The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Joey66]

Of course. The world fell into the trap of borrowing too much/saving too little. Whilst the government didn't cause the crash, they too fell into that same trap, which I suspect is the main criticism against the Blair/Brown years. They had a very favourable global economy, and didn't really stash enough away for a rainy day, instead succumbing to the hubris that they'd done away with rain.

A rainy day it was a worldwide hurricane - Tory dogma its a joke if they had been in government it would have been the same our banks would have had to be saved, as for the debt under the Tories it has risen despite all the cutbacks, and stagnant economy which may head to minus inflation - the growth was 4 percent in 2010 it has dropped to around 2 percent 5 years of meddling productivity at an all time low, and exports low in a EU that's on the floor yes we are doing better than the EU countries , but they are in a meltdown
,

 

[Blue 1]

It's a very good question mate.

Ed Balls has changed strategy significantly through the course of this Parliament. Back in 2010 he made a widely reported speech to Bloomberg savagely attacking the idea that you could achieve economic growth whilst pursuing "austerity". Since that point he has given ground time and time again until really he's not that different (other than the major difference of spending priorities which as I said above is critical) from the Tory line.

I think the only answer to your point is that Labour believe that National Debt levels are actually not that important to voters. (ICM for the Guardian in October showed only 7% of voters thought that national debt levels are important). The most important areas are NHS, jobs, wages and cost of living, education and immigration. Hence the focus being on these issues where apart from immigration Labour find it easier, than the economy where undeservedly Conservatives get a free run, hence it being almost the sole focus of their campaign

They're kind of not that important though, are they? It's the %age of debt in relation to GDP that's the real thing to keep in check.

 

[piddlywiddly]

....Ed Balls finally coming out and talking about the global recession being the main cause of the British economic depression. Really don't know why they haven't been banging on about that for the last 5 years rather than limply accepting everything thrown at them on that front.

This sort of comment does frustrate me. Labour allowed people to borrow sums of money they couldn't really afford with no protection if the markets shifted. Stupid and greedy consumers lapped up the cheap money with absolutely no consideration for changes in markets and what that might do to them, as long as they got their new house, tv, car, holiday etc, all was good. It was this lack of regulation on available consumer financial packages that caused the economic crisis. Weak, reckless and irresponsible government in the US and the UK caused this and they have since turned a blind eye to the fraud and manipulation of the banking industry since the fall out.

Labour are directly responsible for it yet i don't believe any political party would have done much differently.

 

[piddlywiddly]

I like Bill Gates's line 'Don't tax my income, tax my consumption'

 

[jaycee]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/13/tory-austerity-welfare-state-conservative

 

[The Esk]

I like Bill Gates's line 'Don't tax my income, tax my consumption'

Well, with respect, he would say that wouldn't he.

Consumption tax is regressive in the sense that the poorest spend all their income on largely necessities, food, housing, clothing etc so the percentage of their income going on tax would be much higher than someone who perhaps earns twice as much as they spend, or indeed 100 times what they spend.

Additionally it opens up the prospect of an increasing black market of goods and services to avoid tax, far more difficult to police than taxing income.

 

[Eggs]

This sort of comment does frustrate me. Labour allowed people to borrow sums of money they couldn't really afford with no protection if the markets shifted. Stupid and greedy consumers lapped up the cheap money with absolutely no consideration for changes in markets and what that might do to them, as long as they got their new house, tv, car, holiday etc, all was good. It was this lack of regulation on available consumer financial packages that caused the economic crisis. Weak, reckless and irresponsible government in the US and the UK caused this and they have since turned a blind eye to the fraud and manipulation of the banking industry since the fall out.

Labour are directly responsible for it yet i don't believe any political party would have done much differently.

.....I know they have accepted some responsibility but the way the argument has been articulated is that Labour is fully to blame and had the Conservatives been in power it wouldn't have happened. That is not the case. There should have been more control of Banks, the irony is the Tory's wanted less.

