| Policy question for our Conservative friends. 08:17 - Nov 3 with 3383 views | GeoffSentence |
My understanding of Conservative policy is that in general they believe that lower tax and lower is the best approach for the country and that the nation's finances need to be tightly.
I kind of see the reasoning behind that approach.
What I don't get is why, if that is the best way of managing things, do they suddenly splash the cash when an election comes round? |  |
| |  |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:29 - Nov 3 with 2801 views | sparks |
Of course you get why that happens. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:32 - Nov 3 with 2794 views | BloomBlue |
Probably for the same reason as Labour and all the other parties splash the cash, cash which none of them can actually afford, around a GE. |  | | |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:35 - Nov 3 with 2786 views | sparks |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:32 - Nov 3 by BloomBlue |
Probably for the same reason as Labour and all the other parties splash the cash, cash which none of them can actually afford, around a GE. |
The difference being that it is far more hypocritical for the conservatives to do it. Especially in the context of recent years. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:37 - Nov 3 with 2783 views | GeoffSentence |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:29 - Nov 3 by sparks |
Of course you get why that happens. |
Is it because their real policies are great for the people they actually govern for but not so good for those whose votes they need? | |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:42 - Nov 3 with 2768 views | GeoffSentence |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:32 - Nov 3 by BloomBlue |
Probably for the same reason as Labour and all the other parties splash the cash, cash which none of them can actually afford, around a GE. |
It is not at all the same as Lab our advocate higher tax and spend all the time. If the Tories truly believe that low tax spend is good for. The country as a whole they should press that case at election time. | |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:49 - Nov 3 with 2737 views | mrshallisfit |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:32 - Nov 3 by BloomBlue |
Probably for the same reason as Labour and all the other parties splash the cash, cash which none of them can actually afford, around a GE. |
Ok. Well dont spend the majority of the time saying it is such a poor policy to pursue. Have the courage of your convictions. |  | | |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:51 - Nov 3 with 2729 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Fiscal headroom. Brexit bonus...... insert short slogan of choice.... | |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:56 - Nov 3 with 2721 views | xrayspecs |
While low tax/spend when compared to labour is true, it is not an absolute. They still spend hundreds of billions each year so announcing their priorities at a time when people are being asked to vote for them is hardly a surprise, is it?
Btw worth noting that government spend is higher in absolute terms than it was when 'austerity' started albeit spend as a percentage of GDP is about five points lower.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/rev/google_vis.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:58 - Nov 3 with 2712 views | sparks |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:56 - Nov 3 by xrayspecs |
While low tax/spend when compared to labour is true, it is not an absolute. They still spend hundreds of billions each year so announcing their priorities at a time when people are being asked to vote for them is hardly a surprise, is it?
Btw worth noting that government spend is higher in absolute terms than it was when 'austerity' started albeit spend as a percentage of GDP is about five points lower.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/rev/google_vis.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea |
Dnot give them so much credit. The first bit of your post is spot on- but this is not "announcing their prioritie", it is flagrant cynical electioneering. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:01 - Nov 3 with 2691 views | xrayspecs |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:58 - Nov 3 by sparks |
Dnot give them so much credit. The first bit of your post is spot on- but this is not "announcing their prioritie", it is flagrant cynical electioneering. |
They are one and the same thing - electioneering and announcing their priorities.
A bit like the Labour announcement of £billions to upgrade house fuel efficiency as reported this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50277461 [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:01]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:02 - Nov 3 with 2680 views | LeoMuff |
After effectively trashing the nhs, police, social care in the past few years it is a disgrace [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:05]
|  |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:02 - Nov 3 with 2679 views | sparks |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:01 - Nov 3 by xrayspecs |
They are one and the same thing - electioneering and announcing their priorities.
