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
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Sampson said:

And there's no indication about what the provisions are if all this borrowing spending, upping the minimum wage and increasing corporation tax just leads to either demand-pull or cost-pull inflation or even stagflation, which is a very real Economic possibility.

 

We've aalready been struggling to put interest rates up for years now. Could easily lead to a stagnant economy riddled with debt as has happened with Japan after its Keynesian attempts to spend itself out of stagnation.

We already have a stagnent economy riddled with debt. 

We have to do something to invest. 

More than happy to debate where that line is but I'm unconvinced that pushing corporation tax to 2010 levels - and still less than france and Germany- is a serious argument against labour.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2019 at 18:44, Izzy said:

 

Tempted to have a few quid on under 60% turnout @7/1 odds I must say..

5/1 now

 

If anything, this election campaign seems to be turning more people off rather than engaging them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

5/1 now

 

If anything, this election campaign seems to be turning more people off rather than engaging them.

 

A lot of people are just tired of it all. As a person who doesn't take great interest in politics, I'm getting tired of it being the only thing ever spoken about on the news. 

 

At the same time half the things they promise they'll deliver turns out to be lies or not the full truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

We already have a stagnent economy riddled with debt. 

We have to do something to invest. 

More than happy to debate where that line is but I'm unconvinced that pushing corporation tax to 2010 levels - and still less than france and Germany- is a serious argument against labour.  

Tax alone isn't. Although it will reduce investment in training and jobs.

 

However, seizing shares of business, heavy unionisation, nationalisation of some companies at a rate determined by parliament is not going to encourage growth or overseas investment in this country. It is delusional to think it would and pretend they would ever have enough growth to pay off this splurge.

 

It's likely to lead to the nation being poorer than it's ever been. 

 

These policies are exactly the same policies Chavez implemented in a country with one of the largest global oil supplies. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Tax alone isn't. Although it will reduce investment in training and jobs.

 

However, seizing shares of business, heavy unionisation, nationalisation of some companies at a rate determined by parliament is not going to encourage growth or overseas investment in this country. It is delusional to think it would and pretend they would ever have enough growth to pay off this splurge.

 

It's likely to lead to the nation being poorer than it's ever been. 

 

These policies are exactly the same policies Chavez implemented in a country with one of the largest global oil supplies. 

Venezuela actually has the world's largest oil reserves, and mismanagement of the economy by their government has turned them into a basket case.

Our economy is much more diverse though.

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Izzy said:

5/1 now

 

If anything, this election campaign seems to be turning more people off rather than engaging them.

Unlikely, it's only ever happened once and that was 2001 when everyone knew Blair was going to win and even some diehard Tories couldn't vote for Hague. 

 

Polarisation and fear is good for turnout and both sides certainly fear the consequences of the other side governing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Venezuela actually has the world's largest oil reserves, and mismanagement of the economy by their government has turned them into a basket case.

Yes and these are the kind of policies Corbyn and McDonnell are proposing. The economics of basket case South American countries.

 

People keep saying 'they are not a Socialist' but they really are.

 

He goes for the rich to fund his spending, if the rich wont pay who will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

We already have a stagnent economy riddled with debt. 

We have to do something to invest. 

More than happy to debate where that line is but I'm unconvinced that pushing corporation tax to 2010 levels - and still less than france and Germany- is a serious argument against labour.  

We don't have a stagnant economy at all. Inflation has been in the Central Bank's (and recommended range for almost every developed country) 1-3% range since 2017 and wages have been averaging rising above inflation since 2015.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322#:~:targetText=Inflation is the rate at,for goods and services increase.&targetText=That's why most countries' central,rate seen since late 2016.

 

I didnt mention one particular policy, I mentioned a combination of several.

 

Borrowing money to raise inflation and improve an economy's output is a commonly used thing - you're essentially just adding extra money to a nation's economy after all so its natural this leads to demand-pull inflation. Many genuinely stagnant economies have done this exactly to deliberately cause inflation. The issue is when either this doesn't really do anything or doesn't lead to enough inflation to get into the safe 1-3% zone which gives people confidence in the economy and just leads to stagnation, not enough growth as expected along with mounting debt (as has happened in Japan in recent times) or causes too much inflation (above 3%) which can lead to a vicious cycle of everyone trying to catch up and runaway with itself and I'd very hard to stop by any government policy. 

 

This along with a hike on the minimum wage and increases in corporation tax will unquestionably lead to an increased cost for a lot of businesses which can also easily lead to to cost-pull inflation (and further demand-pull inflation because people now have more money to spend). Businiesses could easily be put in the position where they have to increase prices to meet both increased demand and increased cost - and these are all being proposed where in the short-term, over the past 2-4  years we have seen good levels of economic growth and good levels of wage rises above that growth- this doesn't seem the moment to start borrowing excessively to me.

 

The central bank has already had ridiculously artificially low interest rates since about 2007 which we are struggling to increase, because while it has encouraged more people to borrow and get mortgages, it hasn't helped increase the economy enough to be able to raise them without it leading to rates which people couldn't afford meaning they'd have to give up their homes - so we've fallen into a pretty bad debt trap with our interest rates - again, squeezing out more potential income away from  the government.

