Should I vote Conservative

The Tories' record on the economy since 2010 has been poor by almost every indicator, despite the cuts and the fact that real people have suffered.

I'm going out too and people often moan about my facts and figures anyway, but I have loads of saved documents and tables which show how poorly the economy has performed over the last six years. I'll bore people some more and post some of them.

I think the turnout for the Mayoral elections was, on average, about 26% so perhaps many people are in agreement with your view, Cunco, that there are just too many layers of government and are losing interest.

One thing is for sure - the more layers of government there are, the less money is available for those who need it as more bureaucracy will inevitably cost the taxpayer more.

I don't agree with removing the Fuel Payment unless it is incorporated into the State Pension - which they will not do as the State Pension is triple-locked and the Fuel Payment is not. Nor is the £10 Christmas bonus - which would be worth £98 in today's money!

cunco

Gordon Brown set up the FSA "light touch". Applauded at the time by the Tories. He recognised the error after the 2008 crash stating that he was unaware of the global entanglement of the financial world. This "unawareness" was true of every world leader, including theTories. The Tories would undoubtedly have set up such a body as keen de-regularators started under Thatcher.

But you are missing my entire point which was to argue that the Tories have a worse record at handling the economy than Labour.

Indeed, you will notice that I havent yet addressed the Tories record since they took office in 2010.

After the 2008 crash, the Labour government had put into place policies to tackle the inevitable recession, and by 2010 this had begun to take good effect.

But the Tories policies introduced in 2010 put an immediate stop to the recovery, by tax increases, spending cuts and the blow to confidence by the absurd claim that the UKs economy was on par to Greece.

It will interesting to look at the Tories record on the economy since they took office, but I'm just about to toddle off out.

What do you think will happen to poor pensioners who rely on the Fuel Payment Cunco? If you were suggesting a level of basic pension people could live on at a reasonable standard and taking the WFA away in the process I would agree but you are talking about making some poor pensioners poorer in order to help other poor pensioners.

Less government to me simply means a smaller UK Parliament [Commons and Lords] and power residing in a UK Parliament and local government. Personally, I would do without the various Assemblies and the EU but and rely on strong UK and local government. I realise that would be anathema to some these days but it's a longstanding view with me.

To me, this does not imply anything about how services are delivered. Those who do deliver them should be accountable for their effectiveness as well as their cost. That should apply equally to services provided by local government services or contracted out. I suspect there will always be a chasm between money required and money available. Allocation of scarce resources is one of the issues that economics and politics deals with.

As a simple example of better use of tax, I would suggest removing the pensioners' £100 Fuel Payment and using the money to boost services to older people in need of care. I do not have a particular gripe about foreign aid but I do think it could be better directed.

Cunco One important element of "less government" means the contracting out of public services to private companies whose whole purpose of existence is to make as much money as possible - and, in our current times, that means profits are expected to increase year on year. In order to continually increase profits, a company can:

increase its share of the market, often by knocking out competitors (this is obviously something that small companies are very unlikely to be able to do);

reduce its outgoings by: cutting staff; reducing staff pay and conditions; reducing time and quality of staff training/reducing quality of product or service; restrict their services to those that yield the highest profits; employ strategies to avoid paying any contribution towards the infrastructure they take advantage of, e.g. by devising complex structures that lighten or eliminate their potential tax burden; delay payments to their suppliers.

In the NHS, for instance, a recent report on contracted-out ambulance services raised concerns regarding the inferior standard of training given to ambulance personnel. Private healthcare providers contracted in by the NHS do not provide chronic care and are generally not well enough equipped to deal with emergencies.

Years ago we had a "small state" and people who were unable to work because they were ill or disabled or had no relatives to care for them found themselves in workhouses, people who were poor had no access to costly private doctors and hospitals; people who were too old or ill to work had to rely on their families as they had no pension on which to live; only those who could afford it received an education.

Now we see signs of this attitude returning. Widows and widowers with young children will now only receive a payment of £350 per month for 18 months following their partner's death. So families who are still grieving and coping with the practical and financial issues of losing a mother/father/partner will in many cases be forced after 18 months to work longer hours and provide less care and support to their children.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rich-list-2017-reveals-britain-10372223

I'd quite like to know how much tax these people contribute to the UK economy, as a % of their income.

Excellent post Cunco and I agree with all of it.Almost everybody I speak to thinks they have no choice ( or rather it's the best choice in this GE) to vote for T May.) I think she will get in easily.Next GE after this is a different matter, but for me, both the Lib Dems and Labour would need new Leaders.

Whitewave: I was referring to the change in bank regulation that Gordon Brown introduced, creating a new regulatory body for the financial sector outside the Bank of England. It was ineffective and probably made dealing with crisis more complicated. I agree that UK regulators were not the only ones who proved ineffective but Gordon Brown did not have direct influence over them. He did have responsibility for those in the UK.

I agree that the financial sector carries most responsibility for the Credit Crunch but regulators were not blameless. They proved ineffective and they were the responsibility of government.

I don't think I argued whether spending was too high or too low, just that your figures needed to be put into perspective. What happened after 2008 was influenced more by what happened in 2008 than the people who were in power.

Over the years, I have found it difficult to support any party wholeheartedly. Conservatives argue they are they low tax party and are attacked for not taxing high earners enough. Both sides, for their own different reasons, keep quiet about Conservatives imposing an effective 60% marginal rate of tax on earners in the £100-£122k band where the Personal Allowance is withdrawn. One side argues that they are controlling public spending when it is rising sharply and the other attacks it for austerity.

