General Election 2017
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 OknotOK  Cockfosters, London 12 May 17 1.39pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
No there isn't. Nor was National Rail the wonder that some suggest. But nationalisation of the railways has failed to deliver a massive improvement in service (other than increases in customer numbers) but has seen prices rise completely out of sync with inflation and continued under investment. The problem is that the railways aren't a natural fit for the market as it has been implemented. Because there is not genuine competition. It could have been done better and then might have worked but the franchise system that we have is not an effective one. Nationalisation doesn't make sense in all instances. The Royal Mail for example has been quite successful as a privatisation, the energy industry works to an extent (there is competition and the consumers who switch do experience benefits, but too few are still using that). The abolition of tuition fees, while expensive, is welcome. There is stuff in the leaked manifesto that needs discussion. And deserves it. And the likelihood is that - as has been shown a few times already - Labour will manage to push the agenda into the Tory plans. But some of it seems nonsense. Edited by OknotOK (12 May 2017 1.43pm)
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 12 May 17 1.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
Have you asked Google? Wow...never thought of that. Are you some kind of super researcher?
If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 1.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
I wouldnt say it was disproved...as you,I and others have pointed out in various ways everyone has an angle. It was however a very interesting article...but even on the article looking through the comments (ignoring the blatantly politically biased ones) that tried to interpret the data further...there was more than enough doubt as to the context within which the data used dealt with other extenuating drivers / factors for both sides figures. As an analyst myself that was clear to see...for anyone other than those happy to just accept the data on face value. The previous comment was that Labour get the country into mega debt. However the data suggests the Tories borrow more and always have done. To argue that it's Labour's fault, which is what the poster said, would imply that over the 42 years that the Tories have been in power they've been forced to borrow due to Labour's spending. That's utterly incredible and suggests that the Tories own policies had nothing to do with it. I find it hard to explain these figures in the context of 42 years of borrowing being the fault of the party NOT in government at the time. This is true even taking into account inflation and ignoring the GFC. The biggest surplus run over those 70 years was in the post-war Labour government, which undertook significant government led expansionary Keynesian economic policies. But all of this data could just be coincidental.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 12 May 17 1.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Labour go silent on Brexit and Corbyn cannot, when questioned, we'll actually leave, even though article 50 has been triggered. Edited by Rudi Hedman (12 May 2017 11.13am) I think to be fair Labour did come out afterwards and say that Corbyn would go through with Brexit. And more importantly, Corbyn himself was always in favour of Brexit, that just happened to be contrary to the policy of the PLP. But by not answering LK questioning, I think Corbyn was hoping to leave it sufficiently up in the air that he might convince some Remainers to vote Labour. I think personally it risked making Labour look even more confused.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
You tell me then where all this dosh is coming from that comrade Corbyn is going to spend in his "plans"?? Borrowing has increased under the Tories and they've managed to do very little about the deficit despite claiming they would. Blair and Brown managed to run a surplus at points during the last Labour government, however, in line with sensible economic practice they borrowed to invest in the economy, but kept borrowing at a low ratio to GDP. The increases in borrowing came about due to the GFC, which was due to excessive risk taking by financial institutions allowed by a lack of regulation - something you can criticise the last government for, however it was part of a worldwide trend towards light touch regulation of banking and financial services. It was not down to government policy on public spending. To suggest it was is incorrect. When the manifesto is released we can see what Labour plan in terms of raising the necessary funds, however what is perfectly doable is using QE as a means of providing funds for investment via a national investment bank. QE can be used to fund fiscal spending without impacting on inflation until the economy is at full employment.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 12 May 17 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Borrowing has increased under the Tories and they've managed to do very little about the deficit despite claiming they would. Blair and Brown managed to run a surplus at points during the last Labour government, however, in line with sensible economic practice they borrowed to invest in the economy, but kept borrowing at a low ratio to GDP. The increases in borrowing came about due to the GFC, which was due to excessive risk taking by financial institutions allowed by a lack of regulation - something you can criticise the last government for, however it was part of a worldwide trend towards light touch regulation of banking and financial services. It was not down to government policy on public spending. To suggest it was is incorrect. When the manifesto is released we can see what Labour plan in terms of raising the necessary funds, however what is perfectly doable is using QE as a means of providing funds for investment via a national investment bank. QE can be used to fund fiscal spending without impacting on inflation until the economy is at full employment. That did not stop Labour piling on the debt we are still paying off..... What was the note left by the Labour minister when they got kicked out of office "There is no money left we spent it all".
