FT General Election Poll 2019

[Salisbury Fox]

7 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I do find it strange that despite labour leading this poll, it appears only Alf openly supports Labour being elected on here unless I have missed someone?  

I was genuinely hoping that someone would explain how Labour’s manifesto could actually work without turning us into Zimbabwe, but it appears no one is going to break cover.  
 

Labour’s borrowing is eye watering and even more than I expected.  They have got to hope that interest rates don’t rise on the cost of all of this and given that there are already signs of them doing so I would expect a rise to be inevitable.  
 

Unemployment would surely also rise given that corporation tax will go up and the immediate introduction of a £10 an hour minimum wage.  Then there is the impact on pensions and investment!  On the latter, who will seriously invest in this country when they are expected to give up a proportion of their business and where the government feels that it can arbitrarily set a price, it’s absolutely crazy. 
 

Oh and who cares about a t-shirt on a day when Labour introduces a manifesto that has just had the dust blown off it and the date changed from the 1970s.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, StanSP said:

Interesting you want us to 'start to look at the reality' when you literally have the home secretary saying the government didn't cause poverty and blamed it on local authorities cutting costs on services.

 

Why the fvck do you think those local authorities have had to make cuts in the first place?! The government have been making cuts left, right and centre. 

 

Look at the fvcking reality of food bank usage increasing at an alarmingly high rate under Tory government. Look at the police cuts, the NHS cuts. There's your reality. 

Because they inherited a deficit of about 150 billion - it's amazing how many people have forgotten that.

 

And if you think that "austerity" was bad just wait until you see it after McDonnell has had his way with the budget of the nation.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I was genuinely hoping that someone would explain how Labour’s manifesto could actually work without turning us into Zimbabwe, but it appears no one is going to break cover.  
 

Labour’s borrowing is eye watering and even more than I expected.  They have got to hope that interest rates don’t rise on the cost of all of this and given that there are already signs of them doing so I would expect a rise to be inevitable.  
 

Unemployment would surely also rise given that corporation tax will go up and the immediate introduction of a £10 an hour minimum wage.  Then there is the impact on pensions and investment!  On the latter, who will seriously invest in this country when they are expected to give up a proportion of their business and where the government feels that it can arbitrarily set a price, it’s absolutely crazy. 
 

Oh and who cares about a t-shirt on a day when Labour introduces a manifesto that has just had the dust blown off it and the date changed from the 1970s.

I was thinking the same myself. Non stop complaining about Tories and almost hiding from their own manifestos.

 

If you are voting or campaigning for Labour let's hear how you are going to raise 80 billion from taxation without affecting anyone below the rich? Not barely credible, "not even credible as the IFS has said"

 

That's before we even get onto some of more socially controversial policies like reduction or decriminalisation of abortion.

[Guest MattP]

The abortion bit has caused quite a stir online - https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/

[WigstonWanderer]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

The abortion bit has caused quite a stir online - https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/

That’s disgraceful 

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

The abortion bit has caused quite a stir online - https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/

The various US governments have spent far too much time and money having to kowtow to the religious fundies on this matter. I see no good reason why the UK government need do similarly, barring a sensible week-based cutoff point.

[Brizzle Fox]

Never in my lifetime have i seen such a mediocre set of individuals at the top of all of the main political parties. Its so bad that for the first time in 30 years I probably won't bother voting. 

 

One small consolation would be, if all the rumblings are true, that Raab might be in danger in his heavily remain constituency. It would be worth staying up all night watching the election coverage just to see that smug, nasty piece of work's face should he lose his seat. 

 

[EnderbyFox]

 

 

Just wow. 

 

"I'm not even in the top 50%" 

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The abortion bit has caused quite a stir online - https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/

I think this is an issue with interpretation and semantics. They want to repeal the 1967 Act, which itself did not repeal the 1861 Act, meaning that 'procuring your own miscarriage' could still be deemed to be a criminal act. 

 

They clearly need to be questioned on it and the wording of the manifesto (below) is vague at best, but that's quite a jump from the Catholic Herald.  

 

 

 

[David Guiza]

34 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

 

Just wow. 

