Voting quandry

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Aggressive in what way Fitzy? Will their policies lead to the starvation of the poor and less able? Will they increase class sizes, decrease pensions and make work less secure. All this has happened under the Cons. Those who have not been affected by this and who have tax cuts to look forward to will indeed think the Cons are the party to vote for - they are the few. I wonder what you expect to happen to the many?

I'm sure the tories could have managed things much better. Trying to get the right balance between tax, borrowing and printing on one side, and how to allocate it on the other is never going to be easy, but politicians have to pretend it is or they won't get the votes. but for me, Labour's plans just seem far too aggressive.

ygg

Facts are facts , I think you could do with engaging in searching for the evidence, it is there.

Anniebach has posted you a youtube clip that was shown on the main t.v networks live , it is not fake news.

The 'Sitting on the Floor' video is now widely accepted as being a 'political stunt' , it was stage managed.

This another YouTube clip 'Our friends from Hezbollah/Hamas.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ

Sorry, I meant to discuss, not to argue over. As if we would!

The problem is, Fitzy, that the worldwide financial crash happened in 2007-8. That caused a lot of labours problems. However, Osborne said he would have it under control, and that's why we had to have austerity. Instead he just had to borrow more because there was not enough money in the economy so people stopped building, stopped buying, did not earn enough to pay tax, etc.

If what Cable says is true, that the Brexit crash is going to be worse than the 2007-8 one, at least we will have two comparable crashes to argue over.
That is, if the Tories get in again.

You don't think May called the election because she was warned that was going to happen, do you?

I never lie

youtu.be/g7Qk5XgD6dE

DJ theyories have borrowed a great deal of money. They could hardly have avoided it given that they started out with a huge cut in the tax base and a lot of existing debt that had to be serviced. Borrowing is now coming under control and Labour want start ramping it up again. Something much less aggressive might get my support, but not this.

[quote]Hiding behind a glass door to avoid a question is not dignified. Telling lies to the country he has to sit on the floor of a train is not dignified. Supporting terrorist groups whilst claiming to be a pacifist is neither dignified or principled .[/quote]

Nor are any of those true. It's amazing how slanted reporting gets repeated over and over again.

Our Green Investment Bank has been sold by the Tories to an Australian conglomerate.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/20/green-investment-bank-sell-off-dubbed-a-disaster-by-critics

Is that a trustworthy thing to do?
Is that taking back control?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/brexit-could-trigger-worse-crash-than-2008-says-vince-cable

Fitzy, do you believe that the Tories have borrowed more than Labour ever had?
Even while Osborne was saying that austerity would be good for us and would bring borrowing down, he borrowed twice as much, but didn't tell us.
You think that is trustworthy?

Which is why most of the electorate do not trust Labour with the economy!

DJ the issue as I see it is risk v reward. Certainly Labour economic policies promise great reward but Labour don't seem to recignise the risks involved at all. Maybe you don't agree there are any significant risks? Fine, then you clearly must vote Labour because if tax, borrow, print and spend, spend, spend will really work, there is nothing more to think about - it's the easiest solution in the world.

Hiding behind a glass door to avoid a question is not dignified. Telling lies to the country he has to sit on the floor of a train is not dignified. Supporting terrorist groups whilst claiming to be a pacifist is neither dignified or principled .

You really need to read and respond to more than a single post, Ana.
My comment about living in a different world to me was not to daphne.

I didn't say he did live in London. He owns 300 acres of Belgravia and Mayfair, though.
He's very philanthropic, because there is a Grosvenor charity. However, paying the correct amount of death duties would go a long way towards not needing so many foodbanks, or paying the NHS debt.
Nobody in my family would ever have to pay death duties, but if there was anyone rich enough they would be expected to pay 40%.
Someone who inherits £9 billion should not be able to fix the system to only pay 7% as in ellenoo's example.
I agree with her there.

This is one of the projects started by the Duke of Westminster before he died.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36043072

He personally donated £300 million.

Edwina Grosvenor (aka Mrs Dan Snow), his daughter, has also spent millions on prison reform and setting up the Clink restaurants, which is more than the government has done.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of the aristocracy, but at least choose a family which treats the plebs like plebs. The Grosvenor family are some of the better aristcrats.