Labour have been poor in balancing the debate.

 

[piddlywiddly]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/13/tory-austerity-welfare-state-conservative

I did watch Andrew Marr show where Osbourne said they would find the £8 billion need to fund the NHS but refused, 18 times, to state where the money would come from. It's absolutely pathetic. Any thoughts of sympathising with the Conservatives ended right there for me. Not that Balls has stated where he will find money from either. Yet again, both as bad as each other and there is no way that you could vote for either party as they haven't even tried to explain the important detail around their headlines.

 

[piddlywiddly]

.....I know they have accepted some responsibility but the way the argument has been articulated is that Labour is fully to blame and had the Conservatives been in power it wouldn't have happened. That is not the case. There should have been more control of Banks, the irony is the Tory's wanted less.

Labour have been poor in balancing the debate.

Labour are to blame, they were in power and could have influenced it. It is however convenient for the Conservatives that it didn't fall on their watch and therefore they can, rightly, use it as a weapon. It's up to voters to interpret things.

 

[daylightrobber]

I like Bill Gates's line 'Don't tax my income, tax my consumption'

The only problem with income tax is that there are too many loopholes afforded to those who have the wealth to utilise them.

 

[piddlywiddly]

Well, with respect, he would say that wouldn't he.

Consumption tax is regressive in the sense that the poorest spend all their income on largely necessities, food, housing, clothing etc so the percentage of their income going on tax would be much higher than someone who perhaps earns twice as much as they spend, or indeed 100 times what they spend.

Additionally it opens up the prospect of an increasing black market of goods and services to avoid tax, far more difficult to police than taxing income.

It completely depends on how a consumption tax is done, surely? It might be too hard to implement, you are probably right, but in a perfect world, i believe taxing consumption is fairer than income. Simplistically we need a world where the poorest pay no text, the rich pay sheds loads and a nice balance in between that for the rest.

In a Uptopian society, taxing consumption is fairer and more productive than taxing income. But then i live in a world where i believe public transport should be world class, electric and therefore free and use of cars should be heavily taxed, particularly on usage and emissions.

 

[piddlywiddly]

The only problem with income tax is that there are too many loopholes afforded to those who have the wealth to utilise them.

I don't believe it's the 'only' problem, but i do agree.

 

[roydo]

cars should be heavily taxed

They are.

 

[Blue 1]

This sort of comment does frustrate me. Labour allowed people to borrow sums of money they couldn't really afford with no protection if the markets shifted. Stupid and greedy consumers lapped up the cheap money with absolutely no consideration for changes in markets and what that might do to them, as long as they got their new house, tv, car, holiday etc, all was good. It was this lack of regulation on available consumer financial packages that caused the economic crisis. Weak, reckless and irresponsible government in the US and the UK caused this and they have since turned a blind eye to the fraud and manipulation of the banking industry since the fall out.

Labour are directly responsible for it yet i don't believe any political party would have done much differently.

I think it was in the post from the time the first credit cards became available, really, if you want to look at it that way. My grandad said back in the 70's that they were the pathway to hell, and look where we are now.

40 odd years of gradually replacing wage growth with debt got us here, not one particular government.

 

[hullefc]

This sort of comment does frustrate me. Labour allowed people to borrow sums of money they couldn't really afford with no protection if the markets shifted. Stupid and greedy consumers lapped up the cheap money with absolutely no consideration for changes in markets and what that might do to them, as long as they got their new house, tv, car, holiday etc, all was good. It was this lack of regulation on available consumer financial packages that caused the economic crisis. Weak, reckless and irresponsible government in the US and the UK caused this and they have since turned a blind eye to the fraud and manipulation of the banking industry since the fall out.

Labour are directly responsible for it yet i don't believe any political party would have done much differently.

So everyone is to blame if they have a mortgage and/or HP on goods people got and/or paying with credit cards/store cards to get goods.