 

I didn't say increasing corporation tax to Gernan levels would lead to inflation on it's own.

 

I said where are both party's contingency plans for all this borrowing and spending - and not just short-term spending but *continuous spending plans*. Surely it is far from the realms of possibility to think that all this spending and increase in business spending via overnight wage hikes and reduction in their profits via tax at the same time as government borrowing increasing the money-supply in exchange for debt will lead to above comfort-zone levels inflation? Especially when coupled with the fact we've been in a debt trap with our interest rates for over a decade now with little end in site - this seems a pretty reasonable potential medium-term future and one very reminiscent of Japan has suffered over the past 10-15 years - only shortly after it was the most booming economy in human history - I'm not saying this is 100% certainty, nothing is in Economics - but it's a very, very real possibility and one neither party is prepared to answer.

 

If it works in the short-term and then we cut back on spending and concentrate on increasing interest rates for more sustainable income then fine (although we all know cutting back spending once you start on popular policies is very politically difficult), if not we could very easily leave our grandchildren with unsustainable levels of debt, while our economy stagnates long-term

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SecretPro said:

GET BREXIT DONE is so ****ing nauseating already. Fast becoming Boris Johnsons only answer, the anthem to a race of knuckle dragging nobends and clearly already wearing thin on everyone else. Brexit is literally a dust particle of an issue in comparison to others, not to mention that this is a general election, and believe it or not, that involves things that are not brexit related. To continue down the road of 'the NHS is underfunded because we haven't got brexit done' and 'we can't fight climate change because we havn't got brexit done' is extremely disingenuous at best and frankly delusional. JUST MY OPINION.

Similarly the constant 'Our NHS' mantra from Labour, only Labour can protect the NHS blah blah blah. The reality is since its formation a large percentage of its years it has operated under Tory rule and never been sold off to the big bad wolf.

 

Equally his constant obsession of the 'climate emergency' without any real understanding of how his policies will affect the so called 'many' working folk (they supposedly represent)...forcing people into buying new green cars they cant afford or paying green taxes they cant afford to pay using expensive and unreliable nationalised unionised public transport to get to work or school.

 

They have both only served to highlight their inadequacies 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sampson said:

We don't have a stagnant economy at all. Inflation has been in the Central Bank's (and recommended range for almost every developed country) 1-3% range since 2017 and wages have been averaging rising above inflation since 2015.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322#:~:targetText=Inflation is the rate at,for goods and services increase.&targetText=That's why most countries' central,rate seen since late 2016.

 

I didnt mention one particular policy, I mentioned a combination of several.

 

Borrowing money to raise inflation and improve an economy's output is a commonly used thing - you're essentially just adding extra money to a nation's economy after all so its natural this leads to demand-pull inflation. Many genuinely stagnant economies have done this exactly to deliberately cause inflation. The issue is when either this doesn't really do anything or doesn't lead to enough inflation to get into the safe 1-3% zone which gives people confidence in the economy and just leads to stagnation, not enough growth as expected along with mounting debt (as has happened in Japan in recent times) or causes too much inflation (above 3%) which can lead to a vicious cycle of everyone trying to catch up and runaway with itself and I'd very hard to stop by any government policy. 

 

This along with a hike on the minimum wage and increases in corporation tax will unquestionably lead to an increased cost for a lot of businesses which can also easily lead to to cost-pull inflation (and further demand-pull inflation because people now have more money to spend). Businiesses could easily be put in the position where they have to increase prices to meet both increased demand and increased cost - and these are all being proposed where in the short-term, over the past 2-4  years we have seen good levels of economic growth and good levels of wage rises above that growth- this doesn't seem the moment to start borrowing excessively to me.

 

The central bank has already had ridiculously artificially low interest rates since about 2007 which we are struggling to increase, because while it has encouraged more people to borrow and get mortgages, it hasn't helped increase the economy enough to be able to raise them without it leading to rates which people couldn't afford meaning they'd have to give up their homes - so we've fallen into a pretty bad debt trap with our interest rates - again, squeezing out more potential income away from  the government.

 

I didn't say increasing corporation tax to Gernan levels would lead to inflation on it's own.

 

I said where are both party's contingency plans for all this borrowing and spending - and not just short-term spending but *continuous spending plans*. Surely it is far from the realms of possibility to think that all this spending and increase in business spending via overnight wage hikes and reduction in their profits via tax at the same time as government borrowing increasing the money-supply in exchange for debt will lead to above comfort-zone levels inflation? Especially when coupled with the fact we've been in a debt trap with our interest rates for over a decade now with little end in site - this seems a pretty reasonable potential medium-term future and one very reminiscent of Japan has suffered over the past 10-15 years - only shortly after it was the most booming economy in human history - I'm not saying this is 100% certainty, nothing is in Economics - but it's a very, very real possibility and one neither party is prepared to answer.

