How Labour have implemented the 2005 Conservative Mainfesto
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:45:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  How Labour have implemented the 2005 Conservative Mainfesto
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: How Labour have implemented the 2005 Conservative Mainfesto  (Read 5472 times)
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2007, 08:29:45 AM »


...who support privatising the Post Office, savage cuts to the Welfare State (or at least the parts of it that, you know, help working class people, as opposed to the sort of people who vote LibDem. They would, of course, expand it for them) that go beyond anything that the Tories dare to speak of these days and in general taking from the poor and giving it to the middle.

And this is just under Campbell. The next LibDem leader will almost certainly be further to the Right than him.
Hearing about their platform makes me favor them even more.

Because you're an economic reactionary Tongue

Dave
Now now I support economic reforms... just not ones that move us closer to social democracy.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2007, 08:31:26 AM »

Basically, if an election was held today, you would vote Labour if you want to vote Tory, vote Tory if you want to vote LibDem, and vote LibDem if you want to be spiteful Smiley

You're not far wrong Smiley I will vote Conservative because I am a classic liberal on personal freedom, civil liberties and an unobtrusive non surveillance state. Cameron has to stand up for 'Liberal England' because Menzies is to weak to do so.

All a bit hypocritical as far as Cameron goes since he seeks to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights. For me rights and liberties are pretty much indistinguishable

As for the surveillance state, there is a very fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties. We don't, alas, live in an ideal world, and if surveillance exists to prevent those individuals and groups who threaten freedom from crossling that line, it's all well and good Smiley. This is why such measures as wire-tapping, ID cards and a DNA database serve only to enhance our rights and liberties

Furthermore, with rights and liberties comes responsibilities . Such felons as terrorists and violent criminals should forgoe their rights and liberties as far as I'm concerned

Dave
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2007, 08:34:14 AM »


...who support privatising the Post Office, savage cuts to the Welfare State (or at least the parts of it that, you know, help working class people, as opposed to the sort of people who vote LibDem. They would, of course, expand it for them) that go beyond anything that the Tories dare to speak of these days and in general taking from the poor and giving it to the middle.

And this is just under Campbell. The next LibDem leader will almost certainly be further to the Right than him.
Hearing about their platform makes me favor them even more.

Because you're an economic reactionary Tongue

Dave
Now now I support economic reforms... just not ones that move us closer to social democracy.

I'm pretty much a 'Third Way' centrist, a renewed social democrat, where the public and the private work together for the common good of society. I've no qualms with capitalism 'with a conscience', indeed, it's where it lacks such a conscience where I object

I've already pointed out what I don't like about neo-liberalism

Dave
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2007, 08:38:35 AM »

I never said I favored neoliberalism/club for growth type economics. I favor policies more in line with the DLC.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2007, 09:23:18 AM »

All a bit hypocritical as far as Cameron goes since he seeks to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights. For me rights and liberties are pretty much indistinguishable.

Theres nothing wrong with the ECHR; it's the Human Rights Act, put in place to impliment it that is the problem (and thats what the Conservative wish to repeal). Labour was warned at the time that as a nation without a modern bill of rights or the equivalent and without a written constitution, we did not have the legal traditions or framework in place that would restrain the possible excesses of the ECHR. Other countries do, and the implementation of the ECHR (which I support) was never a problem. Here it is, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Human Rights Act (not the ECHR) to be abolished, a 'Bill of Rights' drawn up with the ECHR in mind and then the probable 'opt in' to the ECHR again down the line.

This is why such measures as wire-tapping, ID cards and a DNA database serve only to enhance our rights and liberties

As of today, government agencies have a right to seize logs of all landline and mobile calls made in the UK. If this was for 'security' reasons, then surely it should be made avaliable only to the security services and the Home Office? No, it's being made avaliable to everyone from the borough council, to the CSA to HM Revenue and Customs.

ID cards are an expensive experiment in pointlessness. The fact it will now be a crime to walk down the street without ID on you is the least of the many problems. The government says ID cards stop terrorism. At least they did until July 7th 2005, when if the bombers had ID cards terrorism wouldn't have been stopped. We'd simply have found the charred remains of their ID cards (unless, as any terrorist with half a brain cell knows, leave your ID behind if you dont want to get traced) which would have told us the same bloody information we already knew Smiley

That is unless they start checking ID as well as tickets on the trains in which case they would have been rumbled (but would still have blown themselves up, just right infront of the ticket inspector) or realised that while you might not want to carry ID with you, if you need it to get on the train you want to blow up, then you may as well bring it with you!