 

"I'm not even in the top 50%" 

That man is definitely getting a call from HMRC this morning 

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, Strokes said:

80k a year isn’t a lot though really. 

Alright Jon the Hat 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I was genuinely hoping that someone would explain how Labour’s manifesto could actually work without turning us into Zimbabwe, but it appears no one is going to break cover.  
 

Labour’s borrowing is eye watering and even more than I expected.  They have got to hope that interest rates don’t rise on the cost of all of this and given that there are already signs of them doing so I would expect a rise to be inevitable.  
 

Unemployment would surely also rise given that corporation tax will go up and the immediate introduction of a £10 an hour minimum wage.  Then there is the impact on pensions and investment!  On the latter, who will seriously invest in this country when they are expected to give up a proportion of their business and where the government feels that it can arbitrarily set a price, it’s absolutely crazy. 
 

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I was thinking the same myself. Non stop complaining about Tories and almost hiding from their own manifestos.

 

If you are voting or campaigning for Labour let's hear how you are going to raise 80 billion from taxation without affecting anyone below the rich? Not barely credible, "not even credible as the IFS has said"

 

 

Give us a break! The manifesto was only published yesterday - and real life intervenes occasionally! My work fluctuates but has been busy lately & my teenage daughter is staying with me continuously for a few weeks.

 

How come you lads have so much spare time? Are you landed gentry, trustafarians or dole wallahs? 

I thought you had a public sector job, Matt? Were you unable to take the stress of such an understaffed, cash-strapped workplace, or is it a zero-hours contract - or are you on secondment to the Tory propaganda dept? 

 

I appreciate your sincere and open-minded desire to understand how Labour will fund their spending/investment. But don't rely on football fans. Here's Labour's own detailed funding explanations:

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-2019.pdf

I look forward to your detailed challenges to their costings - as I'm sure your scepticism isn't founded merely on personal bias or the superficial reports of Tory-supporting media.... 

 

I'm sure there's some excess optimism in Labour's costings. There always is for any political party. In the highly unlikely event they form a majority govt, I'm sure some stuff will not get done or will require extra funds. If they massively increased personal taxation or wrecked the economy, they'd be out of power almost forever, so I'm sure they'd postpone plans and/or make moderate increases in borrowing or tax.......just as the Tories would to fund the excess optimism in their plans. Of course, Labour's only realistic chance of being in govt is as a minority reliant on the support of other parties, anyway, so their plans would be watered down anyway......whereas there's a serious risk that Boris will get a majority so as to implement his reckless, destructive plans without such restraint.

 

The IFS says that Labour's plans lack credibility......but be ready for them to say the same about Tory plans. And I hope that this time the Tories offer a proper costing of their plans (they didn't in 2017).

Here's the IFS on Tory plans so far: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-tory-tax-spending-sajid-javid-boris-johnson-ifs-economy-a9203511.html

 

"Taxes will have to rise to meet Tory spending pledges, independent experts warn, in a stinging criticism of both big parties’ plans. The chancellor, is relying on a £37bn “cushion” – which has already been wiped out – to justify a string of high-cost promises to woo voters, the IFS says. Billions have been announced to replace lost police officers, end the benefits freeze, boost defence, extend childcare and rebuild technical education, in recent weeks".

.......I look forward to news of the Tory tax rises, or to the IFS slating their credibility, too...

 

Briefly, as I've got to work:

- Labour's increases in current expenditure are funded by tax (see pp. 4-5 of first link). Let's hear how the Tories plan to fund their extra spending....purely from extra borrowing?

- It's true that a large hike in interest rates would be ruinous (for either party but more so for Labour as they'd borrow more)....but inadequate investment in necessary infrastructure, decarbonisation, new industries, education/training & health/social care also risks being ruinous to society and economy....and life

- The corporation tax rises will be gradual & will merely return us to mainstream corporate tax levels in the West, after years of bleeding our people to hand inducements to big business

- Labour's spending plans would be above average by Western standards but by no means out on a limb

- Likewise, this morning McDonnell made it clear that the house-building programme would take a few years to get up to speed. But we have built public housing at that rate before (1950s/60s). After a few years to ensure the plans & skills are available, why would we be incapable of doing what we were able to do 50+ years ago?