A bit like the Labour announcement of £billions to upgrade house fuel efficiency as reported this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50277461 [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:01]
|
They are one and the same thing in the sense that power ane election is their priority... Beyond that, I cannot agree. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:07 - Nov 3 with 2658 views | xrayspecs |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:02 - Nov 3 by sparks |
They are one and the same thing in the sense that power ane election is their priority... Beyond that, I cannot agree. |
Governments (of all colours) typically set out their spending priorities each year in the budget. Ahead of a general election, they do the same.
It is electioneering as you say, but I do not understand why this comes as a surprise as it is what parties do before going to the polls. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:12 - Nov 3 with 2642 views | xrayspecs |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:02 - Nov 3 by LeoMuff |
After effectively trashing the nhs, police, social care in the past few years it is a disgrace [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:05]
|
Yet spending has still gone up year on year - as per my earlier post.
I agree though that it is not keeping pace with demand. The bigger question is what can we afford as a country and this does not lend itself to a a simplistic blue/red tax less/tax more answer.
As we live longer but not necessarily healthier lives, more folk are reaching the point where they need quite significant social care. If this is not being provided by the family, then the state is expected to step in and fill the gap. Rising social care costs/expectations is the ticking financial time bomb for government, whatever their colour. [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:18]
| | | |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:56 - Nov 3 with 2576 views | hampstead_blue |
On argument for lower taxes is that you potentially get a higher % of payers and and such could we cost neutral of bring in more.
That extra surplus income can be used in many ways;
Dinner out with the family more often
Better quality homes - spend on higher standard of living
Invest - entrepreneurs, investors
Personal consumption - a nicer car, insulated homes,
Yes it can bring inflation but that's not always a bad thing. Higher interest rates erode debt.
So long as a number of things are correlated things will keep up with themselves
It also gives people choice as to what to do with their money.
Rather than a prescriptive method - Labour, were the money is spent for you regardless of your desire or needs, you have choice.
I'd prefer to have the choice
It's Sunday morning and I've probably left no end of holes to be argued.
I am making a general point.
Why don't I want Labour?
JC's style of Labour is centralised control
Unions in control
Lower standard of living - he wants everyone to have the same, as such it's lowering
Excessive controls
Flood of wealth leaving
and the lost can go on for a long time |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 10:31 - Nov 3 with 2538 views | Guthrum |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 09:56 - Nov 3 by hampstead_blue |
On argument for lower taxes is that you potentially get a higher % of payers and and such could we cost neutral of bring in more.
That extra surplus income can be used in many ways;
Dinner out with the family more often
Better quality homes - spend on higher standard of living
Invest - entrepreneurs, investors
Personal consumption - a nicer car, insulated homes,
Yes it can bring inflation but that's not always a bad thing. Higher interest rates erode debt.
So long as a number of things are correlated things will keep up with themselves
It also gives people choice as to what to do with their money.
Rather than a prescriptive method - Labour, were the money is spent for you regardless of your desire or needs, you have choice.
I'd prefer to have the choice
It's Sunday morning and I've probably left no end of holes to be argued.
I am making a general point.
Why don't I want Labour?
JC's style of Labour is centralised control
Unions in control
Lower standard of living - he wants everyone to have the same, as such it's lowering
Excessive controls
Flood of wealth leaving
and the lost can go on for a long time |
The problem with that argument is that most people want to spend the money on themselves, often buying goods which are not produced in the UK (thus not contributing to employment).
Moreover, there are many people (those on low incomes, the elderly, the sick, the unemployed) for whom higher rate tax cuts make no difference to their spending power, but are reliant upon the services provided by the state/local government. They cannot afford to privately replace facilities which have been cut due to lack of funding. Whereas the wealthier sectors of society can afford to contribute a bit more without depriving themselves of life's essentials.
For the low tax model to work well, there needs to be a strong national social responsibility developed. Plus a reduction in the consumerist desire to fill our houses with junk and toys produced in Chinese or Bangladeshi sweat-shops. [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 10:38]
|  |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 10:43 - Nov 3 with 2507 views | Darth_Koont |
Important to note that historically Conservative governments have always spent more than Labour. And almost always more than the "budget" will allow.