Then they said it was about cracking down on benefit fraud. That lasted all of one or two policy announcements before it was realised that most benefit fraud was caused by people claiming for things they shouldn't or for ilnesses they don't have rather than having a plethora of multiple identities.

All the government says about ID cards is that 'they are good.' For what, well they're still working that one out.

Furthermore, with rights and liberties comes responsibilities . Such felons as terrorists and violent criminals should forgoe their rights and liberties as far as I'm concerned

Yes they should forgoe some rights and liberties, but only if they are convicted. (Which, is difficult to square with your defense of the ECHR and HRA which has, in some cases rightly provided for more civil liberties in prisons and for felons) Alas for many people gathered up and thrown into jail during a terror sweep for what could soon be 56 or even 90 days without charge, why should their liberties and 800 years of legal tradition be thrown out? These people are not even terrorist 'suspects' as the reasons for the arrest and detention are not laid out to them.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2007, 10:53:21 AM »

Anyone else a little freaked by names like Brown, Menzies and Howard when discussing politics? That would be a triumverate of pain in the Australian context.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2007, 12:13:12 PM »

Slight change of focus here...

Never mind two years ago; how about policies from a week ago! The government now 'nicks' the Tories IHT policy after one week, except it doesn't quite implement it correctly Wink Still the thought is there, and the whole 'marriage' thing.

Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2007, 12:40:08 PM »

A few points on the Chancellor's 'spending review'

Firstly, the lowering of economic forecasts. A sensible cautious thing to do given that it is too early to tell any wider possible effect of the “credit crunch”. Now for the more contentious stuff.

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened Smiley

I gather the non-domicile issue is going to wider consultation no doubt as to ascertain its feasibility and practicality. Do the ‘gains’ from it trump any potential ‘losses’ from imposing it? It’s important to establish that before proceeding with it.

The government may well have been looking at IHT long before Osborne’s proposals came to fruition, though that will no doubt come with some cynicism and derision. Resentment, however misguided (any one would think ALL estates paid it as it stood, which couldn’t be further from the truth), has been growing and, to a point, governments should, conditions allowing, be responsive. As for taxing non-domiciles this is something I understand Brown considered this as far back as 1995 when Shadow Chancellor.

As I’ve stated I have misgivings about taxing non-domiciles since I’m concerned it could pose wider economic risks and I’m standing by that. I feel much the same re-private equity; though most will agree they are too lightly taxed. Economic stability matters more than tax-cut giveaways here or tax-hikes there (to me anyway). Threaten that and we all potential losers Sad. And I don't trust the Tories on that score, given their track record

As for the tax on planes, this irks me since the cost will, ultimately, fall on passengers not the airlines. Still, there seems to be something of a tri-partisan consensus here. Not enough of that in British politics.

As for the rest of the spending review? Steady away Smiley

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2007, 02:59:47 PM »

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened Smiley

Oh come on now Dave Smiley It's the same clothes, just shabbier and more exposed material Wink
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2007, 09:21:18 PM »

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened Smiley

Oh come on now Dave Smiley It's the same clothes, just shabbier and more exposed material Wink

Since when did the Conservative Party have a monopoly on matters fiscal? Labour are just as entitled to cut, and raise, taxes as they fit Smiley. Labour don't cut taxes out of some ideological 'whim' founded on 'freedom'; nor do they, particularly, raise them out of some dogmatic 'folly' founded on 'equality' any more. Labour is a centre-left party, ideologically, a blend of Third Way and social democratic thought; though, constitutionally, of course, a democratic socialist party

Nevertheless, Labour have not raised the IHT threshold to £1m nor have they said they'll impose a flat levy of £25,000 on non-domiciles (I have misgivings as to whether such a levy should be imposed at all). So, no they have not stolen Tory clothes; any more than the Tories have stolen Labour's by talking about 'social justice' [something which the neo-liberal Right once had nothing but contempt for]. I'm sure increasing the tax on private equity will play well inside much of the Labour "big tent" but even there I have misgivings

