Time to cut through the crap

[IC1967]

Labour or Tories? Who to vote for.

I believe ultimately it depends on who you think will run the economy better. So what is the major difference.

Put simply the national debt will be £90bn higher under Labour than under the Tories at the end of the parliament. The Tories would cut unprotected departments by £30bn and Labour by only £1bn.

So it boils down to whether you think there is going to be another big financial crisis during the next 5 years. If there is then we'd be able to borrow more under the Tories plan and a lot less under Labour.

Under Labour we could be turned into another Greece. Under the Tories we'd have a bit more room for manoeuvre.

I think the way the Eurozone is shaping up and other forces at work worldwide there is a very high likelihood of another major financial crisis in the next 5 years.

So its up to you what you do.

I'll still be voting Labour as I think they'll finish themselves off within 2 years of being in power anyway.

Short term pain for long term gain.

[wilts rover]

Wot no UKIP? Surely uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing?

If what you are saying is true, then surely it would be madness to throw 10's of thousands more people out of work, thus loosing tax revenue and increasing welfare spending whilst also having a knock-one effect to any private suppliers?

I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, I could vote for next door's chickens and they would still get back in.

[IC1967]

Wot no UKIP? Surely uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing?

If what you are saying is true, then surely it would be madness to throw 10's of thousands more people out of work, thus loosing tax revenue and increasing welfare spending whilst also having a knock-one effect to any private suppliers?

I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, I could vote for next door's chickens and they would still get back in.

UKIP won't be forming the next government. The time to vote UKIP will be the election after this one. I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.

We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.

Who said anything about throwing thousands out of work? There would be job losses in the public sector but the people affected would soon find a job in the growing private sector. I don't know why you automatically assume they would go on benefits.

Look. Let's get one thing straight that you lefties don't seem to understand. The private sector pays for the public sector. Without a thriving private sector there is no public sector. The private sector creates wealth. The public sector uses up some of this wealth. The public sector does not create wealth. When the public sector gets too big it becomes too big a burden for the private sector to be able to handle. Labour always push us down that path.

I'd say having a public sector that is 30% of the economy is about right. Going over 50% like Labour did is economics of the madhouse.

[Al4475]

Very sad to admit but to be frank I don't give a rat's ass - they're all as bad as each other! I can't see any one party of any persuasion making the slightest bit of difference to anybody other than themselves! Not bothered unfortunately until someone comes along who can make a difference without simply arguing the toss and badmouthing anyone who happens to belong to any different crew!

[BillyStubbsTears]

I guess you didn't hear the news today then, where the IFS noted that there are very major differences between the spending plans of Labour and the Tories.

The old line that "they are all the same" has never been true and it is not true now. Whichever of the two main parties forms a Govt next May, we will be on a a path to a very different society over the next decade. It's not good enough to say "they are all the same". They aren't you need to make a decision about what you want the country to be like.

[Al4475]

And therein lies my dilemma bst - I don't like the way labour have run donny, I don't like the way the cons have run the country, the lib dems seem to be yes men, I don't particularly think farage and ukip have much to offer (altho I kinda agree with britain for the brits primarily - but not to any major lengths) - maybe the greens are for me - but that's a complete no vote as it'll make the sum of the square root of FAs difference! Very sad isn't it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on. I couldn't help myself having a quick shufty at laddo's latest dribbling.

He vomits up the most idle of comments. "The private sector creates wealth. The public sector uses up some of this wealth. The public sector does not create wealth."

Aye well. Let's have a think about things that define our current world compared to that of 100 years ago. Things that underpin the efficiency of how we operate today, compared to how we operated in the days of the horseless carriage.

Did the private sector invent the jet engine? Nope.

Or the computer? Nope.

Or the internet? Nope.

Did the private sector build the motorway network? Nope

Did it fund the overwhelming majority of our university system? Nope.

Did it build our sewers? Or our reservoirs? Nope.

