May started eating babies the Mail would still support her. But Corbyn, whose manifesto has some well thought out policies to build a better nation, is castigated. 

Nigel, I thought you were an accountant? Whilst I too would like to see many of Corbyn's manifesto (wish list) policies implemented, I really cannot see where the money will come from. I fear it would end up a repeat of the free spending Blair years, with GB plc filing for bankruptcy after a few enjoyable years. 

Could you provide evidence of this in terms of what you imply i.e. spending more than fiscally responsible. This is a simplistic canard put out by the Conservatives and Osborne in particular. You may recall that up until 2008 Cameron was  promising to match Labour's spending. What happened in 2008 was a global financial crash, which is what created a huge deficit. The bail-out of the banks was probably essential in the circumstances - again you may recall that we were hours away from being in a position where ATMs of the most vulnerable banks would have shut down. This is not to say that Labour didn't make any mistakes but probably the biggest financial/economic mistake was for Labour to have followed the Tory lead in financial deregulation. 

See for example: http://www.economicshelp.org/b...er-labour-1997-2010/

Here's another summary (source here http://www.primeeconomics.org/...jnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe):

Public debt

  • Taking the period 1974 to 2008, the level of net debt as a share of GDP has fluctuated sharply under both Conservative and Labour governments (with a bigger fall under the 1979-97 Conservative government), but net debt as a percentage of GDP was lower at the end than at the start under each government than at its start, including the 1997 Labour government up till 2008.
  • But once the financial crisis hit, the ratio worsened greatly, so that by the end of the Labour government, the debt to GDP ratio was some 25 percentage points higher than at the outset in 1997.  Under the 2010-2015 Coalition government, the debt to GDP ratio rose further by around 18 percentage points.
  • Taking the amount of annual debt interest payments as a share of GDP since 1964, these peaked under the 1979-97 Conservative government at 3.5%, and were lowest under the 1997-2010 Labour government at 2.3% of GDP.  With the increase in public debt since 2009, this increased to 2.9% of GDP under the Coalition government
Hungryhalibut posted:

So what would you do to deal with those that abuse schools? And exactly who abuses schools, and how do they abuse them? How will that deal with the annual real term cuts in school funding that a built into Government spending plans? 

I have a niece that is a schoolteacher,  some of the stories I hear are shocking,  safe to say many of our hardworking teachers are abused...

My sister in law is an NHS nurse....often a similar story from working in the A&E dept..

My answer is far to controversial for a Saturday morning read..but it's not throw more money at the problems......so I think best move on

MDS posted:
wenger2015 posted:
 
 

I was using my newly acquired Diane Abbott calculator,  

 

I liked that expression, wenger. I think we might all need one of those when justifying our Naim systems 

I would normally recommend the best place to buy one, but the price for them is constantly changing 

wenger2015 posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

So what would you do to deal with those that abuse schools? And exactly who abuses schools, and how do they abuse them? How will that deal with the annual real term cuts in school funding that a built into Government spending plans? 

I have a niece that is a schoolteacher,  some of the stories I hear are shocking,  safe to say many of our hardworking teachers are abused...

My sister in law is an NHS nurse....often a similar story from working in the A&E dept..

My answer is far to controversial for a Saturday morning read..but it's not throw more money at the problems......so I think best move on

Basically, then, you don't want to give schools more money despite a real terms per pupil spending cut, but you have no alternative suggestions. 

Of course some of our teachers are abused, and of course it's totally unacceptable, but if you waved a magic wand and the abuse disappeared, the funding gap would still remain. My wife is a school business manager, so she knows exactly what goes on, but she also has to balance the budget. And that means reducing staff numbers, which leads to larger classes and reduced support for the children. Staffing makes up 80% of a school budget, so there really is no alternative, other than not hearing the school and letting the windows fall out. And the Tories just close their eyes and hope the problem goes away. Which it won't. 

Hungryhalibut posted:
wenger2015 posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

So what would you do to deal with those that abuse schools? And exactly who abuses schools, and how do they abuse them? How will that deal with the annual real term cuts in school funding that a built into Government spending plans? 