- "Nationalisation" sounds terribly extreme to the post-Thatcher generation, but almost all the industries cited WERE publicly owned until the 80s/90s (more recently for Royal Mail). And many are fully or partly publicly-owned in multiple European countries. Indeed, we're in the preposterous situation where many of our utility companies & rail companies are indirectly owned, to a substantial extent, by the nationalised power/rail companies in other EU nations. So much for "taking back control"?! 

- Would unemployment rise at a time of such a massive a rise in public investment? I suppose some private firms might "slim down" or relocate, but that would surely be dwarfed by the extra employment created in the public sector, training, new industries etc. Higher pay would also boost consumer spending. I reckon the risks like more in skills shortages and inflation, not unemployment

- Plenty of firms invest in other western nations with higher corporate tax, and union/workers' reps on boards, as in Germany

- The Tories also have to explain how they will handle the economic/social damage & lost tax revenues caused by loss of trade after their favoured Hard Brexit (or No Deal)

 

[David Guiza]

4 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I was genuinely hoping that someone would explain how Labour’s manifesto could actually work without turning us into Zimbabwe, but it appears no one is going to break cover.  
 

Labour’s borrowing is eye watering and even more than I expected.  They have got to hope that interest rates don’t rise on the cost of all of this and given that there are already signs of them doing so I would expect a rise to be inevitable.  
 

Unemployment would surely also rise given that corporation tax will go up and the immediate introduction of a £10 an hour minimum wage.  Then there is the impact on pensions and investment!  On the latter, who will seriously invest in this country when they are expected to give up a proportion of their business and where the government feels that it can arbitrarily set a price, it’s absolutely crazy. 
 

Oh and who cares about a t-shirt on a day when Labour introduces a manifesto that has just had the dust blown off it and the date changed from the 1970s.

With respect, I'm not sure that a football forum is necessarily the best place to get an answer to that question. I thought we were doing quite well on this thread, compared to recent times, up until the last couple of pages when it some posts looked like 2am Trump tweets on a sugar comedown. 

 

In answer to your question however, I think the vast majority of intelligent folk are aware that both parties (and beyond) are now just throwing any old crap out there in the hope that it sticks to swing voters. Some of Labours economic pledges are nothing short of a dream, but they're acutely aware of the fact that they're not going to get into power and the absolute best they could hope for is a coalition with at least one, if not two or more other parties and then the manifesto becomes watered down and blame is tossed around like it's going out of fashion, see Tory/LibDem coalition for reference. It's without doubt that, were they to actually get into power, pledges would be broken, but that's hardly a new concept. The current Government promised not to increase VAT, income tax or NI contributions, work to end child poverty, deliver a strong NHS, cut migration, protect school funding, boost mental health funding etc and failed one very single one of those points. 

 

I think i'm the same as many other left leaning posters on here in that we're fully aware of some of the nonsense in the Labour Party, economically, policy based and personnel. Personally, I would still prefer to vote Green, though again I am aware of their failings, but under the current system it's just not practical and would be in effect another way of shoring up a Tory majority. Ultimately, we're fed up of the mess that the Tories have made of the last 9 years. Fed up of an increasingly right Government who have dismissed 21 of their own for daring to disagree with them on the Brexit mess. We're fed up of Jacob Rees Mogg and his Victorian views on abortion and the poor, of Boris Johnson's lies and buffoonery, of Dominic Raab masquerading as a politician, of Michael Gove's inability to do anything but list reasons why Corbyn is worse than BJ, of the prospect of 5 years of Priti Patel's dreams of opening up Guantanamo Bay's sister prison on our shores and washing her hands of anyone beneath her social class, of more and more austerity, of the messes regarding Grenfell and Windrush, of privatisation, increased rail fares, poor public transport etc etc etc. 

 

I suspect that the vast majority in my profession would vote Tory, and they would probably benefit me subjectively more than other parties from a financial perspective, but I have always had the outlook of voting for those worse off than me and I am in no doubt that Labour would protect those worse off than me.

