Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[icehot]

I'm saddened that people have so easily forgotten how dangerous Labour are for the economy.

Take more money, throw it around, have nothing to show for it..... sadly this is the sentiment I have towards Corbyn's manifesto. Those who would be paying more in, have no targeted messaging towards them on what they get out by being taxed more. Obviously the messaging from Labour is very appealing, tax the 1% more to pay for you all!

 

[Dolph]

Did the UKs post war governments spend excessively on their children or invest to grow the economy and reduce debt?

Which post war period? The UK government ran a surplus from 1948 to 1961, and never hit the level of taxation or borrowing corbyn is proposing...

The proposals are totally incomparable.

 

[Roar87]

Did the UKs post war governments spend excessively on their children or invest to grow the economy and reduce debt?

There was clearly far more opportunity to invest and grow the economy in a post war society than there is now, our economy is only going to grow when our productivity increases, and based on half the population thinking they can just vote themself into better pay that clearly isn't going to happen.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Is principled but generally wrong better than unprincipled but generally right? Not necessarily in relation to these candidates but what do we actually want competent Government or to feel good about voting with our beliefs?

The point is that principled and competent are not mutually exclusive. The doubts I have around Corbyn are in his ability to construct and maintain an effective cabinet in order to deliver his ambitions. Labour politicians seem somewhat misaligned from the wishes of labour party members.

 

[stewski]

There was clearly far more opportunity to invest and grow the economy in a post war society than there is now, our economy is only going to grow when our productivity increases, and based on half the population thinking they can just vote themself into better pay that clearly isn't going to happen.

But you now accept that countries (not just post war Britain) have invested/increased spendin in tough times whilst growing and reducing debt (especially debt to GDP)?

Because before it seemed many suggested inward investment is automatically increased debt, those people tend to talk in terms of household budgets, perhaps I'll discover and exploit another north sea oil on my way to ASDA?

 

[FoxEye]

There was clearly far more opportunity to invest and grow the economy in a post war society than there is now, our economy is only going to grow when our productivity increases, and based on half the population thinking they can just vote themself into better pay that clearly isn't going to happen.

The alternative, as witnessed for the last decade or more, is the 1% taking an ever-greater share of the nation's wealth.

You might think Labour's re-distribution is a bad idea; clearly you do.

Will you also be so quick to condemn the concentration of wealth into the hands of the 1%? Or the doubling of corporate profits in the last decade?

Or are you not concerned by those things?

 

[snapdragon]

It's really easy to come off as principled and genuine when you aren't facing up to the reality of budget constraints and economic growth. It's like spending excessively on your children at Christmas knowing they'll be happy but then be unable to pay the bills at the end of January and them asking why you can't put the heating on. It's irresponsible and childish. I'm saddened that people have so easily forgotten how dangerous Labour are for the economy.

As opposed to getting your kids an orange a walnut and a second hand push bike for Christmas and telling them that times are hard and we all have to watch what we spend, then going out and polishing your new merc and cracking open the champers and caviar once the kids are in bed.

Yeh we're really still buying that one.

 

[Roar87]

The alternative, as witnessed for the last decade or more, is the 1% taking an ever-greater share of the nation's wealth.

You might think Labour's re-distribution is a bad idea; clearly you do.

Will you also be so quick to condemn the concentration of wealth into the hands of the 1%? Or the doubling of corporate profits in the last decade?

Or are you not concerned by those things?

I don't care what other people have, I don't look at successful people and blame them, that's for losers who aren't willing to work in life. If you take rich people's money off them and give it to poor people, in 5 or 10 years they'll be rich again and the poor will be poor again, you can't change that. As long as living standards improve, which they are doing, then it doesn't matter if rich people get richer. Communism doesn't work, humans are driven by greed and success and if you take away the ability for people to be successful then you kill innovation and growth.

 

[Roar87]

As opposed to getting your kids an orange a walnut and a second hand push bike for Christmas and telling them that times are hard and we all have to watch what we spend, then going out and polishing your new merc and cracking open the champers and caviar once the kids are in bed.

Yeh we're really still buying that one.

That's not actually what's happening though is it? The money for the NHS isn't being wasted on luxuries in other departments, there are budget constraints in every area of government spending

 

[Roar87]

But you now accept that countries (not just post war Britain) have invested/increased spendin in tough times whilst growing and reducing debt (especially debt to GDP)?