I have a niece that is a schoolteacher,  some of the stories I hear are shocking,  safe to say many of our hardworking teachers are abused...

My sister in law is an NHS nurse....often a similar story from working in the A&E dept..

My answer is far to controversial for a Saturday morning read..but it's not throw more money at the problems......so I think best move on

Basically, then, you don't want to give schools more money despite a real terms per pupil spending cut, but you have no alternative suggestions. 

Of course some of our teachers are abused, and of course it's totally unacceptable, but if you waved a magic wand and the abuse disappeared, the funding gap would still remain. My wife is a school business manager, so she knows exactly what goes on, but she also has to balance the budget. And that means reducing staff numbers, which leads to larger classes and reduced support for the children. Staffing makes up 80% of a school budget, so there really is no alternative, other than not hearing the school and letting the windows fall out. And the Tories just close their eyes and hope the problem goes away. Which it won't. 

The money that has been spent on new schools in the not to distant past  has been considerable , the problem has been these new schools have been built by effectively criminals, the maintenance arrangements have been organised in a similar fashion,  and the bill to sort it out is astronomical.... 

The perpetrators of these past decisions  need to be made accountable ...

Dave***t posted:

People are sometimes unforgivably horrible to staff in schools and A&E, so de-fund public services and shrink the state?

That's some pretty weird reasoning.

I didn't actually say that.......???

But ..How about ...Make people accountable for their actions ...???

If you think the answer is just throw more money at it.... then that is a somewhat narrow minded view...

I assume you must be speaking from an 'I love labour right or wrong ' perspective?...

Ps I am not a member of any political party, but I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric 

 

wenger2015 posted:
Dave***t posted:

People are sometimes unforgivably horrible to staff in schools and A&E, so de-fund public services and shrink the state?

That's some pretty weird reasoning.

I didn't actually say that.......???

But ..How about ...Make people accountable for their actions ...???

If you think the answer is just throw more money at it.... then that is a somewhat narrow minded view...

I assume you must be speaking from an 'I love labour right or wrong ' perspective?...

Ps I am not a member of any political party, but I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric 

 

Aha, I was just going off the bit where you said this:

'I do not wish to pay a penny more....., the NHS, police, schools, will always need more and more money.

Far better to come up with a policy that deals with those that abuse these fine institutions ....'

Followed by your post where you mention knowing individuals who have been abused.  Maybe I got 2 & 2 = 5, I blame my DA™ calculator.

 

No, I don't think throwing more money at things is an answer.  But neither do I think that when important services are starting to crumble for lack of funding that the only answer is 'tighten your belts and sort your own problems out'.  The NHS, for example, has been one of the most efficient health services in the world for years.  The answer IMO is more money where it's needed, while doing what you suggest and stopping waste and abuse wherever it arises as a matter of course.  The difference is that I don't expect the balance between those things to always cost ≤ £0.

And no, I don't think Labour are right about everything.  I'm not a member of any political party either, and have voted for several parties at various times.

wenger2015 posted:
Dave***t posted:

People are sometimes unforgivably horrible to staff in schools and A&E, so de-fund public services and shrink the state?

That's some pretty weird reasoning.

I didn't actually say that.......???

But ..How about ...Make people accountable for their actions ...???

If you think the answer is just throw more money at it.... then that is a somewhat narrow minded view...

I assume you must be speaking from an 'I love labour right or wrong ' perspective?...

Ps I am not a member of any political party, but I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric 

 

Wenger2015,

You may not be a member of any political party (I suspect that few people who contribute to this thread are), but your statement of"I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric" suggests that you probably have an allegiance to (if not membership of) one particular party. I also suspect, from this and your other posts that you might qualify for either the "I hate labour right or wrong"  or the"I can't see past the Tories right or wrong"  tag that mirrors the pejorative term you apply to others in this thread .

The answer is obviously not"Just throw more money at it", nor is it "Make people responsible for their actions", whatever this statement means.