 

Even from a personal level, I have come home to see my wife either in tears, or verging on being so, so many times over the past couple of years (and no, not because I've walked through the door ) because of the utter mess that the education system is in.

She's working 10/12 hours a day, and weekends, just to keep her head above the mountain of crap that being a secondary school teacher throws at you. She's had time off for mental health, along with numerous other people in her department, and nothing is being done about it. Teaching is one of the most important professions in any nation and we're failing both our teachers and students on a daily basis and it's leading to 40% of teachers quitting with the first 5 years of joining the profession, and all of this for less than 30k a year. It's a mess and it's time that another party tried to fix it. 

Edited 22 November 2019 by David Guiza

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The various US governments have spent far too much time and money having to kowtow to the religious fundies on this matter. I see no good reason why the UK government need do similarly, barring a sensible week-based cutoff point.

Isn't that the point?  The articel says they want to remove the weeks limit, which is already bloody high in the UK imo.

[ealingfox]

Yes, an increase to that level of public spending would put us up there with tinpot dictatorships and banana republics like *checks notes* The Netherlands, Germany and Portugal!

 

 

 

[Koke]

This guy...

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Yes, an increase to that level of public spending would put us up there with tinpot dictatorships and banana republics like *checks notes* The Netherlands, Germany and Portugal!

 

 

 

Not quite though is it?  More like up there with Greece and Portugal whose economies are frankly screwed.

The main problem though is that Labour are completely deluded as to who pays for it all.  They are completely wrong on the benefits of increasing corporation tax for a start.

[Alf Bentley]

On 21/11/2019 at 00:14, Alf Bentley said:

 

It is a simple fact that, over recent decades and particularly since the crash, a greater share of income has been going to capital and a shrinking share has been going to labour/pay.....and not only in the UK, it's happening across the West, across the advanced capitalist world, although some aspects may be worse in the UK as we've become one of the more laissez-faire countries, behind the USA, and have greater income inequality than other European nations.

 

Just for starters, you know that although UK GDP has risen slowly since the crash, it has risen - yet it's a fact that median pay has been stagnant over the same period, while the growth income accruing to capital has risen....yet not been devoted to investment.

 

This is an excellent, accessible & politically neutral summary of the facts/arguments with good stats: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/135320/economics/labour-share-of-gdp/

 

Look at this graph. The only time since the Edwardian era when labour got a lower share of GDP than it does now was during WW1 & WW2......yet we are afflicted with under-investment, low productivity & ballooning inequality.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I was thinking the same myself. Non stop complaining about Tories and almost hiding from their own manifestos.

 

If you are voting or campaigning for Labour let's hear how you are going to raise 80 billion from taxation without affecting anyone below the rich? Not barely credible, "not even credible as the IFS has said"

 

That's before we even get onto some of more socially controversial policies like reduction or decriminalisation of abortion.

 

You have some chutzpah, Matt.... "Non-stop complaining about Tories"? You've made it your publicly declared mission on here to constantly complain about Labour/Corbyn as a propagandist for the Tories. 

 

I look forward to your analysis of the Tory manifesto. Plus, as I said, the Labour manifesto was only published yesterday. Some posters might have work or families - or want time to digest Labour's plans before commenting. Not everyone is an amateur propagandist with a knee-jerk response ready to go....

 

As for "hiding", I'd be genuinely interested to hear a response from you, @Salisbury Fox or anyone else to my post above, which has elicited no response.

 

Seriously, read the excellent, politically neutral page linked & look at the graph. Apart from WW1 & WW2, working people are now getting a lower share than at any time since the Edwardian era - and it's still falling. That's not purely a judgment on Tory & New Labour govts (though they've contributed to varying degrees) but a structural issue of this stage of advanced capitalism in the West, the mobility of global capital etc. It affects US & EU countries to varying degrees, too. Should nothing be done about that?

 

Anyone can have their views of Labour's plans, fair enough, but what about the underlying situation that they are seeking to address?