Did it build and pay for  the majority of our schools that educate the kids who will be the next generation's ideas people? Nope.

ALL of those things are vital to giving us the potential to grow. None of them came from the private sector.

Mick, in his usual one-dimensional rant, starts from the assumption that everything of worth comes from the private sector and is devoured by the public sector.

It is patent nonsense, as a glance at that list will show you.

A thriving modern capitalist economy has to have a synergy between the private and the public. There are things that the public sector does badly and the private sector does brilliantly. There are other things that are crucial for growth and wealth that the private sector does appalling badly, or not at all, because the timescales are too long, or the payback is too uncertain for the specific company involved, even if it is obvious that the whole of society and the whole economy will benefit. Like R&D. Like massive infrastructure projects.

Mick is caught up in his own little 1-D world where everything is simple and obvious. The rest of us realise that there are balances to be struck if we are going to be a thriving country.

Next month, the Tories are saying that they will cut ALL Govt spending, current AND infrastructure investement. They have previous. They savagely cut infrastructure spending in 2010-12 and that went a long way to giving us the worst recovery from recession in 200 years. And to giving us a recovery that, when it DID come, came without productivity increases that are necessary to make us all richer. Labour are saying that they will be prepared to continue to borrow for strategic infrastructure investment.

Make your mind up which approach you think is most suitable.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AI4475

That's life mate. No political party is perfect for anyone. You make the choice of which one you think, on balance, will lead to the best (or least-worst) outcome. It DOES matter.

[Iberian Red]

I misunderstood the title of the opening post, for a minute I thought somebody was taking a pair of scissors to the op.

[Al4475]

The 'least worst outcome as opposed to the best outcome' - I like that BST! I will no doubt head to the polling stations in may - but as of yet have no idea where my cross is going - least worst sounds a a good measure to go by!

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's never any better than that!

[IC1967]

Go on. I couldn't help myself having a quick shufty at laddo's latest dribbling.

He vomits up the most idle of comments. "The private sector creates wealth. The public sector uses up some of this wealth. The public sector does not create wealth."

Aye well. Let's have a think about things that define our current world compared to that of 100 years ago. Things that underpin the efficiency of how we operate today, compared to how we operated in the days of the horseless carriage.

Did the private sector invent the jet engine? Nope.

Or the computer? Nope.

Or the internet? Nope.

Did the private sector build the motorway network? Nope

Did it fund the overwhelming majority of our university system? Nope.

Did it build our sewers? Or our reservoirs? Nope.

Did it build and pay for  the majority of our schools that educate the kids who will be the next generation's ideas people? Nope.

ALL of those things are vital to giving us the potential to grow. None of them came from the private sector.

Mick, in his usual one-dimensional rant, starts from the assumption that everything of worth comes from the private sector and is devoured by the public sector.

It is patent nonsense, as a glance at that list will show you.

A thriving modern capitalist economy has to have a synergy between the private and the public. There are things that the public sector does badly and the private sector does brilliantly. There are other things that are crucial for growth and wealth that the private sector does appalling badly, or not at all, because the timescales are too long, or the payback is too uncertain for the specific company involved, even if it is obvious that the whole of society and the whole economy will benefit. Like R&D. Like massive infrastructure projects.

Mick is caught up in his own little 1-D world where everything is simple and obvious. The rest of us realise that there are balances to be struck if we are going to be a thriving country.

Next month, the Tories are saying that they will cut ALL Govt spending, current AND infrastructure investement. They have previous. They savagely cut infrastructure spending in 2010-12 and that went a long way to giving us the worst recovery from recession in 200 years. And to giving us a recovery that, when it DID come, came without productivity increases that are necessary to make us all richer. Labour are saying that they will be prepared to continue to borrow for strategic infrastructure investment.

Make your mind up which approach you think is most suitable.

Admit it. You're just like Bob. You pretend I'm blocked but I'm not.

