Voting quandry

Fitzy The economy was already showing signs of recovery in 2010 and 2011 until Osborne started on his austerity drive, which killed off the the tender shoots of recovery. He was warned at the time that it wouldn't work and the spiralling debt is a sign that it hasn't - and that's at a time when interest rates are at an historic low.

Unfortunately, McDonnell knows no more than Osborne about economics. It's also fortunate for the Conservatives that Hammond appears more competent than either of them. Having said that, the last budget has now, more or less, been cancelled, but I suspect that's more to do with the out-of-control back benchers, whom May seems unable to control. I wonder if that's the real reason for calling this election.

GG I doubt that Philip Hammond has much in the way of tax cuts in mind. As for what I mean by aggressive, i of course mean aggressive their plans in terms of borrowing and printing money, which, if they don't work out and the economy doesn't grow significantly in size and pretty quickly, will mean less money than ever to spend on the things you mention as the debt, and its annual cost, grows.
I don't pretend to know if there is a way of getting us into long term, sustainable growth with significant flexibility to substantially increase spending. If I am ever convinced that a party has the answer I will vote for it.
It doesn't look as though Labour have any real chance of forming the next govt. but if they do you can be sure nobody will be rooting for them more than me, because if they fail it will, in my view, be as spectacular an economic failure as any in living memory, in this country at least.

DD I imagine there was more than one reason for the election: to control the back-benchers, to answer the critics who say she was never elected, to get a mandate to negotiate Brexit her way, perhaps so she can back away from Cameron's manifesto promises and introduce a few of her own, and no doubt many others. But all politicians like a huge majority, and with the polls as they are I think she just couldn't resist it!

Interest rates are historically low. Yes, the country does have to pay some interest, but not a lot. The increase is being caused, because the government is continuing to borrow, for other reasons. The economy is stagnating, productivity is low and the country isn't raising enough taxes. I think Hammond knows that, but Cameron's manifesto pledge meant that he couldn't raise taxes, which is why he had to do a u-turn on raising NICs. If Labour had known what it was doing, it would have applauded that rise, because it was actually progressive.

The Conservatives are probably going to win a landslide and this government will start with a clean slate. I don't know what they'll do, but I expect to see tax rises. The poorest have already had most of their pips squeezed, so those rises are going to have to come from the upper end of the wealth and income scale, including some who probably don't see themselves as rich. I would be amazed if the pensioner triple lock doesn't go. That's why the back benchers don't like it. The country also has to pay for Brexit somehow.

I don't think Brexit has very much to do with it at all. I think that's a smokescreen. The EU has made it very clear that it doesn't matter. They're in the driving seat and May's "own way" will have a miniscule effect.

Hmm! well, we won't know until the Autumn Budget. Can we bookmark this thread and compare it with what actually happens?

I'm sticking with my theory that Cameron's manifesto pledge meant that Hammond has almost no wriggle room.

Growth has slowed down but I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say the economy is stagnating!

...or at least a bit early.

Why? The latest Treasury statistics were bad. We haven't quite dipped into recession, but we're not far off.

Do those who continually post negatively on the UK finances have a clue how other countries are doing, is anybody interested in how the UK finances are for the most part very similar to other EU countries, better than some worse than others.

Look at the GDP, the Inflation Rates , the State of the EU Economy in general, the State of the Italian Banks etc. etc.
You might just find find that we have not been fairing too badly.

Will it change, could it change, of course but do your homework and look at the bigger picture and you just might understand how we have really been doing.

DD - Just one set of bad figures though, and still showing growth, albeit low and quite a big drop. I think we need to see three consecutive sets of quarterly figures with negative growth before we are in recession?
But I guess by stagnation you simply meant we are moving moving towards zero growth, which I accept is correct.
But one bad set of figures doesn't necessarily show a trend.
Brexit will clobber us in due course anyway!

A good point POGS

Yes POGS, I think we have done ok in comparison to many others, especially those in the Eurozone.

I think, POGS, although of course I don't know, that those who comment on the problems of the British economy are commenting on the 'strong and steady' hands we keep hearing the Cons have. As they are not running or offering to run other countries I imagine those countries are irrelevant in this instance.

Lots of information on this website. I do lots of homework on it.

ukandeu.ac.uk/predicting-the-brexit-gains-and-losses/

Corbyn is the only one who is taking on the Elite/Establishment & until that is done, there can be no significant improvement in UK
#GE2017

All that and three days more holiday! Why didn't somebody think of this before?
Any mention of the cost? No need to worry about that I guess. All paid for by the Elite/Establishment - Genius! I'm sure they will be only to grateful to help out and will pay up double quick.
DJ - very interesting article, and a bit how I imagined things. Tough going for the first 10 years or so whatever happens, and it could go either way after that. But what caught my eye was the admission that there were some excellent arguments from others with a different view, though he didn't say whether those views applied to the initial period. I really can't see any way things work out well for us in the short to medium term.

Interesting article in the Times today about voting in town of Auchel in the French Presedential elections. It's a coalmining town in their rust belt north, previously staunchly communist, with roads named for the likes of Lenin. It's now staunchly National Front, apparently attracted by Le Pen's description of her politics as against the arrogant elite and anti-establishment. Sounds quite familiar.

Where are the costings for the Cons Fitzy? In fact - where are the policies?

I don't know GG, but we'll see when the manifestos come out and I' sure they won't be anything like as expensive. I agree, maybe too far in the opposite direction but I'm not for dangerous profligacy.

Isn't it rather "dangerous" to cut money for health, education, elderly care, and the myriad social structures (day centres for elderly/disabled people, Sure Start centres for the very young, youth clubs for teenagers, etc. etc.) that seeks to integrate people into society and address their specific needs? My feeling is you will end up with a sick, ill-educated and apathetic (or hate-filled) population that feels no enthusiasm for, or commitment to, their work, their community or their country.

Mcdonald said this morning the money he proposes to borrow £5billion , is for infrastructure only, the rest will come from taxing the wealthy !

It is also 'dangerous' and 'expensive' to our national income to keep cutting taxes for those who could actually afford to pay them surely Fitzy54.

GG I don't think the wealthy have been given much in the way of tax cuts? But my point is simply that while the Tories could usefully spend more, it seems to me that Labour will spend us into ruin, and the NHS etc. will suffer more