A situation where millions are in poverty even when working (Strokes said he didn't find £50k easy, well what's median pay, £26k? So, half the population are earning less than £26k). A situation where an ever lower share of profit / value-added is going to workers and an ever higher share going to capital - often capital stashed offshore - and fueling ever greater inequality, strain on society/public services & public division. 

 

If you don't like Labour's plans for addressing such problems, what are your alternatives? Or are you just happy to see growing poverty in work, insecurity, social squalor, crime, homelessness and the rest?    

 

 

 

[ealingfox]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not quite though is it?  More like up there with Greece and Portugal whose economies are frankly screwed.

The main problem though is that Labour are completely deluded as to who pays for it all.  They are completely wrong on the benefits of increasing corporation tax for a start.

 

It amply demonstrates that simply saying Zimbabwe and Venezuela over and over again is not a cogent argument against targeted increased public spending. And it demonstrates that Labour's plan is not as extreme as is being made out (shock).

 

Why are you so opposed to big business paying their fair share of tax? Seems pretty unpatriotic to back the likes of Google and Amazon in mugging us off to be honest.

[SMX11]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not quite though is it?  More like up there with Greece and Portugal whose economies are frankly screwed.

The main problem though is that Labour are completely deluded as to who pays for it all.  They are completely wrong on the benefits of increasing corporation tax for a start.

To put this in perspective, I am pretty sure I have seen estimates of Soviet Union spending at around 60% of GDP. Shows you have far down the rabbit hole most countries have gone 

[lgfualol]

6 minutes ago, Koke said:

This guy...

 

 

What an odious ****. Just makes me want Labour to win and tax the twat even more.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not quite though is it?  More like up there with Greece and Portugal whose economies are frankly screwed.

 

 

My understanding is that Portugal is now doing well, economically, under its Socialist-led govt.

 

Greece is still a mess, since the EU enforced inflexible austerity on a democratically-elected left-wing govt (which had not been in power when Greece became a financial basket-case).

 

But Ealing's graph makes clear your bias, anyway: under Labour, slightly higher spending than Germany, Holland & Portugal, slightly lower than Greece, Italy & Sweden and a lot lower than Finland or France...

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

The abortion bit has caused quite a stir online - https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/labour-would-totally-decriminalise-abortion-party-spokeswoman-confirms/

Come on, you can't honestly provide that link as a credible source. The actual law is that abortions up to the gestational age of 24 weeks have to be signed of by two doctors. The 1967 abortions act states - Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith.

 

Women and medical practitioners who do not abide by this legislation can face criminal prosecution. All Labour are suggesting is making it the woman's decision, as it should be, but still within the 24 wk gestational time frame. There's very little truth being bandied about by anyone during this election campaign, it's incredibly easy to fact check.

 

 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Bobby Hundreds

[Carl the Llama]

12 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

You lefties are just so innocent and honest.........

 

https://thebrexitparty.com/

 

Now when you get over you faux rage, start to look at the reality and if you want Marxism, then I hope you've got deep pockets to pay for it!!!!

I'll cover the tax contributions for life of the first person able to reasonably explain why the deliberately misleading sharing of information by the governing political party and a private citizen's obvious joke/troll page are equivalently concerning matters.

 

Awkwardly the only person showing hysterical outrage here is the man shouting about Marxists and ending their posts with numerous exclamation points as they defend government disinformation campaigns.

[SMX11]

51 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Give us a break! The manifesto was only published yesterday - and real life intervenes occasionally! My work fluctuates but has been busy lately & my teenage daughter is staying with me continuously for a few weeks.

 

How come you lads have so much spare time? Are you landed gentry, trustafarians or dole wallahs? 

I thought you had a public sector job, Matt? Were you unable to take the stress of such an understaffed, cash-strapped workplace, or is it a zero-hours contract - or are you on secondment to the Tory propaganda dept? 

 

I appreciate your sincere and open-minded desire to understand how Labour will fund their spending/investment. But don't rely on football fans. Here's Labour's own detailed funding explanations:

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-2019.pdf

I look forward to your detailed challenges to their costings - as I'm sure your scepticism isn't founded merely on personal bias or the superficial reports of Tory-supporting media.... 