I've read some drivel in my time but this lot takes the biscuit. I can't be arsed with going through that stupid list you've come up with so I'll just take one as an example and one of your fatuous statements.

Did it build and pay for  the majority of our schools that educate the kids who will be the next generation's ideas people? Nope.

ALL of those things are vital to giving us the potential to grow. None of them came from the private sector.

Where do you think the money came from to allow the government to fund our schools? The private sector of course.

All the examples you give would not have happened if there wasn't initially wealth created by the private sector to fund the public sector. The existence of the public sector depends on a thriving private sector that creates wealth to pay for it.

It's very simple. We could survive with just a private sector. We could not survive with just a public sector because there would be nothing to pay for it.

Got it, get it, good.

[Hounslowrover]

So Mick no public sector money at all helps fund schools? Private wealth pays for the buildings; funding for teacher training and salaries comes only from the private sector?
Where do my taxes go as someone who worked in the public sector, enlighten me. Not only national taxes, but local ones too.
Why does the private sector allow such disparities in pupil funding across the country if they pay for it?
My taxes are part of the wealth of this country and I find it insulting that my contribution to society is meaningless according to you and because of private sector wealth.  It's also practically impossible to avoid or evade taxes when paid in the public sector.  As a retired headteacher my salary was paid by the LEA and known to my staff or anyone if they wanted to look.  Some in the wealth creating private sector seem to prefer avoiding tax rather than support the country's infrastructure etc.

[IC1967]

So Mick no public sector money at all helps fund schools? Private wealth pays for the buildings; funding for teacher training and salaries comes only from the private sector?
Where do my taxes go as someone who worked in the public sector, enlighten me. Not only national taxes, but local ones too.
Why does the private sector allow such disparities in pupil funding across the country if they pay for it?
My taxes are part of the wealth of this country and I find it insulting that my contribution to society is meaningless according to you and because of private sector wealth.  It's also practically impossible to avoid or evade taxes when paid in the public sector.  As a retired headteacher my salary was paid by the LEA and known to my staff or anyone if they wanted to look.  Some in the wealth creating private sector seem to prefer avoiding tax rather than support the country's infrastructure etc.

Look. Its very simple. The private sector creates wealth which funds the public sector. There was no public sector before the private sector. Wealth created by the private sector paid for the start of the public sector. It pays for its continuation. Money you paid in taxes is merely recycled money that has previously come from the private sector. That is the fundamental point you are missing.
The private sector doesn't decide disparities in pupil funding. It provides the money that is then distributed by the public sector.

Ask yourself a basic question. If there was no private sector do you think there would still be the public sector we currently have. No there wouldn't be. I'm not saying it would be ideal but we could survive with no public sector. There is a fundamental lack of logic in saying the public sector creates wealth. If that was true we could do away with the private sector and create the utopia that lefties want. Lets just have a public sector then if it is capable of creating the wealth we need to run the country. It won't happen.

I think those of you in the public sector need to cop yourselves on and show a bit of gratitude to the private sector for keeping you in the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed (especially you with your fat cat final salary pension denied to most of the private sector).

http://citywire.co.uk/money/public-sector-pensions-to-cost-uk-households-1230-a-year/a631621

[Snods Shinpad 2]

I'm not saying it would be ideal but we could survive with no public sector.

A Kipper that doesn't believe we need armed forces?

Now there's a new one.

[IC1967]

I'm not saying it would be ideal but we could survive with no public sector.

A Kipper that doesn't believe we need armed forces?

Now there's a new one.

Not quite. I prefer some public sector (30% of the economy). We could always have a private army you know.

[Snods Shinpad 2]

I'm not saying it would be ideal but we could survive with no public sector.

A Kipper that doesn't believe we need armed forces?

Now there's a new one.

Not quite. I prefer some public sector (30% of the economy). We could always have a private army you know.

A Kipper that would privatise the armed forces?

Now there's a new one.