They just don't spend that money on the people and communities who need it most. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Nov 3 with 2483 views | LeoMuff |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 09:12 - Nov 3 by xrayspecs |
Yet spending has still gone up year on year - as per my earlier post.
I agree though that it is not keeping pace with demand. The bigger question is what can we afford as a country and this does not lend itself to a a simplistic blue/red tax less/tax more answer.
As we live longer but not necessarily healthier lives, more folk are reaching the point where they need quite significant social care. If this is not being provided by the family, then the state is expected to step in and fill the gap. Rising social care costs/expectations is the ticking financial time bomb for government, whatever their colour. [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 9:18]
|
Yes in money term a rise but in real terms they have cut considerably. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:01 - Nov 3 with 2438 views | BlueBadger |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Nov 3 by LeoMuff |
Yes in money term a rise but in real terms they have cut considerably. |
And couple that to an increasingly squeezed social care budget - meaning vulnerable people are far more likely to spend longer in hospital awaiting care packages setting up as well as more likely to bounce back into hospital on discharge due to inadequate care, plus poorly thought through reforms have all increased costs, as well as general all-round austerity increasing poverty(a proven factor in influencing the likelihood of poor health) all adding extra, avoidable weight to the demand.
Case in point the scrapping of NHS Direct to be replaced by 111.
NHS Direct was staffed almost entirely by actual trained professionals and became known as 'NHS Re-Direct' in A&E's, given how good it was at deflecting away unnecessary attendances to A&E.
111 on the hand, has a 1 qualified person to 10 unqualified people ratio meaning that protocols and algorithms guiding advice need to be much tighter to ensure patient safety. Meaning more A&E referrals.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning/commissioning-topics/urgent-care/
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - austerity is a false economy more often than not. [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 12:15]
|  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:32 - Nov 3 with 2383 views | sparks |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Nov 3 by LeoMuff |
Yes in money term a rise but in real terms they have cut considerably. |
Quite.
You try to get someone who clearly urgently needs help with mental health, proper joined up help. It doesnt exist. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:45 - Nov 3 with 2366 views | Darth_Koont |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:32 - Nov 3 by sparks |
Quite.
You try to get someone who clearly urgently needs help with mental health, proper joined up help. It doesnt exist. |
The disturbing thing about that is not just that people should have the right to mental health treatment in 2019. But by cutting spending at the traditional point of service we naturally just push the cost and burden elsewhere.
There's an enormous lack of logic over this and other discussions of "savings" in social and health spending. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:51 - Nov 3 with 2348 views | xrayspecs |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Nov 3 by LeoMuff |
Yes in money term a rise but in real terms they have cut considerably. |
In absolute cash, government spend has increased from £673bn to £847bn over the last ten years, an increase of 2.3% per annum.
Inflation over the same time period was 2.9% per annum (as measured by CPI), so overall spend has not kept up with inflation.
That said, the NHS has had an increase from £117bn to £162bn over the last ten years, 3.3% per annum and ahead of inflation.
So have pensions - both age and sickness related - which have gone up by a similar amount £115bn to £162bn, 3.3% per annum, ahead of inflation.
Welfare has increased from £110bn to £126bn, 1.3% per annum, while education spend has not changed materially over the last ten years, which to me is the biggest crime here. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:54 - Nov 3 with 2340 views | xrayspecs |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:01 - Nov 3 by BlueBadger |
And couple that to an increasingly squeezed social care budget - meaning vulnerable people are far more likely to spend longer in hospital awaiting care packages setting up as well as more likely to bounce back into hospital on discharge due to inadequate care, plus poorly thought through reforms have all increased costs, as well as general all-round austerity increasing poverty(a proven factor in influencing the likelihood of poor health) all adding extra, avoidable weight to the demand.
