Bruce Banner

Conservative Party Manifesto

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, PopGun said:

You missed out some tripe about going back to the 70s and Venezuela...

Osbourne knows all about the magic money tree. Luckily enough voters such as your good self confuse debt with deficit enough to allow him to get away with borrowing more in one term then Labour has in history... unchallenged.

Strong and Stable... Bare bones of their ar$es more like.

Oh and by the way, a qualified registered Nurse starts on a Band 5 £22,000 to £28,000. It takes many years to get to £28k. This of course after spending a couple of years pre qualification as a student, enjoying 12 hour shifts for the princely sum of knack all.

The reason the public sector debt has risen was the course that was set before 2010, a tripling of household debt during Labour's tenure and the Government taking up the slack. Do you seriously believe things would have been any different under any other Government after Brown's cataclysmic tenure and crashing the economy. The facts are 2010-2017...fastest growing economy in the G7, highest employment rate etc. So far as not spending enough to get the economy going, they did get the economy going, the trajectory of debt was just unstoppable. You can't just make a handbrake turn and reverse debt trajectory and  undo all previous public sector promises based on an economy that was assumed to grow at about 4% forever.

I actually find your inference that I don't know the difference between deficit and debt very insulting btw.

Meanwhile at least the Manifesto reverses a lot of the ridiculous strait jacket promises on pensions and tax. Labour call increasing debt austerity and plan to start spending much more and presumably have a Greek style end game. Which indeed may be good for those that want a crashed economy to bomb out asset prices. I get that.

 

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zugzwang   
4 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

The reason the debt has risen was the course that was set before 2010, a tripling of household debt during Labour's tenure and the Government taking up the slack. Do you seriously believe things would have been any different under any other Government after Brown's cataclysmic tenure and crashing the economy. The facts are 2010-2017...fastest growing economy in the G7, highest employment rate etc. So far as not spending enough to get the economy going, they did get the economy going, the trajectory of debt was just unstoppable. You can't just make a handbrake turn and reverse debt trajectory and certainly undo all previous promises.

I actually find your inference that I don't know the difference between deficit and debt very insulting.

To an extent the UK's debt trajectory was inevitable after 2010 and that remains the case today, which is why the Tories have given themselves until 2026 to balance the budget. It's Osborne's spending priorities that were all wrong. Needlessly subjecting savers and public sector employees to financial repression in the name of austerity while simultaneously squandering hundreds of billions on a second housing bubble and vanity projects like HS2. By helping to re-leverage the private sector he's exposed the UK to all sorts of long-run risks and uncertainties, when Keynesian counter-cyclical measures are intended to accomplish the very opposite, and pushed back the prospect of a sustainable recovery indefinitely i.e. '2026'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

To an extent the UK's debt trajectory was inevitable after 2010 and that remains the case today, which is why the Tories have given themselves until 2026 to balance the budget. It's Osborne's spending priorities that were all wrong. Needlessly subjecting savers and public sector employees to financial repression in the name of austerity while simultaneously squandering hundreds of billions on a second housing bubble and vanity projects like HS2. By helping to re-leverage the private sector he's exposed the UK to all sorts of long-run risks and uncertainties, when Keynesian counter-cyclical measures are intended to accomplish the very opposite, and pushed back the prospect of a sustainable recovery indefinitely i.e. '2026'.

 

Well I agree with pretty much all that zug. And glad to see somebody actually understands trajectory and debt momentum. and yes the Tories have had their own waste and vanity projects. And indeed the burden has not always been fairly shared.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tomandlu   
17 hours ago, aerobubbles said:

DM crowd are going in very hard on the social care policy, as expected. The next lot of polls will be interesting. There's very little in there for a lot of people. I think she'll have dropped a fair few points.

I think the gamble is "who the hell else are they going to vote for?" (that matters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbowed   
19 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

I think the gamble is "who the hell else are they going to vote for?" (that matters)

Lib, Lab, Green or Tory are the choices in my location.

My vote. None of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will!   
21 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

That should be Labour's slogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PopGun   
9 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

The reason the public sector debt has risen was the course that was set before 2010, a tripling of household debt during Labour's tenure and the Government taking up the slack. Do you seriously believe things would have been any different under any other Government after Brown's cataclysmic tenure and crashing the economy. The facts are 2010-2017...fastest growing economy in the G7, highest employment rate etc. So far as not spending enough to get the economy going, they did get the economy going, the trajectory of debt was just unstoppable. You can't just make a handbrake turn and reverse debt trajectory and  undo all previous public sector promises based on an economy that was assumed to grow at about 4% forever.

I actually find your inference that I don't know the difference between deficit and debt very insulting btw.

