Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Harry - LCFC

General Election, June 8th

By Harry - LCFC, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Personally I would increase the threshold to £28k.

Okay so i make the same point but with £28k instead of £21k. If a 9% tax on nurses simply for doing their training isn't a tax on strivers then i don't know what is. 

Sharpe's Fox

Sharpe's Fox

Posted
Posted
Quote

Jeremy Corbyn has won perhaps the most important endorsement of the 2017 general election campaign: Danny DeVito.

The It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia star, who shot to fame in classic 70s sitcom Taxi, has thrown his weight behind the Labour leader in a tweet.

He tweeted: "UK. You've got the guy. Register by May 22nd. Vote for Jeremy Corbyn ...show us how it's done." 

He included the hashtag #Grime4Corbyn - perhaps hinting he has a deep love for British hip-hop.

A string of UK MCs, including Stormzy and JME have also backed the Labour leader in recent weeks.

It's not the first time the Twins and Batman Returns star has endorsed the Labour leader.

In April last year, he said Corbyn would be a "great PM".

I like the idea of people telling the truth. "I like them to get to the bottom of things. In our government we have a lot of subterfuge.”

He praised Corbyn’s approach to the Panama Papers tax avoidance revelations.

"Now we've got the Panama thing.

"What is it? Why doesn't anybody want to pay taxes and just fix the country and make everybody have a good life? It's really crazy.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/danny-devito-backs-jeremy-corbyn-10453082

 

Don't pay Pound Shop Thatcher's troll toll!

Nick

Nick

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

A digested summary of the Tory manifesto: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0539mjf

lol

 

Oh dear! Theresa is in Jamie Oliver's bad books now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39969155?SThisFB

"School food campaigner Jamie Oliver has labelled Theresa May's plan to axe free school meals for infants 'a disgrace' ".

Do you think she knows that it's the only hot meal each day poorer kids get? That's why we called it dinner because lunch didn't exist as when you got home you only had tea to look forward to!

RowlattsFox

RowlattsFox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, toddybad said:

So tell us what's improved for normal people in the last 7 years webbo.

In my line of work 'normal' people have been, rightly or wrongly, forced into finding employment. In some cases this has led to people living a better life, earning more, providing more and building confidence and own self-esteem. People have actually told me that cutting their benefits was the best thing that could have happened to them. I appreciate there are going to be many other negative stories but there are positive outcomes out there. 

 

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

In my line of work 'normal' people have been, rightly or wrongly, forced into finding employment. In some cases this has led to people living a better life, earning more, providing more and building confidence and own self-esteem. People have actually told me that cutting their benefits was the best thing that could have happened to them. I appreciate there are going to be many other negative stories but there are positive outcomes out there. 

 

I used to work in the world of benefits myself.

 

Some of the problem i find is that the whole debate around benefits focuses on a very, very small % that have no intention of working despite having no reason why they can't. It is true that they exist and i do agree that there needs to be something done about that group. 

 

Then you have disability benefits and the changes that have been made there - started by labour not long before losing power and then taken forward by the tories. I actually do agree again that it is a good thing to stop looking at disability as a reason not to work and instead focus on what work can be done. That's to be applauded. 

 

Rather like immigration, too often the debate around benefits is scewed my misleading benefit fraud figures and a perception of fecklessness that actually massively overblows the reality. 

 

Where i take issue, however, is that benefit reductions mean that those that do work but don't earn a lot are being sanctioned or are losing overall when there is little they can do. I see this as a problem that really gets to the heart of the way business is seen in this country - people are happy for business to pay as little as it can despite this meaning working people can't  survive without state intervention. We need to be braver and hit business hard for this. There is money in the uk so if some business doesn't like it and leaves, they will be replaced. 

 

Equally, I've always thought we need true lifelong learning - something that i see as a huge plus point in labour's manifesto - as it gives people that made mistakes in their youth a second chance to become economically functioning members of society rather than being written off. To me the benefits of this are in excess of its costs.

Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

This oaf is a complete disaster. No-one tell me the Tories are more incompetent than Jeremy Corbyn after this.

Do you mean more competent?