 

If it works in the short-term and then we cut back on spending and concentrate on increasing interest rates for more sustainable income then fine (although we all know cutting back spending once you start on popular policies is very politically difficult), if not we could very easily leave our grandchildren with unsustainable levels of debt, while our economy stagnates long-term

Growth is not good though is it?

Several sectors are in recession and as a whole our economy is bitting and bobbing around the zero line. Whilst I take your point over wage growth, growth itself is stagnant. This is unsurprising given the huge drop in business investment - particularly foreign investment into the UK - since the brexit referendum.  We could certainly do with propping up construction and similar sectors, for example, by undergoing a green revolution and spending on capital projects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

Growth is not good though is it?

Several sectors are in recession and as a whole our economy is bitting and bobbing around the zero line. Whilst I take your point over wage growth, growth itself is stagnant. This is unsurprising given the huge drop in business investment - particularly foreign investment into the UK - since the brexit referendum.  We could certainly do with propping up construction and similar sectors, for example, by undergoing a green revolution and spending on capital projects. 

 

Saying we could  prop up a couple of sectors doesn't really answer any of the potential issues Ive just listed - you've just moved the goalposts to a smaller issue.

 

Regardless, spending money on some sectors just because they're failing is even more dangerous - that's how you get stagflation if you're not careful.

 

The huge drop in business investment has come from the private economy, not the government - you don't try to answer that problem by increasing government spending, you try to answer that by encouraging a return in private investment - because, it's both far less costly on the economy as a while if private investors' investments fail than the government's investment fails - and this surely only leads to there to be more need for mitigations to the increased risk given as to what happens if corporation tax and minimum wages are raised very quickly, rather than gradually?

 

You need to know *why*  construction is failing for a government to even consider subsiding and know that subsidies will help turn it round (which a government will realistically never be able to understand the complexity of these reasons as well as the market will - however flawed the market is) - and let's be honest - the biggest reason is likely that it's much cheaper to export from other countries and there's too much competition from abroad. It's ultimately unsustainable and uncompetitive to other jobs to prop up failing sectors or businiesses through government borrowing and/or taxpayer money - especially if you want a return of foreign investment when you're just using government money to prop up failing industry here competing against foreign industry.

 

There's also the danger that subsidising companies and industry leads them to rely on those subsidies long-term often causing reductions in productivity - business subsidies to be economically viable they should be short-term solutions or for things which are essential for society to function - not for companies struggling to compete in the worldwide market.

 

Subsiding sectors does not guarantee bringing growth to a comfortable level anyway, nor will it necessarily guard against either too little or too luch inflation, but borrowing to fund these is building up debt regardless.

 

Again - if this all works short-term, then great and we're prepared to cut back to increase interest rates to become more sustainable then great. But where are the mitigation plans if it doesn't?

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SMX11 said:

I'm afraid this is the nature of universal suffrage. Buy votes with IOU's for their grandchildren to pick up the tab. Not going to change until we has a serious calamity.

And it's not like the economy is the only area where that applies, nor the most pressing situation where an IOU is being used to buy votes, nor at all the most serious potential calamity out there as a result of it.

 

 

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Similarly the constant 'Our NHS' mantra from Labour, only Labour can protect the NHS blah blah blah. The reality is since its formation a large percentage of its years it has operated under Tory rule and never been sold off to the big bad wolf.

 

Equally his constant obsession of the 'climate emergency' without any real understanding of how his policies will affect the so called 'many' working folk (they supposedly represent)...forcing people into buying new green cars they cant afford or paying green taxes they cant afford to pay using expensive and unreliable nationalised unionised public transport to get to work or school.

 

They have both only served to highlight their inadequacies 

As much as economics means something to us and to a government...it doesn't mean anything at all to the climate, other than its response to what we're doing to it in the name of keeping that economy "strong".

 

Not being 'obsessed' with what we can do for the climate is short-term thinking at its finest and has the potential to mess up more futures than the measures you state above ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night was no game-changer, then. In the short-term, that helps Johnson as it's Corbyn who needs to shift the polls/expectations.

 

Although last night won't shift many votes, it could help Corbyn further down the line - but only if something else changes the game.

I should think that many undecided voters would have been surprised that Corbyn seemed more competent than they expected - or, at least, not someone noticeably worse than Boris or completely beyond the pale.

But that only helps Labour if those voters are given some other reason to seriously consider voting Labour, be that a popular manifesto or Johnson disgracing himself or alienating voters.

 

Mainly, though, I was amazed at the issues that weren't discussed at all, or only superficially in passing:

- economy, personal tax (only corporation tax discussed, not income tax, VAT, inheritance tax?), education, crime, immigration, defence, foreign policy (apart from Brexit)..... :dunno:

 

Would be interesting to know what swing voters thought of Johnson, particularly how he kept returning to the Brexit issue & kept over-running his allotted time (Corbyn did, too, but not so much).

Most viewers will have approved or disapproved according to their intended voting preferences, but would be interesting to know about neutrals.

If Boris keeps getting the "get Brexit done" message across, it helps him to an extent.....but there's a limit beyond which he could alienate people, especially if he avoids other questions & blusters away... 

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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