The tax on flights, meanwhile, seems to be something of an area of tri-partisan consensus; originally, Lib Dem, then Tory, now Labour. I don't like it Sad whether levied on the airlines or on passengers, because the latter will bear the brunt regardless. These so-called 'green taxes' are all very well but I see the burden fall, disproportionately, on lower and middle earners

Economic stability matters more to me than any personal gain or loss. Nothing comes at a cost to something else, like with the cut in the base rate of income tax from 22p to 20p that has come at the price of scrapping the 10p starting rate, which Labour introduced in 1999, IIRC, which will benefit some more than others. I'd have liked the 22p to be reduced to 20p and the 10p rate stayed, but we can't always get what we want

With the best will in the world, no government, doesn't matter which party, is going to please all of the people all of the time Wink but without economic stability we are ALL potential LOSERS

Personally, I wouldn't have acted much on IHT. I see nothing wrong with incremental increases in the threshold, year on year, conditions allowing. I'd take an 'incremental' approach from Labour over any Conservative 'radical' approach. Not that strictly speaking Conservatives are radical; in fact, I'd feel more comfortable if they weren't

Labour has accepted much of the 'Thatcherite Settlement'. There is no going back to public ownership and such. It doesn't alter the fact that I hold 'neo-liberal' economics in much disdain given its mass welfare dependency legacy, which is way over and beyond what more 'new liberal' thought intended welfare to be

How do you think we have that ruptured society (my ruptured, Dave's "broken")? It's a consequence of the expansion of market forces, which tended to undermine social institutions like the family, the community, which are integral to social cohesion. No doubt cultural liberal attitudes played its part too. That is why capitalism does, to some extent, require regulation to protect humankind from its excesses

BTW, do you agree with SeanT that Labour is now a Christian Democratic Party in all-but name? I wouldn't mind if it was Smiley

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2007, 02:45:48 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2007, 04:51:33 AM by afleitch »

Dave, the Labour Party could become anything it wants; you'd still back it! I agree with SeanT on PB on the direction Labour is heading, it's not there yet and may never be if it keeps following our lot around Smiley

The morning the government, rightly has taken a walloping in the press this morning and I'm looking forward to PMQ's today. It was a smokescreen (that didn't in fact 'screen' anything) the fact that growth would slow and borrowing soar by £22bn. Part of me is pleased the Conservatives are setting the agenda but, as usual can't quite get that right. Turns out couples can already transfer allowances; 500,000 do, and all Darling did was re-confirm what we already know.

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary. It's been in an ideological drift since about 2003, but more distinctively so since 2005 when the election, and with an unpopular PM, the party is dedicated to it's own survival in government. It's been drifting aimlessly since then and Gordon hasn't helped. He keeps talking about his 'vision' but we don't quite know what that vision is, because everytime he gives us a tidbit along comes a bad poll and where he stands changes. We've had the government over the course of the week mount a feeble attack on Conservative tax policy (and abusing the role of the civil service), followed by a partial implementation of five of those policies in the budget announcement.

This was the announcement that was brought forward for an election that was never called by a PM who stated he never wished to call it in the first place. Yet his own notes captured by the TV cameras show otherwise; that it was the polls that influenced him not to go to the country. And yet we are meant to believe that he is a 'conviction' politician.

This just cannot go on. Cameron's credibility has escalated only by comparison. Brown has now became quite predictable and the media have caught onto this. At the next European summit, it is almost certain that Brown will fake a confrontation over the EU Treaty to make him look 'tough' and try to negate the need for a referendum and I'm willing to be quoted on that.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2007, 05:07:45 AM »

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary.

For that I'm going to cease to take anything you say about political issues seriously. Have fun in your own little fantasyland though.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2007, 05:35:52 AM »

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary.

For that I'm going to cease to take anything you say about political issues seriously. Have fun in your own little fantasyland though.

Al, that's bordering on the childish and I would have thought better of you. Instead of being dismissive if you disagree with me calling Labour a 'reactionary' party, a party that reacts to the opposition and events rather than setting it's own agenda, give reasons why they are not and i'll take them on board instead of just dismissing them off hand.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2007, 01:42:24 PM »

Dave, the Labour Party could become anything it wants; you'd still back it! I agree with SeanT on PB on the direction Labour is heading, it's not there yet and may never be if it keeps following our lot around Smiley

The morning the government, rightly has taken a walloping in the press this morning and I'm looking forward to PMQ's today. It was a smokescreen (that didn't in fact 'screen' anything) the fact that growth would slow and borrowing soar by £22bn. Part of me is pleased the Conservatives are setting the agenda but, as usual can't quite get that right. Turns out couples can already transfer allowances; 500,000 do, and all Darling did was re-confirm what we already know.