Just seems like more promises to get the plebs votes. 

This pleb can see through it and as the song goes 'Won't get fooled again'

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

I see Paul Nuttall has had to cancel a visit to Clacton as the UKIP battle bus has been damaged: http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-05-19/paul-nuttall-ukip-leader-calls-off-clacton-visit-after-battle-bus-is-damaged/

 

I've heard 2 rumours about the battle bus:

- My friend Natalie reckons the wheels have come off. Possibly when Nuttall was driving fellow Tranmere Rovers players and fellow academics to the Hillsborough inquest.

- However, my other friend Natalie says that the bus was vandalised as someone painted these words on the side of the bus: "We send the EU £350m a week. Let's fund our NHS instead"

Sharpe's Fox

Sharpe's Fox

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I see Paul Nuttall has had to cancel a visit to Clacton as the UKIP battle bus has been damaged: http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-05-19/paul-nuttall-ukip-leader-calls-off-clacton-visit-after-battle-bus-is-damaged/

 

I've heard 2 rumours about the battle bus:

- My friend Natalie reckons the wheels have come off. Possibly when Nuttall was driving fellow Tranmere Rovers players and fellow academics to the Hillsborough inquest.

- However, my other friend Natalie says that the bus was vandalised as someone painted these words on the side of the bus: "We send the EU £350m a week. Let's fund our NHS instead"

As a quaified bus mechanic I'm sure Paul will get it going again in no time.

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

Rather like immigration, too often the debate around benefits is scewed my misleading benefit fraud figures and a perception of fecklessness that actually massively overblows the reality. 

 

 

Rather like how businesses are always seen as the bad guys by the left. There are lots of good businesses that invest a lot in staff and training and regeneration in the UK, this is never ever talked about just constant criticism and hate from the envious anti business Labour party. Again the majority of businesses provide huge tax revenues for the government and pay fairly the amount they owe.

 

I agree that businesses should pay fairly and that there should be no need for the cost and complexities of in work benefits, this is why the minimum wage is being increased to £10 a hour (nearly £20000 a year full time), to be honest if a person can not live off £300 a week then they could do with a lesson in budgeting a prioritising their money.

Sharpe's Fox

Sharpe's Fox

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Rather like how businesses are always seen as the bad guys by the left. There are lots of good businesses that invest a lot in staff and training and regeneration in the UK, this is never ever talked about just constant criticism and hate from the envious anti business Labour party. Again the majority of businesses provide huge tax revenues for the government and pay fairly the amount they owe.

 

I agree that businesses should pay fairly and that there should be no need for the cost and complexities of in work benefits, this is why the minimum wage is being increased to £10 a hour (nearly £20000 a year full time), to be honest if a person can not live off £300 a week then they could do with a lesson in budgeting a prioritising their money.

 

Labour is offering a £10 an hour minimum wage. Tories have put it up to £7.50 an hour. Congratulations, you just convinced yourself into voting Labour. Welcome, comrade.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Honestly, the past couple of pages have made for interesting reading but they've also reminded me why I dislike economics so much. Keynesians to the left of me, Austrian School boyos to the right, both utterly convinced that they're correct...but it's all so subjective.

 

And yet that soft science is considered to be so important. Probably because it's linked so heavily to politics.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Rather like how businesses are always seen as the bad guys by the left. There are lots of good businesses that invest a lot in staff and training and regeneration in the UK, this is never ever talked about just constant criticism and hate from the envious anti business Labour party. Again the majority of businesses provide huge tax revenues for the government and pay fairly the amount they owe.

 

I agree that businesses should pay fairly and that there should be no need for the cost and complexities of in work benefits, this is why the minimum wage is being increased to £10 a hour (nearly £20000 a year full time), to be honest if a person can not live off £300 a week then they could do with a lesson in budgeting a prioritising their money.

And there's some truth in this. i'm not sure it's explicitely anti-business to question if business should pay more though. It has to be remembered we're talking about tax on profits, not putting businesses into bankruptcy. 