However, it is pretty clear to me that both our public education system and (in particular) the NHS are grossly underfunded. Both require a considerable injection of funding, and the only fair way to provide this additional funding is by raising taxes for those who can afford it, and by ring-fencing the money raised specifically for the NHS and public education. I have no quarrel with private education per say, but private education cannot and shouldn't be subsidised by the State.

If this means that those higher earners (possibly such as you or I) have to contribute a little more, then so be it. Those of us, myself included, who aspire to owning a 'Linn Katalyst' streamer or 'Statement' amplifier can afford to wait just that little bit longer to fulfil our dreams. We are very fortunate to be in such a position.    

Hmack posted:
wenger2015 posted:
Dave***t posted:

People are sometimes unforgivably horrible to staff in schools and A&E, so de-fund public services and shrink the state?

That's some pretty weird reasoning.

I didn't actually say that.......???

But ..How about ...Make people accountable for their actions ...???

If you think the answer is just throw more money at it.... then that is a somewhat narrow minded view...

I assume you must be speaking from an 'I love labour right or wrong ' perspective?...

Ps I am not a member of any political party, but I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric 

 

Wenger2015,

You may not be a member of any political party (I suspect that few people who contribute to this thread are), but your statement of"I am somewhat disillusioned with the 'make the taxpayer pay more ' rhetoric" suggests that you probably have an allegiance to (if not membership of) one particular party. I also suspect, from this and your other posts that you might qualify for either the "I hate labour right or wrong"  or the"I can't see past the Tories right or wrong"  tag that mirrors the pejorative term you apply to others in this thread .

The answer is obviously not"Just throw more money at it", nor is it "Make people responsible for their actions", whatever this statement means.

However, it is pretty clear to me that both our public education system and (in particular) the NHS are grossly underfunded. Both require a considerable injection of funding, and the only fair way to provide this additional funding is by raising taxes for those who can afford it, and by ring-fencing the money raised specifically for the NHS and public education. I have no quarrel with private education per say, but private education cannot and shouldn't be subsidised by the State.

If this means that those higher earners (possibly such as you or I) have to contribute a little more, then so be it. Those of us, myself included, who aspire to owning a 'Linn Katalyst' streamer or 'Statement' amplifier can afford to wait just that little bit longer to fulfil our dreams. We are very fortunate to be in such a position.    

I understand you reasoning.

I am not a member of any political party, never have been and never will be.

My opinions reflect my life experience,  and my general disillusionment with politicians, who have a history of saying one thing and doing another. 

My business has been built up over 30 years of working all the hours God sends ( appropriate moment for violin to start playing).. 

I have no desire to pay more tax, I could quite easily avoid paying as much as I do, with a little creative accounting, but I'm old school and still believe in fair play and honesty.

I don't have the answers, and I'm not convinced their is an answer to the NHS black hole ??

One thing I am convinced about is I don't wish to be a cash cow to support organisations in need of financial help, whoever they might be...

Ps I'm all for healthy opinionated debate, but if I have put any views across that could have been articulated better, please except my apologies 

Without wishing to open up in this thread the somewhat polarised topic of Brexit, I think it reasonable to posit that the ten years ahead of us must contain a higher degree of uncertainty than we've had in forecasting ahead previously.  The Tories would have us believe that with the right deal the opportunities are greater than the threats. I don't think Labour has attempted to forecast the future, save for noting the importance of protecting rights enjoyed while within the EU.  

What I think can be said with a degree of confidence is that the next world-wide downturn can't be far away because history shows that one occurs every ten years of so and the last slump came with the banking crisis in 2008.  So I think a relevant question to consider is, if another downturn is inevitable at some time during the next parliament, which of the party has the best manifesto to best withstand it? The Conservative's, promising more austerity (still aiming to eliminate the deficient but the target date put back again), or Labour which is promising what amounts to a strong economic stimulus through public spending?  Many economists say austerity  measures in the face of an economic downturn simply makes the downturn worse and that it is better tackled with a labour-intensive stimulus in public spending.  

Of course, there is also the question of competence in managing the economy and the Conservative party would have us believe that their track-record is better than Corbyn's, the latter's being unproven. However, even if you believe that the Conservative party would be more competent in managing, there remains the important difference between the underlying policies. Put simply, if it better to have a Conservative party managing competently policies that you don't much like or a Corbyn-led government trying to implement policies you do like but with questionable competence? 