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 3.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
That did not stop Labour piling on the debt we are still paying off..... What was the note left by the Labour minister when they got kicked out of office "There is no money left we spent it all". It seems you forgot to read the rest of my post.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
That did not stop Labour piling on the debt we are still paying off..... What was the note left by the Labour minister when they got kicked out of office "There is no money left we spent it all". How many times... [Link] The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Tory Britain. Are you really going to vote for more of the same? (or worse)
2017 is the time we must stop and consider reforming police pay. Political representation of police pay reforms should be a vital issue for Theresa May and her government as we approach the general election on June 8th. The first female Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher discovered the harsh reality of policing when she achieved election in 1979, her reforms were radical and she quickly learnt that she needed the police on her side. She was an unpopular prime minister and she needed the support of the police. As Prime Minters goes she was very unpopular with the youth and they caused her government and the police some headaches, they rebelled and caused riots up and down the country. Thatcher needed the support of the police. Thatcher discovered by the help of the Edmund-Davies Review that police officers were poor, they could not afford to buy their homes or put food on the tables for their loved ones. The police faced problems with new officers wanting to join the job and those that did join quickly left. Simply they were not on her side. Police forces struggled with the recruitment of new officers no one wanted to join and those that did quickly left the job, Thatcher didn’t have the support of police officers. Simply they were not on her side. Edmund-Davis found that the reason for this was the low pay for the officers who risked life and limb to protect the queen, government and country. The job was dangerous. The money an officer in 1970s Britain was offered was lacking to comparable occupations and Edmund-Davies began an inquiry appointed by the Labour government into the police pay and conditions just ahead of a conservative government being appointed. July 1978 The Edmund-Davies review concluded that police officers such receive a substantial pay increase of 45 per cent. up until that point police pay had been poor, they were not rewarded enough for the dangerous job they are doing. David Cameron wanted to ensure the government cut back and contained the spending on policing, he wanted to change the way the police and the government held negotiations regarding police pay reviews, He appointed a new review ‘The Winsor Review’ who reformed policing which effectively replaced the Edmund-Davies Review. The Winsor review changed pay scales of new recruits and ensured police spending cuts, and officer numbers reduced. Fast forward to now 2017. We have gone the full circle as we are back in a state whereby Police Officers are struggling. More and more officers are now approaching their force welfare fund, which is a charity set up to support police officers who are on rock bottom. They cannot afford to pay household bills or buy the basics such as food. In 2017 there is a national disgrace that our officers are not being rewarded for the hard working challenging job that they are doing day in and day out. Some are simply leaving because comparable jobs are offering more money and a more comfortable life for them and their family. The simple and most shocking fact here is that ‘Police officers within the UK are so desperate for help because their pay and conditions mean they cannot put food on the table for their families, they are struggling to keep a roof over their head’. Police Officers are unable to afford the luxury of owning their own home or even heating it during the winter. We are back to how it was in the 1970s, which can be linked directly to The Winsor review, which brought in the police pay cap. New officers see their starting rate at just £19K. Police Community Support Officers and Police Staff are becoming officers and in the process of transferring over have to take a considerable pay cut to become a front line officer. While all of this is happening the cost of living is rising and police pay is staying the same. You’d think police officers were rich and that is a general perception but sadly this is not true. We’d also assume that it is only the new officers joining who are struggling to make ends meet. It is in fact across the scale and the more experienced officers who are being stationed further away from home sometimes many miles means officers have to pay the petrol instead of providing food for the table. Other changes in circumstances that we’ll not go into are also causing officers to struggle. This is a national policing crisis and something does need to be done. Officers who serve and protect us, who keep us safe at night simply are not getting paid enough for the dangerous job they are doing. As we enter two years of political uncertainty and head for Brexit Theresa May just like Thatcher in the 1970s will need her officers on her side. Welcome back to the 1970s as we prepare to elect Theresa May as the next conservative Prime Minster, with the hope that policing pay is reformed and our officers don’t have to rely on the police welfare funds to provide a meal for their family. about the source policehour [Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
How many times... [Link] The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess". Common sense, facts and analysis seems to be weak currency on here sometimes. I'm amazed and yet not at all surprised that no-one on here has let any of the sensible points on here change their views. On either side. Who are these swing voters?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 12 May 17 4.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Tory Britain. Are you really going to vote for more of the same? (or worse)