 

As an aside it seems to me that the so called 'neo-liberal' economics of the last 30 or 40 years has set off a chain of reactions that have fandamentally affected the settlement between personal and public finance. The changes have been huge yet have elicited next to no public debate. I think the left see these as unfair changes to the settlement whilst the right seems to see them as unavoidable. It seems to me the left is more converned with people's lives whilst the right is more concerned with protecting the system. No doubt others would argue this. 

 

For example:

 

It used to be possible for a family to live quite happily with one earner. The country was still hugely wealthy. Students received grants, the state owned the utilities, post office and rail. People could buy houses with one income. Grated this might be a rose-tinted view but the reality is the state did for far more in the way of crown jewells.

 

Now you need two full time workers to even hope to get a home and just about survive. Huge corporations have taken over most industries, raking in huge profits whilst not paying enough for people to survive without state intervention. The stare has sold off its industries with nothing to show for it yet prices go up constantly.

 

I've actually been a floating voter over my adult life and have voted for three different parties at the last three elections. I vote based on policy and what i see happening in the world.This time it'll be labour (it was in 2015 also) as i believe the economic system isn't working and I'm not convinced that the tories offer any alternative. Although i didn't know what to make of corbyn I've been impressed with his vision over the campaign so far. For me it's that vision and the hope of change that is needed.

Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

I could live on £300 PW but then again I do not have rent or mortgage at £300 PW plus a family to support. I also do not drive. As a pensioner I get around £170 which is also manageable for a person in a similar position. I do not see any drastic change regardless of who the govt is but it isn't always about 'Me' is it.

I had to manage on £70 prior to retiring down to £40 for a few months so I know how hard it can be for others. I was lucky to have a family that helped me out and I learned to live on a fixed weekly budget. Some people do not have a family to support them.

Taking £10 off someone with an income of £70 can mean a weeks supply of electricity. Taking £10 off someone on eg. £5000 pw will mean one coffee and biscuits less at a high class cafe in London.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

I could live on £300 PW but then again I do not have rent or mortgage at £300 PW plus a family to support. I also do not drive. As a pensioner I get around £170 which is also manageable for a person in a similar position. I do not see any drastic change regardless of who the govt is but it isn't always about 'Me' is it.

I had to manage on £70 prior to retiring down to £40 for a few months so I know how hard it can be for others. I was lucky to have a family that helped me out and I learned to live on a fixed weekly budget. Some people do not have a family to support them.

Taking £10 off someone with an income of £70 can mean a weeks supply of electricity. Taking £10 off someone on eg. £5000 pw will mean one coffee and biscuits less at a high class cafe in London.

There's your reason to vote labour then.

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

Labour is offering a £10 an hour minimum wage. Tories have put it up to £7.50 an hour. Congratulations, you just convinced yourself into voting Labour. Welcome, comrade.

I thought I read somewhere it was due to go up to £10 by 2020 anyway but maybe I am wrong. I will never be a commie.

Guest Kopfkino

Guest Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for this attempted explanation. I wish that I was better at getting my head round the financial system, as it matters big-time. Maybe I should sign up for a course at the LSE? :whistle:

 

I understand that the slight downgrade in UK credit ratings has had little impact. Presumably, the same will apply if things just get slightly difficult during/after Brexit negotiations. If things get seriously bad, though, a bigger hit to credit ratings might have more impact on the cost of UK debt (and, even if it is a success long-term, Brexit could increase the UK deficit/debt in the short/medium-term - depending on negotiations, the economy & fiscal policy).

 

In those circumstances - and generally - it instinctively seems better for a chunk of that debt to be held by the Bank of England, rather than profit-oriented financial institutions or foreign countries. Obviously, the BoE has to exercise financial responsibility for the UK economy and cannot just do the bidding of the govt of the day. But it is more likely to be helpful over debt that it holds than a private bank or foreign institution, surely? As an example, I found this from 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/09/bank-of-england-gilts-interest

"Big cash balances amassed by the Bank of England as a result of its electronic money-creation programme will be used to pay down the national debt by £35bn over the next 18 months, the Treasury has said.

[...] Sir Mervyn King, the Bank's governor, said the change to the arrangements made sense[...].The move will reduce national debt in the short term and cut the interest payments the government makes on the money it has borrowed". 

