Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 860

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    Early in the document - just slipped in there. Unusually recognising that workers are required to create wealth, rather than just self-styled wealth creators. Very seventies...
    I read the whole damn thing last night but I must have missed that part.

    What did strike me actually was the large number of jobs that Labour was planning to 'create'; almost every section promised more public-sector employment; hundreds of thousands of new houses were to be built, thousands more doctors and nurses, thousands more police and hundreds more border guards. I think I counted the creation of two, possibly three, new ministeries?

    My problem is, and I appreciate that it is highly desirable to improve infrastructure, that all of these jobs as being just that: 'created'!

    Now, as you've been at pains to point out, you know the difference between 'real' employment (or wealth creation) and 'self-styled wealth creators' who you regard as being parasites on real workers, but you must see that none of these 'created' jobs are self-sustaining; they all require 100% funding by the treasury. And where does the treasury get the money for them? Labour's answer is higher taxation on the richest 5% and higher taxation of (evil) corporations, which means we all pay some of that. Plus, in the manifesto, still lowering corporation-tax for small businesses that make up 60% of our economy (according to Labour).

    Earlier you advocated following the money; well, how does this 'money-go-round' work?

    The more people who work, directly or indirectly, for the state, the higher the eventual tax (and borrowing) burden that is placed on those few that do actually produce (and export) something.

    Now there is nothing wrong with any of the aims in the manifesto but the problem is that Labour is, again, as successive governments have done, falling into the trap of creating 'growth' by taxing, borrowing, and spending in the short-term in the hope that a few years down the line all this created growth suddenly becomes magically self-sustaining; this is what eventually destroyed New Labour (and they started with the economy, and the world economy, in a better place, and no BREXIT to contend with)!

    All this Labour claim they can do at the same time as eliminating the deficit and reducing national debt (while taking advantage of 'historically low' borrowing costs)? Seriously?
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 17th May 2017 at 09:30.
    WA$.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,127

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    Careful with that graph Tony - it easy to see the point at which the deficit got seriously bad, and we know what caused it. The recovery was always going to take a long time.

    CD - the other, unspoken issue, is that as you say, Labour policies lead to a larger state, with more people working for it. Right now, employment in the UK is at an all time high - so where do these people come from? Truth is that Labour policies tend to lead to less employment in the private sector, so people move across. Which means lower tax revenue overall. You cant have it all ways.

    I agree with everything else you say above.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Winding back a bit..

    The MOD is not a public company. It is a Ministry, clue's in the name.

    The East Coast line franchise, on the other hand..
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 12:12.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    One of my duties is as chair of governors for my childrens school. I went on a training session a year or so ago, where the lady delivering the course had got into trouble with one of her delegates for describing schools as businesses. Which they are. It had caused quite a row. In fact the same is true of ministries - they are responsible for the spending of a chunk of the budget, and must prepare accounts detailing income and outgoings.

    The East Coast Main Line is a separate business currently in the ownership of the government, as was Lloyds bank until today. Not exactly government run IMHO.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Indeed - Publicly-owned (East Coast Line) was never the same as Government-run (MoD). To conflate the two is another history-fudging peice of sh.. nonsense.
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 16:10.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,061
    Bruce

    What type of 'chair' are you ? Hepplewhite, Chippendale, Sheraton ?

    I really think that you meant to write 'chairman'.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    Always just referred to as Chair of Governors John.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    Careful with that graph Tony - it easy to see the point at which the deficit got seriously bad, and we know what caused it. The recovery was always going to take a long time.
    Equally the surplus at the very start of the Labour government was down to existing Tory policy. Now if they'd carried on running that surplus up to 2008 as you should under Keynesian economics, then we might be in a much less bad situation now.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Yep. Fortunately Tony Blair is not running this time. A fairly mainstream Keynsian is.
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 16:15.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The only problem is that if you don't apply Keynesian economics in the boom period prior to a debt crisis, then applying it afterwards doesn't produce good results.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,127
    You know what I mean with the MOD, in a way it has a budget and an end product, just as a public company, unfortunately the running of it is dire.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    It might be that there are too many junior bean-counters and business studies graduates who think it's a nice safe 'business' to practice on and not enough people who know anything about a) defence or b) anything else

    Very similar to the problem with higher ed here.
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 21:38.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    It was Keynes who got us out of the great depression in the 1930's. In fact the only time any of his stuff was ever applied positively in the UK was then. He did have a much clearer view than the soundbite-addled hacks we get today.

    Strong and stable, strong and stable...
    Balls to thinking it through - that's for people with beards who ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 22:08.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    The supposition being that only a bearded person could have thought it through, and that a bearded person couldn't also be a soundbite-addled hack?
    WA$.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Just frustration - watching vox-pops on telly, where people asked to comment on economic policy or the local situation reply with regurgitated tabloid headlines and tory soundbites about Jeremy Corbyn's supposed personality.

    Very similar to the way history's nastier regimes have worked, where actually having a thought-through position that takes longer words to discuss makes you both part of a disliked elite standing in the way of progress and personally untrustworthy.
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 07:57.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    Yes, we mustn't get swayed by sound-bites must we...

    ...and, god forbid, anybody should start electioneering against any 'disliked elite'!
    WA$.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    The opening part of Jeremy Corbyn's speech at the start of Labour's election campaign:

    The dividing lines in this election could not be clearer from the outset.