Meanwhile at least the Manifesto reverses a lot of the ridiculous strait jacket promises on pensions and tax. Labour call increasing debt austerity and plan to start spending much more and presumably have a Greek style end game. Which indeed may be good for those that want a crashed economy to bomb out asset prices. I get that.

 

We have established many times on this forum that it was private debt that fubar'd the economy. 

Also Tell me the bit about Osbourne borrowing more in one term than Labour combined again....Hence my debt/deficit reference. I know you know the difference which if anything made your comment worse.

Face it, you're clouded by partisan politics.

Yes there's trajectories, but there's also cycles.. There's good reasons why Blair and Cameron got out when they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrtickle   
On 2017-5-18 at 4:40 PM, nome said:

Manifesto bit on housing......


We will build better houses, to match the quality of those we have inherited from previous generations. That means supporting high-quality, high-density housing like mansion blocks, mews houses and terraced streets. 

This bit had my blood boiling - but not literally :)

1. "Match" isn't good enough - why not EXCEED? <_<

2. No it doesn't mean high-density housing. The density of new housing now is FAR TOO HIGH already. I can reach out and touch my neighbour's wall. None of the houses in my street can EVER build a side extension. Look at that picture someone posted the other day of a corner plot house where the corner is practically in the road. <_<

I wish I could remember where this came from, but I saved this at the time and makes the point better than I could:

Quote

With a true free market, homes would be getting larger, better and cheaper in relative terms, in response to the demands of the consumer. This is not happening. New properties are about half the size they were in the 1930s and they have become so expensive that millions are now being delayed or excluded from homeownership.
 
The housing market is virtually the only sector where this is happening. Imagine if we, in the UK, were driving cars that were worse than they were in the 1930s.
-----
What should happen is that the builders should be competing with each other to offer the best and highest-spec houses for the lowest prices to get more sales - just as the car manufacturers are competing with each other to offer the best and highest-spec cars, to sell as many as possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2017 at 5:23 PM, aerobubbles said:

DM crowd are going in very hard on the social care policy, as expected. The next lot of polls will be interesting. There's very little in there for a lot of people. I think she'll have dropped a fair few points.

 The gap is down to 14% in some polls and that is before the Tory Crypto Socialist Manifesto **** up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 The gap is down to 14% in some polls and that is before the Tory Crypto Socialist Manifesto **** up.

It will be too funny if she does a Clinton and falls off her broomstick at the last fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zugzwang   
1 hour ago, satch said:

Well May is doing her best to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, with means tested winter fuel payment, no triple lock, the after-death house clawback on the kids inheritance, fox hunting, no costings in the manifesto and no solid statement about immigration numbers, tax breaks for companies and the rich with zero hours for the poor and the standard lies about the deficit and building houses.

She seems to assume the old folk and people who own houses have no choice but to accept the nasty side of the Tories or else they will get Corbyn the Marxist.

I'll happily admit there are plenty of reasons for not wanting to vote Labour (even though I probably will) but if Mrs May keeps adding to the stock of reasons to not vote Tory we might still get the greatest upset ever.

"If I lose just SIX seats Corbyn will WIN!"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4523948/THERESA-scary-thought-Labour-winning.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macca13   

Maybe it's a conspiracy theory, she is trying to lose on perpose.. she is a remainer..😂

 

Corybin in want more asylum seekers, and lib dems.. Corybin said 'we need to take our fair share' Germany took 1 million costing 22 billion euros in the first year.. how many is our fair share? 100'000, 200'000, 500,000? 

I don't think we could survive 5 years of left wing luv...  the country would be finished.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrtickle   
2 hours ago, satch said:

Well May is doing her best to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, with means tested winter fuel payment, no triple lock, the after-death house clawback on the kids inheritance, fox hunting, no costings in the manifesto and no solid statement about immigration numbers, tax breaks for companies and the rich with zero hours for the poor and the standard lies about the deficit and building houses.

She seems to assume the old folk and people who own houses have no choice but to accept the nasty side of the Tories or else they will get Corbyn the Marxist.

Much of that is hyperbole. "No triple lock" - but a double lock. So pensions will rise in line with inflation and earnings which is fair, many people in work would love to have such a gold-plated guarantee every year. To keep the triple lock would be insane and utterly unaffordable.

Costings in the manifesto would be a bad thing. Listen to Ken Clarke's interview from earlier today. It's madness to constrain a future government leaving it unable to react to events. Having everything "costed" is a recent fad which is actually harmful, and it wasn't just Ken Clarke saying it either.

 

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, satch said:

Well May is doing her best to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, <snip>

She seems to assume the old folk and people who own houses have no choice but to accept the nasty side of the Tories or else they will get Corbyn the Marxist.

Well rather weirdly, the Labour Manifesto isn't as crazy as most people expected and actually has some popular policies in it.