2017 is the time we must stop and consider reforming police pay. Political representation of police pay reforms should be a vital issue for Theresa May and her government as we approach the general election on June 8th. The first female Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher discovered the harsh reality of policing when she achieved election in 1979, her reforms were radical and she quickly learnt that she needed the police on her side. She was an unpopular prime minister and she needed the support of the police. As Prime Minters goes she was very unpopular with the youth and they caused her government and the police some headaches, they rebelled and caused riots up and down the country. Thatcher needed the support of the police. Thatcher discovered by the help of the Edmund-Davies Review that police officers were poor, they could not afford to buy their homes or put food on the tables for their loved ones. The police faced problems with new officers wanting to join the job and those that did join quickly left. Simply they were not on her side. Police forces struggled with the recruitment of new officers no one wanted to join and those that did quickly left the job, Thatcher didn’t have the support of police officers. Simply they were not on her side. Edmund-Davis found that the reason for this was the low pay for the officers who risked life and limb to protect the queen, government and country. The job was dangerous. The money an officer in 1970s Britain was offered was lacking to comparable occupations and Edmund-Davies began an inquiry appointed by the Labour government into the police pay and conditions just ahead of a conservative government being appointed. July 1978 The Edmund-Davies review concluded that police officers such receive a substantial pay increase of 45 per cent. up until that point police pay had been poor, they were not rewarded enough for the dangerous job they are doing. David Cameron wanted to ensure the government cut back and contained the spending on policing, he wanted to change the way the police and the government held negotiations regarding police pay reviews, He appointed a new review ‘The Winsor Review’ who reformed policing which effectively replaced the Edmund-Davies Review. The Winsor review changed pay scales of new recruits and ensured police spending cuts, and officer numbers reduced. Fast forward to now 2017. We have gone the full circle as we are back in a state whereby Police Officers are struggling. More and more officers are now approaching their force welfare fund, which is a charity set up to support police officers who are on rock bottom. They cannot afford to pay household bills or buy the basics such as food. In 2017 there is a national disgrace that our officers are not being rewarded for the hard working challenging job that they are doing day in and day out. Some are simply leaving because comparable jobs are offering more money and a more comfortable life for them and their family. The simple and most shocking fact here is that ‘Police officers within the UK are so desperate for help because their pay and conditions mean they cannot put food on the table for their families, they are struggling to keep a roof over their head’. Police Officers are unable to afford the luxury of owning their own home or even heating it during the winter. We are back to how it was in the 1970s, which can be linked directly to The Winsor review, which brought in the police pay cap. New officers see their starting rate at just £19K. Police Community Support Officers and Police Staff are becoming officers and in the process of transferring over have to take a considerable pay cut to become a front line officer. While all of this is happening the cost of living is rising and police pay is staying the same. You’d think police officers were rich and that is a general perception but sadly this is not true. We’d also assume that it is only the new officers joining who are struggling to make ends meet. It is in fact across the scale and the more experienced officers who are being stationed further away from home sometimes many miles means officers have to pay the petrol instead of providing food for the table. Other changes in circumstances that we’ll not go into are also causing officers to struggle. This is a national policing crisis and something does need to be done. Officers who serve and protect us, who keep us safe at night simply are not getting paid enough for the dangerous job they are doing. As we enter two years of political uncertainty and head for Brexit Theresa May just like Thatcher in the 1970s will need her officers on her side. Welcome back to the 1970s as we prepare to elect Theresa May as the next conservative Prime Minster, with the hope that policing pay is reformed and our officers don’t have to rely on the police welfare funds to provide a meal for their family. about the source policehour [Link] Hang on... I thought it was Labour who were meant to be taking us back to the 1970s?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 May 17 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Common sense, facts and analysis seems to be weak currency on here sometimes. I'm amazed and yet not at all surprised that no-one on here has let any of the sensible points on here change their views. On either side. Who are these swing voters? Elgrande has said on more than one occasion (I paraphrase) 'That's a good idea' or 'I could support that'. Quite why he'd then vote for someone else who doesn't support the idea, or even in fact the complete opposite shows how 2 years of 'Corbyn is unelectable' (without basis in fact - or if any half truths) from the media and sections of the PLP has affected his faculties. In fact I'd wager that elgrande isn't alone in thinking that the Labour manifesto is rather good but have been duped against voting for them. Edited by nickgusset (12 May 2017 4.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.