Case in point the scrapping of NHS Direct to be replaced by 111.
NHS Direct was staffed almost entirely by actual trained professionals and became known as 'NHS Re-Direct' in A&E's, given how good it was at deflecting away unnecessary attendances to A&E.
111 on the hand, has a 1 qualified person to 10 unqualified people ratio meaning that protocols and algorithms guiding advice need to be much tighter to ensure patient safety. Meaning more A&E referrals.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning/commissioning-topics/urgent-care/
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - austerity is a false economy more often than not. [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 12:15]
|
NHS spend has gone up 3.3% per annum over last 10 years but the underlying demand for healthcare is going up faster. The NHS, through its almost constant reorganisations wates a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on frontline care. | | | |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 16:09 - Nov 3 with 2222 views | bournemouthblue |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 08:56 - Nov 3 by xrayspecs |
While low tax/spend when compared to labour is true, it is not an absolute. They still spend hundreds of billions each year so announcing their priorities at a time when people are being asked to vote for them is hardly a surprise, is it?
Btw worth noting that government spend is higher in absolute terms than it was when 'austerity' started albeit spend as a percentage of GDP is about five points lower.
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/rev/google_vis.php?title=Total%20Spending&yea |
There's a third issue to take into context there and that's population growth
If you don't properly fund infrastructure to handle your population needs, you are asking for trouble
We have certainly created housing crisis by simply not building enough houses for 40 years
In the East the roads are particularly poor, rail is at a similar level
Our Mental Health Service is National Embarrassment
Our Schools are performing as badly as just about any where
in Ipswich the Conservatives have kicked the can down the road with the Northern Bypass for example despite the Town growing significantly
Suffolk County Council have decided not to build Ben Gummer's bridge because it may end up costing far more than they expected, where has that money that was promised gone exactly?
The Norwich in 90 scheme totally lacks ambition, I believe the train to London from Ipswich will be about 7 minutes quicker than it was in the early 80's
The East to West train journeys are shocking, there's been no talk of improving those
Much like these Nothern Towns and Cities who feel they have been left behind, you can certainly see why people in Ipswich are also knarked with the current system [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 16:10]
|  |
| |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 16:15 - Nov 3 with 2209 views | GeoffSentence |
| Policy question for our Conservative friends. on 16:09 - Nov 3 by bournemouthblue |
There's a third issue to take into context there and that's population growth
If you don't properly fund infrastructure to handle your population needs, you are asking for trouble
We have certainly created housing crisis by simply not building enough houses for 40 years
In the East the roads are particularly poor, rail is at a similar level
Our Mental Health Service is National Embarrassment
Our Schools are performing as badly as just about any where
in Ipswich the Conservatives have kicked the can down the road with the Northern Bypass for example despite the Town growing significantly
Suffolk County Council have decided not to build Ben Gummer's bridge because it may end up costing far more than they expected, where has that money that was promised gone exactly?
The Norwich in 90 scheme totally lacks ambition, I believe the train to London from Ipswich will be about 7 minutes quicker than it was in the early 80's
The East to West train journeys are shocking, there's been no talk of improving those
Much like these Nothern Towns and Cities who feel they have been left behind, you can certainly see why people in Ipswich are also knarked with the current system [Post edited 3 Nov 2019 16:10]
|
I am with you on pretty much all that. The East Of England is one of 3 regions of the country that contributes more to exchequer than it gets out in public spending* and we do notoriously badly out of infrastructure spending and Suffolk even more so than the rest of the region.
As rail spending, I am in absolute agreement that the money spent on getting a few extra minutes for a handful of trains to and from London is money very poorly spent. For some time now there has been a project to improve the east-west rail link but it seems to get sod all in the way of money, is still pretty much in the planning phase and all the current focus is on the western end from Oxford to Cambridge.
https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/
To my mind this is way more important and if properly implemented will have much bigger benefits than a couple of trains to London each day being slightly faster than they are now. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