Because before it seemed many suggested inward investment is automatically increased debt, those people tend to talk in terms of household budgets, perhaps I'll discover and exploit another north sea oil on my way to ASDA?

Labour aren't talking about inward investment unless you consider British Rail version 2.0 investment, they're talking about simply spending more and taxing business more, even though when the business rates were higher they actually took less money than when we lowered them

 

[SpeedFreak]

Lower tax rates increase earnings, which increases anticipated dividends, pushing up share prices and rewarding large pension institutions and the better off in society. The average beneficiaries of low corporation tax are not in their twenties or even thirties, which is who labour seem to be targeting with their policies.

On a side note it is interesting that Labour now have more total votes now than they did in the first poll.

 

[stewski]

I don't care what other people have, I don't look at successful people and blame them, that's for losers who aren't willing to work in life. If you take rich people's money off them and give it to poor people, in 5 or 10 years they'll be rich again and the poor will be poor again, you can't change that. As long as living standards improve, which they are doing, then it doesn't matter if rich people get richer. Communism doesn't work, humans are driven by greed and success and if you take away the ability for people to be successful then you kill innovation and growth.

If you give me The Donald's cash and him Mine on the balance of probability he wont be a billionaire and I wont be driving a fiesta in 5 years

 

[Freakbro]

Labour aren't talking about inward investment unless you consider British Rail version 2.0 investment, they're talking about simply spending more and taxing business more, even though when the business rates were higher they actually took less money than when we lowered them

Just because there is correlation doesn't mean it's the causation now does it.

Higher average net profits, less investment, crackdown on profit shifting, banks becoming profitable again as they've used up their financial crash losses ....All reasons why the tax take has risen that have nothing to do with a cut in the rate

 

[stewski]

Labour aren't talking about inward investment unless you consider British Rail version 2.0 investment, they're talking about simply spending more and taxing business more, even though when the business rates were higher they actually took less money than when we lowered them

We agree Austerity has failed to meet its targets consistently?
We agree that a costed spending program (including infrastructure, technology and education) has been proposed by Labour?
We agree that the conservative have not costed but suggest primarily continuing to further cut or freeze investments?

It's good to see commentators are stopping the false position that public spending automatically increases debt!

 

[snapdragon]

That's not actually what's happening though is it? The money for the NHS isn't being wasted on luxuries in other departments, there are budget constraints in every area of government spending

Define luxuries? because I'd say the creation of a number of positions both within the NHS and the associated private sector are just that, luxuries.

Take these for example from a report from 2014.

Key findings:

• The NHS employed at least 826 public relations staff at an estimated cost of £34 million.
• It employed at least 165 equality and diversity staff at a cost of more than £6.8 million.
• It also employed at least 86 ‘green’ staff costing around £3.5 million.

Source: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=cc07cd0ccd07d854d8da5964f&id=0ade16a4d7&e=[UNIQID]

 

[SpeedFreak]

Define luxuries? because I'd say the creation of a number of positions both within the NHS and the associated private sector are just that, luxuries.

Take these for example from a report from 2014.

Key findings:

• The NHS employed at least 826 public relations staff at an estimated cost of £34 million.
• It employed at least 165 equality and diversity staff at a cost of more than £6.8 million.
• It also employed at least 86 ‘green’ staff costing around £3.5 million.

Source: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=cc07cd0ccd07d854d8da5964f&id=0ade16a4d7&e=[UNIQID]

Any figures in legal claim reductions or operating efficiencies delivered by the equality and green staff?

 

[VincentHanna]

Yeah realise the figures you just presented are approx 0.01% of the total NHS budget?

 

[Rroff]

Yes a weapon that kills you your entire family everyone you know and your enemy is a big stick!
Thanks for the analogy, would read again.

Its accurate if simplistic.

 

[Greebo]

He is also working towards giving back Gibraltar and Falklands. I just don't trust he will tow the party line if in power.

33% of the population are happy to give up Gibraltar in brexit deal if it means we get a better deal. That's a third of the population. It wasn't that long ago that was the size of the population who wanted to leave the eu. Things change.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I've not advocated nuking someone on that basis

do you believe there is never a situation where you could use nuclear weapons first?

Uh... yes?