I see he is now making promises on football now, and special train tickets for football supporters, oh and investment in the train system in Liverpool.  Those free Naim systems and chocolate bars must be just around the corner!  Naim for the many, and not the few

dayjay posted:

I see he is now making promises on football now, and special train tickets for football supporters, oh and investment in the train system in Liverpool.  Those free Naim systems and chocolate bars must be just around the corner!  Naim for the many, and not the few

Brilliant... 

dayjay posted:

I see he is now making promises on football now, and special train tickets for football supporters, oh and investment in the train system in Liverpool.  Those free Naim systems and chocolate bars must be just around the corner!  Naim for the many, and not the few

Why stop at special tickets, with the renationalisation of the railways, surely the reintroduction of football specials will be the way to go. Now that the average soccer fan is a more civilised beast, hopefully we won’t get the carnage we had in the 70s.

 Taxing premiership clubs. What’s not to like about that, a great idea.

At the moment JC would appear to support anything that will get him votes, apart from all those controversial causes he supported before he became labour leader.  Too brave to denounce them but to weak to say he still supports them.   He is a perfect example of the Peter principle 

dayjay posted:

At the moment JC would appear to support anything that will get him votes, apart from all those controversial causes he supported before he became labour leader.  Too brave to denounce them but to weak to say he still supports them.   He is a perfect example of the Peter principle 

I think you have JC confused with TM there!

Eloise posted:
dayjay posted:

At the moment JC would appear to support anything that will get him votes, apart from all those controversial causes he supported before he became labour leader.  Too brave to denounce them but to weak to say he still supports them.   He is a perfect example of the Peter principle 

I think you have JC confused with TM there!

I think they are both scrabbling for votes by offering anything that comes to mind. It's pathetic !

IMHO, the past 15 months has seen UK politics descend into a shambles. It's been reduced to little more than a playground squabble, full of lies, deceate  and name-calling.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I certainly think it's a phoney election.   Nothing coherent.    I will vote but not with any conviction.  

If you feel that way about the election (and I am inclined to agree that it is a "phony election"), there is of course the option to vote against the person who decided to call the election so opportunistically under the pretence that it is necessary in order for her to be able to negotiate a Brexit deal.   

Hmack posted:
The Strat (Fender) posted:

I certainly think it's a phoney election.   Nothing coherent.    I will vote but not with any conviction.  

If you feel that way about the election (and I am inclined to agree that it is a "phony election"), there is of course the option to vote against the person who decided to call the election so opportunistically under the pretence that it is necessary in order for her to be able to negotiate a Brexit deal.   

Ah! You mean Theresa U-turn May? Witness:

- I'm supporting Cameron in campaigning to stay in the EU; but now leaving the EU is a good thing and moreover I'll work for a hard Brexit;

- I'll support what the Chancellor announces in the Budget, as cleared with the Cabinet in the run-up to the Budget; but will now make him reverse his plan to increase NICs for the self-employed;

- I'll announce a floor beneath which nobody will have to pay for their care costs; oh no, we always intended that a cap would apply! And of course:

- there is no need for a General Election; and now there is!  

 

May clearly doesn't know her arse from her elbow, and has been exposed as being pretty inept. Though I'd dearly love Corbyn to win, it's very unlikely to happen, and assuming the Tories are elected, we'll have May leading the Brexit negotiations; the most critical negotiations the UK has undertaken for many years. It's not something that fills me with confidence. At least if there isn't a landslide, which there may be of course, hopefully we would have an effective opposition, which we desperately need. 

Well I can't vote Conservative, Labour or Lib-Dem.   I'm in Buckingham where we are in effect invited to re-elect Mr Speaker.    But I'd never vote Labour because I just don't  hold with the re-distribution of wealth nor the general socialist dogma or hypocrisy.   But as I've said previously none of the options persuade me as there is not a hint of fiscal responsibility amongst any of them.  

Likes (1)
hungryhalibut
×
×
×
×