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary. It's been in an ideological drift since about 2003, but more distinctively so since 2005 when the election, and with an unpopular PM, the party is dedicated to it's own survival in government. It's been drifting aimlessly since then and Gordon hasn't helped. He keeps talking about his 'vision' but we don't quite know what that vision is, because everytime he gives us a tidbit along comes a bad poll and where he stands changes. We've had the government over the course of the week mount a feeble attack on Conservative tax policy (and abusing the role of the civil service), followed by a partial implementation of five of those policies in the budget announcement.

Andrew Smiley,

Has Labour increased the IHT threshold to £1m? No. That's the Conservative policy

Has Labour said ALL non-domiciles will be levied £25,000? No. That's the Conservative policy

As for the 'flight tax' wasn't that a Lib Dem policy, adopted by the Conservatives and now by the government? Nevertheless, a breath of fresh air. Something of a tri-partisan consensus Wink

It's highly possible Brown and Darling were looking across a range of taxes in preparing the PBS and CSR long before Osborne announced his IHT proposals at the Conservative Party Conference.

I was asked today by a Conservative friend if I thought that the government's possible proposals had possibly been leaked somehow to Osborne, who then sought to launch a pre-emptive strike on IHT. I must admit that the thought hadn't even crossed my mind until then

We know growth in the economy is most likely to slow as a consequence of the "credit crunch". The IMF has warned of it; while the OECD has said that interest rates may need to fall to boost growth. Of course, the B of E is likely to keep them on hold until such time as they feel inflation (it's economic stability 'litmus' test) stays within target

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you in all seriousness think that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were actually ready for a snap election? I don't. Not to mention a host of practical reasons. Cameron got what he set out to do which was to stall any possible election

I could understand the media being upset had Brown, definitely, said that there was going to be an election and then went back on that but he didn't

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's me thinking David Cameron had pledged an end to yah-boo politics with an aim towards setting a civil tone. That didn't last long

As for the EU Treaty, what happens will happen ...

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2007, 01:55:19 PM »


I could understand the media being upset had Brown, definitely, said that there was going to be an election and then went back on that but he didn't


The media are angry at being fed a drip, drip, drip of information regarding the election from within the Labour Party and within the government, being briefed that policy announcements were being coincidently moved forward for the expected shutdown this week. What was expected, indeed what they were told turned out to be wrong. It only turned out to be wrong because Gordon called it off. If, as I've said before Brown didn't want to go to the country he should have shut that speculation down but he chose not to. It's poor judgement at the least and poor leadership at worst.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that had the weekend briefing on the marginals etc been productive Gordon would have called an election.

It doesn't help that Gordon said one thing but his notes, caught by the camera, said another with regards the polls. Only one of them can be right Smiley

The media feel like they've been taken for a ride and they need to vent off some steam.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2007, 02:09:52 PM »

Al, that's bordering on the childish and I would have thought better of you. Instead of being dismissive if you disagree with me calling Labour a 'reactionary' party, a party that reacts to the opposition and events rather than setting it's own agenda, give reasons why they are not and i'll take them on board instead of just dismissing them off hand.

When I see the word "reactionary" used I assume that it has a capital R. As you don't seem to have used that version of the word, I take back what I said.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2007, 02:16:54 PM »

Al, that's bordering on the childish and I would have thought better of you. Instead of being dismissive if you disagree with me calling Labour a 'reactionary' party, a party that reacts to the opposition and events rather than setting it's own agenda, give reasons why they are not and i'll take them on board instead of just dismissing them off hand.

When I see the word "reactionary" used I assume that it has a capital R. As you don't seem to have used that version of the word, I take back what I said.

Oh I don't see them as anywhere near 'clerical' (even in Lanarkshire! Smiley ) Any party that went down that route would simply be expelled from public affections for a few generations. I suppose 'reactive' would have been a better word.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2007, 06:33:47 PM »


The media feel like they've been taken for a ride and they need to vent off some steam.