I can't imagine a bank, insurance firm, pension fund or foreign institution offering £35bn off a debt!

 

I appreciate your point about much debt being long-term via gilts that hold their value for years and have stable interest rates. But there are clearly mechanisms that mean UK debt does get more or less expensive overall, albeit gradually in many cases. Presumably short-term/new borrowing, secondary trading of gilts and other market mechanisms that I don't understand are part of this. The system is obviously set up to have a strong degree of stability, but the flexibility to respond to market forces - including market assessment of the British economy, British creditworthiness etc.

 

 

Are you not enjoying the LSE, then? I saw your recent post about girlfriend issues and hope that's not the only reason you're thinking of quitting? I don't mean to be intrusive or patronising. I know nothing about your life, obviously. Maybe you hate the course or hate London, and maybe you'd be right to leave? It would just seem a shame to leave for the wrong reasons, when you seem to have a strong interest in the subject - and presumably some ability to have got a place at the LSE. There's a summer ahead to clear the mind - and other options, like a transfer to a different uni or a year out...though I imagine you've already considered such things. Good luck, whatever you decide. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Of course a significant credit rating change might signal debt will get more expensive but any credit rating downgrade itself won't make much different, investors won't need a credit rating change to alter their behaviour. Immediately after the Brexit vote, indexed bonds were giving the government its cheapest ever borrowing which is interesting.

 

That's interesting actually, I didn't know that happened and is certainly a benefit from the central bank holding government debt. Not quite £35bn off a debt because Merv also said it would have to be paid back, maybe with more interest added on but admittedly that could be just discourse to avoid inflationary effects and loss of confidence, and the bank will never ask for it back. But still, it raises a question about confidence in the central bank and in the case of BoE, its independence. How much further is it willing to go, is it willing to cancel the debt and if markets were to think that then it's bad for the economy. I very much doubt they did but I'm trying make a point that it's not necessarily completely beneficial for the BoE to hold the debt. Of course there's also the problem of the BoE's exit strategy, given the Bank of Japan's influence in the financial crisis. The fact that the central bank holds government debt must be causing worry that they only just about have control which, whilst isn't a problem for government directly, but it is problematic. These are now hypotheses from my own head, which I haven't properly thought about and I may be barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, this is now more of a discussion of QE rather than just a central bank holding sovereign debt. 

This is very much the realm of a Ricardo Reis whom lectured us for 10 weeks over the spring, he's at the forefront of the academic discussion of central bank's right now. 

 

I'm a learner, I'm not an academic and uni feels stifling to me. Maybe it's a failure of me but I don't want to be learning material for an exam, I want to be asking my own questions and delving deeper and really getting stuck into things. I quite simply couldn't invest myself into preparing for exams. I have been considering this for a few months now so it's not due to, what I agree would be the wrong reasons. I have already deferred this years exams so I have a year out now but I also have very little intention of going back and completing them next year. I'm hoping in this time, I am able to sell myself to someone who can give ME the chance rather than giving it to the bit of paper I hold. Maybe I'm living in fantasy land but I'm giving myself the opportunity to make my own way with LSE as an insurance. I just want to learn, I have my ideas I just need to learn how to develop and implement them. The fact is, uni makes me miserable and the whole graduate train that I'd already fallen into was going to carry that on, whether this break works or not I don't know.

 

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, toddybad said:

And there's some truth in this. i'm not sure it's explicitely anti-business to question if business should pay more though. It has to be remembered we're talking about tax on profits, not putting businesses into bankruptcy. 

 

As an aside it seems to me that the so called 'neo-liberal' economics of the last 30 or 40 years has set off a chain of reactions that have fandamentally affected the settlement between personal and public finance. The changes have been huge yet have elicited next to no public debate. I think the left see these as unfair changes to the settlement whilst the right seems to see them as unavoidable. It seems to me the left is more converned with people's lives whilst the right is more concerned with protecting the system. No doubt others would argue this. 