The Lib Dems also seem to have the most economically right wing document, at least in terms of tax. We know what the Lib Dem Tax policy is, as we do Labour, it's the Conservative manifesto that leave the door open to raising National Insurance  and perhaps VAT to 25%

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tomandlu said:

I think the gamble is "who the hell else are they going to vote for?" (that matters)

You're right. I think it's more the purpose of this election was to try to grab a large majority. If she's spectacularly backfired with this, I don't think Labour scrapes in. But there's the risk she'll end up with a similar majority again, and based on what was expected to happen that will be a huge failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, satch said:

Well May is doing her best to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, with means tested winter fuel payment, no triple lock, the after-death house clawback on the kids inheritance, fox hunting, no costings in the manifesto and no solid statement about immigration numbers, tax breaks for companies and the rich with zero hours for the poor and the standard lies about the deficit and building houses.

She seems to assume the old folk and people who own houses have no choice but to accept the nasty side of the Tories or else they will get Corbyn the Marxist.

I'd like to see another coalition with Corbyn as PM and Farron as Deputy PM, now that would put the pigeon amongst the cats.

A few years of chaos followed, hopefully, by a sensible government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ash4781   
10 minutes ago, aerobubbles said:

You're right. I think it's more the purpose of this election was to try to grab a large majority. If she's spectacularly backfired with this, I don't think Labour scrapes in. But there's the risk she'll end up with a similar majority again, and based on what was expected to happen that will be a huge failure.

Yeah she want to want to reshuffle a few rivals out. I am not sure I see May doing the full term (whatever that is these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a someone drawn to ukip in 2015. Voted leave in 2016. I must be exactly the kind of person May needs to get a majority. But on manifesto pledges and personality of leaders which does sway people id Be tempted to vote  Labour but there is no chance I will vote Tory ....Cant think my view is exceptional .... I just can't believe the press that's she's going to walk this election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doomed   
9 hours ago, macca13 said:

 

I don't think we could survive 5 years of left wing luv...  the country would be finished.. 

No way back now any way. Mercy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spyguy   
56 minutes ago, aerobubbles said:

You're right. I think it's more the purpose of this election was to try to grab a large majority. If she's spectacularly backfired with this, I don't think Labour scrapes in. But there's the risk she'll end up with a similar majority again, and based on what was expected to happen that will be a huge failure.

I dont know. There appears to be 40% of votes floating.

What do I think?

Libdems wiped out.

Labour take a massive hit in the North East. Becoming a London party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spyguy said:

I dont know. There appears to be 40% of votes floating.

What do I think?

Libdems wiped out.

Labour take a massive hit in the North East. Becoming a London party.

 

Because of the polarised nature of the vote Corbyn will take credit for a rise in his share and stay leader. Actually if the Ukip and Lib Dems vote has collapsed then Milibands 28% is a far better showing than say 33% under a two horse race.

But this will be spun as a Corbyn success, even though reality is it is a disaster worse than 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rollover   

 

Quote

 

Election pledges on housing are ‘doomed to fail’

The broadside comes after a blizzard of manifesto commitments from the major parties this week to tackle the housing shortage. Last year 153,000 new homes were started in England, 15% below the 2007 peak and well short of previous ambitions to deliver 240,000 a year. Paul Brett, a director at Inland Homes, lambasted a “cumbersome, overly bureaucratic and under-resourced” planning system as “entirely out of line” with that needed to meet the targets. He added: “We will build 200,000 new homes this year and yet the planning system has chronic problems in coping with this level of activity, so as things stand the target of 1 million homes by 2020 is unrealistic.” 

Telford Homes boss Jon Di-Stefano said it was “encouraging” that the political parties acknowledge a housing shortage but warned of the “many constraints to overcome” to hit manifesto targets. He said: “Whoever forms a government should focus on those constraints, including access to land, the planning process, the need for more skilled workers and availability of finance, if they are going to see a significant increase in housebuilding.”

Meanwhile Brexit negotiations loom large over an industry likely to be particularly hit by the retirement of baby-boomers and potential restrictions on EU workers. A Home Builders Federation spokesman added: “Continuation of the Help to Buy scheme and access to foreign labour, on which the industry is heavily reliant, particularly in London and the South-East, is key.”

Conservatives: 1 million homes by 2020 and extra 500 000 by the end 2022

Labour: 1 million new homes by 2022, HtB extended to 2027

Lib-Dems: aiming 300 000 homes a year, creating 10 new garden cities

ES

 

Honestly all three promises are unrealistic. What do the main political parties stand for?

Edited by rollover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrtickle   
Quote

A Home Builders Federation spokesman added: “Continuation of the Help to Buy scheme ... is key.”

Nope. Ending of the Help To Buy scheme is key.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.