Even I Cheesy have to do that every once in a while Wink

Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2007, 08:17:24 PM »

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary.

Labour, if anything, takes an incrementalist, rather than radical, approach to realising it's goals and objectives. Labour has, of course, reacted to Tory radical plans for IHT by making it's own more modest proposals, which may well have been in the works long before Osborne's announced his to much 'hype'

Any one would have thought Osborne's proposal was on par with the Second Coming, given the way it was spun by Tory cheerleaders. In the grand schme of things is increasing the IHT threshold from £300,000 to £1m absolutely necessary ? I think not Wink

A threshold of £450,000, then increasing it incrementally in line with the average increase in house prices, would have sufficed.

Are you familiar with Steptoe and Son ? Albert was a don't rise above yourself Tory while the aspiring Harold was Labour . In the film Harold is planning for his "son" to go to Eton or Harrow and suggests that old man pay for it (he'd be dead by then) Albert didn't like that  and said "He can stand on his own two feet like I had to. I don't approve of inherited wealth"

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2007, 05:15:39 AM »

Oh almost forgot - a married couples tax cut has also been 'pinched'Smiley

This is the same proposal as the one Gordon Brown went on the Today programme to condemn as ''disadvantaging widows and abandoned wives.''

There may still be a few Conservative tax proposals they haven't yet taken on board but i'll report on them in due course I'm sure Wink
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2007, 10:05:47 AM »

Oh almost forgot - a married couples tax cut has also been 'pinched'Smiley

This is the same proposal as the one Gordon Brown went on the Today programme to condemn as ''disadvantaging widows and abandoned wives.''

There may still be a few Conservative tax proposals they haven't yet taken on board but i'll report on them in due course I'm sure Wink


As far as I'm concerned all families matter Smiley . There's a moral argument for that as well as marriage

Labour, if they have a will to do so, can take the initiative by introducing tax cuts of their own. We CAN do, the Tories CAN'T. I trust Labour to make more modest, realistic proposals than any of Osborne's more grand proposals, which were, frankly, 'over-hyped' by right-wing cheerleaders in the press

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Labour was wrong to propose changes to IHT, non-doms, CGT, as well as the 'flight tax' in the PRB (whether they had been prepared before Osborne's announcements or otherwise). There is nothing that couldn't have waited until the Budget proper

Not to mention the fact I have strong reservations about any of these 'ideas' whether on the part of Darling, Osborne or Cable, which I have already voiced, most vociferously

The bottom-line for me is "Economic stability BEFORE tax cuts and/or tax changes". I'm getting really peeved off with these silly little games of one-upmanship Sad

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2007, 10:25:52 AM »

Particularly when the govt isn't getting 'one up' but instead has fallen prey, as some polls have shown, to spin and copy cat tactics. It's just demonstrating that the Conservatives are setting the agenda. If you let the other side set the agenda (as the SNP did in Scotland) then you loose the long game.

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 15, 2007, 10:37:03 AM »


And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 15, 2007, 11:50:41 AM »


And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave

I didn't say an 'increase' I said 'continued investment.' Personally I don't think public services need any more money. Spending needs to be capped inline with inflation until they can sort out their internal finances, gut the bureaucrats and  throw out the 'consultants.' Then after two or three years they can increase or decrease spending according to need. And thats the problem; this myth that public services need more money each and every year and we need to pay more and more in tax (or else we'll loose 'doctors'n'nurses') or else it will fall apart is a myth that needs to be exposed for what it is.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 15, 2007, 12:13:04 PM »


And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave

I didn't say an 'increase' I said 'continued investment.' Personally I don't think public services need any more money. Spending needs to be capped inline with inflation until they can sort out their internal finances, gut the bureaucrats and  throw out the 'consultants.' Then after two or three years they can increase or decrease spending according to need. And thats the problem; this myth that public services need more money each and every year and we need to pay more and more in tax (or else we'll loose 'doctors'n'nurses') or else it will fall apart is a myth that needs to be exposed for what it is.

Would you gut the bureaucrats through compulsory redundancy (unacceptable), voluntary redundancy (somewhat acceptable) or through natural wastage (acceptable)?

Perhaps public spending need not have been accelerated to the extent that it has had the public services not been starved of cash beforehand

Dave
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 11 queries.