 

For example:

 

It used to be possible for a family to live quite happily with one earner. The country was still hugely wealthy. Students received grants, the state owned the utilities, post office and rail. People could buy houses with one income. Grated this might be a rose-tinted view but the reality is the state did for far more in the way of crown jewells.

 

Now you need two full time workers to even hope to get a home and just about survive. Huge corporations have taken over most industries, raking in huge profits whilst not paying enough for people to survive without state intervention. The stare has sold off its industries with nothing to show for it yet prices go up constantly.

 

I've actually been a floating voter over my adult life and have voted for three different parties at the last three elections. I vote based on policy and what i see happening in the world.This time it'll be labour (it was in 2015 also) as i believe the economic system isn't working and I'm not convinced that the tories offer any alternative. Although i didn't know what to make of corbyn I've been impressed with his vision over the campaign so far. For me it's that vision and the hope of change that is needed.

I think businesses will naturally invest profit in training and more employment, its in their interest to grow and upskill. Unfortunately higher taxation takes away their ability to do this, any business will want to make a profit and the more that is taken away in tax the less they will invest in any form.

 

The world has unfortunately changed, back when homes were cheaper, the NHS was efficient, Schools had lower class sizes, people didn't live as long, population was a lot lower this huge growth and shift has had an impact on everything. Now the left want mass potentially unskilled immigration and fully funded public services, unfortunately something has to give somewhere its just not possible to maintain, or at least not in its current form. There needs to be a massive cross party discussion imo on how to move forward with the challenges we have.  Examples of waste included an NHS trust paying over the odds for toilet rolls and prescriptions being made for paracetamol which can be brought for 20p in a shop.

 

It did used to be possible for a family to live with one earner, this has changed because of the availability of cheap housing and population growth, it arguable the Labour government between 1997-2010 governed at a time of unprecedented mass immigration and during a massive house price boom (2 or 3 times the value in some cases). Also during this period new home building was at its lowest. Over that period it became impossible for one earner to own a home.

 

Despite the strange belief that we pay over the odds for energy, compared to most of Europe we are on a par or average, we are certainly not part of the corporate rip off/profiteering that some would have us believe by our nasty private energy/water suppliers:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Natural_gas_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2015_(¹)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB16.png

 

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/domestic-water-charges-in-europe/

 

Trains:

 

https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

 

I have to admit it would be fantastic to live in a world where Labours manifesto could happen but it unfortunately is not possible, we can not afford to spend money we don't have on things we can not ever have a hope of funding, we have to be realistic about that. Business and Rich individuals will not pay more tax, and forcing them to do so will only further harm the economy.

 

Obviously everyone thankfully has their right to decide on what they feel best. One aspect that really concerns me was the communist style no free speech manifesto launch where only the communist back Morning Star was cheered when it asked a question, very similar to a propaganda driven communist state........is that what they want everyone to read a copy of the morning star and sing red flag every morning? Perhaps we can have murals and statues of comrade Corbyn in Major cities!!

Guest Foxin_mad

Guest Foxin_mad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

I could live on £300 PW but then again I do not have rent or mortgage at £300 PW plus a family to support. I also do not drive. As a pensioner I get around £170 which is also manageable for a person in a similar position. I do not see any drastic change regardless of who the govt is but it isn't always about 'Me' is it.

I had to manage on £70 prior to retiring down to £40 for a few months so I know how hard it can be for others. I was lucky to have a family that helped me out and I learned to live on a fixed weekly budget. Some people do not have a family to support them.

Taking £10 off someone with an income of £70 can mean a weeks supply of electricity. Taking £10 off someone on eg. £5000 pw will mean one coffee and biscuits less at a high class cafe in London.

Trouble is they want to take a lot more than £10 off the person warning £5000 a week!! They already do in fact!

Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted

 

Govt want NHS data delayed until after the election:

 

It is likely that publication of key financial performance data from the NHS in England will be delayed until after the election, the BBC understands.

Regulator NHS Improvement is understood to want to publish data on the scale of hospital deficits but has been advised against it by parts of the government.

The British Medical Association said the government was "running scared" by delaying the release of the figures.

The Department of Health and the Conservative Party did not comment.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39945597

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...