Personally, I am not wedded to the idea of low tax. I am wedded to the idea of more effective use of tax payers money and less, rather than more Government. Politicians all promise more than they can deliver. I feel I have to vote but I am more a politico-sceptic than committed to a Party. Having said that, I would find it impossible to vote for a party led Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron or Mr Nuttall in June.

Tories responsible for these as well. I am sure Tory voters are really pleased.

i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/170506-Tory-tax-rises.jpg

daphne

They need two of those hooters they have on quiz programmes - a neighing horse for "strong and stable" and the sound of a street fight (or similar) for "coalition of chaos"...or cards like the ones they had on the cookery programme with green peppers and red tomatoes.

cunco hello

Well to answer your points.

De-regulation of the financial sector began as we know during the Thatcher government, and up until the 2008 crises the Tories continued to be enthusiastic de-regulators. In fact absolutely no-one was calling for greater regulation of banks, mortgages or the housing market.
Neither was there any suggestion that the banks ought to have some sort of bail out fund.
So to that extent you could argue that the Labour Government was culpable, but so was the rest of the world.

You might suggest that Labour could have spent less, which of course we know is easy to say in hindsight, and might have had some traction if the Labour Government had been reckless in public spending, but we know that this is not the case.

The increased spending on the NHS/ education is relatively modest, -I refer you to the figures I supplied in an earlier post.

Indeed a balanced budget would have done nothing to prevent the recession.

It was a failure primarily of the financial sector. Mervin King also backed up those findings.

I therefore stand by my argument that of the last half dozen or so recession the Tories were fully responsible for at least two, Labour Party none.

I thought it was quite interesting to hear Farage's claim on Any Questions this lunchtime that the Conservatives have stolen much of UKIP's policies - a statement that Sarah Olney emphatically agreed with. It is especially interesting when remembering Cameron's comment in the dim and distant past that UKIP was made up of 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists ...'. Nevertheless, the Conservatives seem not to recall that analysis, having now adopted a UKIP-like stance themselves in order - successfully it appears - to claw back UKIP voters.

Oh, and the Conservative on the panel didn't forget to drop in the obligatory "coalition of chaos" soundbite - which elicited much merriment from the audience.

Yes, that would be brilliant, Gracesgran.
Has proper electioneering started yet, anyway?
That's why I was querying the wraparound of my free paper on election day.

Four-page advertisement wraparound.
Advertiser's announcement.
Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Of course, it might have worked in reverse, which is why there are only ten Tory councillors.

I know Jen but what if it could be shown they are breaking election protocol by having mini EPBs? I would love a bleeped T May.

This is why they do it, Gracesgran.

theconversation.com/strong-and-stable-leadership-inside-the-conservatives-election-slogan-77121

Re voting Conservative. I am listening to the repeat of Any Questions and I would ask how the Conservative's, who are given their appropriate number of PPBs are getting away with using my listening time and the BBCs 'unbiased' policy to chime out more - albeit in small parts. Surely the S & S type remarks should be bleaped and those being 'interviewed' shown up for the Party Political Broadcast they are giving.

I took it that daphne agreed with me about your posts being welcome on a thread like this, Cunco.

You may have the credit.

The problem now, I think, is that artificially low interest rates will have to remain because of all those people with mortgages who wouldn't have been able to get them otherwise.
I don't want interest rates to rise so that I can have more interest on my non-existent savings, and at the same time our children and grandchildren having problems paying their mortgages.

I was giving you credit! Sorry if it didn't come over like that. I was in a hurry when I posted and am very bad at proof reading.

Whitewave: I didn't say, nor would I suggest, that the UK was the only country buoyed on a sea of liquidity - so we agree on that point. We can also agree that the Crash of 2008 was a worldwide phenomenon. Labour, and Gordon Brown in particular were, though, in control for the decade before 2008 and he was responsible for splitting regulation of banks from the Bank of England and creating a regulatory body that was ineffective. Many people were responsible for the Crash and the Government of the day has to be among them.

Whoever was responsible, the Government left a mess which is gradually being sorted out but we still have a legacy of high borrowing and artificially low interest rates.

Daphne: I think it was me who said he was grateful to Gordon Brown for his two major achievements. Credit where it is due.

cunco

I take your point about the credit crunch, but I can't agree that Brown was the only leader whose economy was "on a sea of liquidity" the was absolutely true of all western leaders.

No one had ever experienced the sort of 2008 crash, the entire western world was victim to the phenomenon.

So - no Labour was not to blame for the 2008 recession.

Oops! That should be "pay back less" not "back back less".

PS. I agree about discussing policies, not personalities.

I agree dj.

Thank you for reminding everybody that Gordon Brown did keep the UK out of the eurozone and that he was praised worldwide for his actions in 2008, despite his mistakes.

I wish the LibDems had defended themselves better over tuition fees.

1 Firstly, only a minority of young people benefit from a higher education - usually the wealthier ones. The LDs insisted on the introduction of Pupil Premium in a deal over student fees. Pupil Premium benefits pupils from poorer backgrounds at a critical time of their lives ie when they are younger. It shifted money to younger, poorer pupils - and still does.

2 Students on the "new" system actually back back less than the ones on the "old" system. On paper they have a huge loan. In my son's case, it will be over £54,000 before interest, which accrues from the first day of the course, but he will probably back less than my daughter, who has a £27,000 student debt. It depends how much they both earn. My son has also received a more generous bursary from his university than my daughter did.