 

I'm sure there's some excess optimism in Labour's costings. There always is for any political party. In the highly unlikely event they form a majority govt, I'm sure some stuff will not get done or will require extra funds. If they massively increased personal taxation or wrecked the economy, they'd be out of power almost forever, so I'm sure they'd postpone plans and/or make moderate increases in borrowing or tax.......just as the Tories would to fund the excess optimism in their plans. Of course, Labour's only realistic chance of being in govt is as a minority reliant on the support of other parties, anyway, so their plans would be watered down anyway......whereas there's a serious risk that Boris will get a majority so as to implement his reckless, destructive plans without such restraint.

 

The IFS says that Labour's plans lack credibility......but be ready for them to say the same about Tory plans. And I hope that this time the Tories offer a proper costing of their plans (they didn't in 2017).

Here's the IFS on Tory plans so far: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-tory-tax-spending-sajid-javid-boris-johnson-ifs-economy-a9203511.html

 

"Taxes will have to rise to meet Tory spending pledges, independent experts warn, in a stinging criticism of both big parties’ plans. The chancellor, is relying on a £37bn “cushion” – which has already been wiped out – to justify a string of high-cost promises to woo voters, the IFS says. Billions have been announced to replace lost police officers, end the benefits freeze, boost defence, extend childcare and rebuild technical education, in recent weeks".

.......I look forward to news of the Tory tax rises, or to the IFS slating their credibility, too...

 

Briefly, as I've got to work:

- Labour's increases in current expenditure are funded by tax (see pp. 4-5 of first link). Let's hear how the Tories plan to fund their extra spending....purely from extra borrowing?

- It's true that a large hike in interest rates would be ruinous (for either party but more so for Labour as they'd borrow more)....but inadequate investment in necessary infrastructure, decarbonisation, new industries, education/training & health/social care also risks being ruinous to society and economy....and life

- The corporation tax rises will be gradual & will merely return us to mainstream corporate tax levels in the West, after years of bleeding our people to hand inducements to big business

- Labour's spending plans would be above average by Western standards but by no means out on a limb

- Likewise, this morning McDonnell made it clear that the house-building programme would take a few years to get up to speed. But we have built public housing at that rate before (1950s/60s). After a few years to ensure the plans & skills are available, why would we be incapable of doing what we were able to do 50+ years ago?

- "Nationalisation" sounds terribly extreme to the post-Thatcher generation, but almost all the industries cited WERE publicly owned until the 80s/90s (more recently for Royal Mail). And many are fully or partly publicly-owned in multiple European countries. Indeed, we're in the preposterous situation where many of our utility companies & rail companies are indirectly owned, to a substantial extent, by the nationalised power/rail companies in other EU nations. So much for "taking back control"?! 

- Would unemployment rise at a time of such a massive a rise in public investment? I suppose some private firms might "slim down" or relocate, but that would surely be dwarfed by the extra employment created in the public sector, training, new industries etc. Higher pay would also boost consumer spending. I reckon the risks like more in skills shortages and inflation, not unemployment

- Plenty of firms invest in other western nations with higher corporate tax, and union/workers' reps on boards, as in Germany

- The Tories also have to explain how they will handle the economic/social damage & lost tax revenues caused by loss of trade after their favoured Hard Brexit (or No Deal)

 

While I agree with you regarding the Conservative spending plans. I think you must be living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the bond yields wouldn't spike significantly if Labour won the election, borrowing money will cost significantly more than today and I believe we are already spending in the region of £40-50 billion a year currently on servicing debt. This far into an economic 'expansion' to borrow in this care free Keynesian style is totally irresponsible. The only way I can think they will do it is by leaning on (or nationalising) the Bank of England to monetise the debt.

 

The Conservatives have as per usual adopted the language of the left and this relatively mild period of 'austerity' is bigged up more than it is, they should be looking at closing some government departments and cutting corporate welfare etc to help fund any tax cuts but I won't hold my breath.   

Edited 22 November 2019 by SMX11