    It is the Conservatives, the party of privilege and the richest, versus the Labour Party , the party that is standing up for working people to improve the lives of all.

    It is the establishment versus the people and it is our historic duty to make sure that the people prevail.

    A duty for all of us here today, the duty of every Labour MP, a duty for our half a million members - including the 2,500 who have joined in the last 24 hours.

    Much of the media and establishment are saying that this election is a foregone conclusion.

    They think there are rules in politics, which if you don’t follow by doffing your cap to powerful people, accepting that things can’t really change, then you can’t win.

    But of course, they do not want us to win. Because when we win it is the people, not the powerful, who win.

    The nurse, the teacher, the small trader, the carer, the builder, the office worker, the student, the carer win. We all win.

    It is the establishment that complains I don’t play the rules: by which they mean their rules. We can’t win, they say, because we don’t play their game .

    We don’t fit in their cosy club. We're not obsessed with the tittle-tattle of Westminster or Brussels.

    We don’t accept that it is natural for Britain to be governed by a ruling elite, the City and the tax-dodgers, and we don’t accept that the British people just have to take what they’re given, that they don’t deserve better.

    And in a sense, the establishment and their followers in the media are quite right. I don’t play by their rules. And if a Labour Government is elected on 8 June, then we won’t play by their rules either.

    They are yesterday’s rules, set by failed political and corporate elites we should be consigning to the past.

    It is these rules that have allowed a cosy cartel to rig the system in favour of a few powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations.

    It is a rigged system set up by the wealth extractors, for the wealth extractors.

    But things can, and they will, change.

    Britain needs a Labour government that is prepared to fight for people in every part of the country, our towns, villages, as well as big cities.

    A Labour government that isn’t scared to take on the cosy cartels that are hoarding this country’s wealth for themselves.

    It needs a government that will use that wealth to invest in people’s lives in every community to build a better future for every person who lives here.
    WA$.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    Balls to thinking it through - that's for people with beards who ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED
    Thinking it through leads us down many paths. You and I have both thought things through, but come up with two different answers (at least!)

    I think that the Labour social charter is much, much better than the Tory offer, but they don't start with a basic acceptance of how the world actually is. The Tories are more realistic on that point.

    As I think we agreed on, there is a need for a renewed social charter - but until the centre ground is reclaimed, I cant see it happening. Whilst I know it will make no difference, and I cant agree with a lot of what they say, I'm voting Lib/Dem

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,127
    Labour are playing the only realistic card they have...

    Offer the world to the masses, show them everyone else are the problem and they can fix it by give, give, give, while hiding the true costs to future generations....

    True there are those that will be suckered in by the more schools, more nationalisation, More infrastructure building, more Houses, More jobs... pick on the wealthy, pick on big business, and it can work, Hitler did the same.


    ..
    Last edited by TonyT; 18th May 2017 at 09:54.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    We can dream-up as many wonderful social charters as we like and count on the votes of those who think they're having a hard life (and let's face it, everybody thinks they're having a hard life) but unless somebody actually figures-out how we're going to pay for all these new social charters, or at least has the courage to say that it isn't going to be easy and we're all going to have to pay more tax, then all this dreaming isn't worth a damn!

    Look at the experience of New Labour; Tony Blair's 'third way', even though he started with the economy on a high, a landslide majority and, after a year, a government surplus (based on not changing Conservative economic policy) their new charter started to go sour. Even before the financial crisis New Labour had fallen-out with the unions and was in a pay dispute with the nurses, who were threatening to go on strike!

    Are we really going to be able to afford a new social charter, without any pain or hardship, post-BREXIT, in today's world, and still manage to eliminate the deficit completely and start to pay off the national-debt?
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 18th May 2017 at 10:06.
    WA$.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    No - and there is the problem. That's why they need to be realistic with their manifesto. You cant fund your dreams on broken promises.

    When Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour party, I predicted, on here, that this would allow the Tories to move right to absorb UKIP, and deliver a bigger majority. I didn't expect it to happen so quickly, but it has played out. The latest polls suggest that UKIP has slumped to around 2%, and that Labour is taking votes out of the Liberal share too. 2 party politics is back with a bang.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    True everyone seems to hell-bent on appearing 'for the people' and 'against the elite'. It's just a little exasperating to see Conservatives doing it, so reliant on a nation's political ignorance. If someone calls them out on it with reference to actual events it's time for personal attacks, as they have no logical argument.

    Things have got pretty confused when offering a better future to more people gets you compared to Hitler.

    Of course he offered a better future - they all do that, very few who wish to gain power offer a worse one!

    Loving your list, Tony. Did you not start to get a nagging thought as you were writing it? 'More schools, more nationalisation, More infrastructure building, more Houses, More jobs...'. Yeah. Suckers. Imagine being stupid enough to vote for any of that!! Oh. Hang on.
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 11:27.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    Tory manifesto:

    https://t.co/bTNKNFyONV

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Strong and stable.

    Oh, and nice. Honest. Ignore history.

    We love working people. Why, I even smiled at the little chap who does my topiary this morning!

    ..in a strong and stable way, of course.

    Just remember you have more responsibilities than you do rights, prole.
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 11:34.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,127
    Things have got pretty confused when offering a better future to more people gets you compared to Hitler.
    But that is exactly what Hitler did, built the autobahn system, built housing, blamed the "rich Jews" for the woes of Germany and rode into power on a wave of popularism based on his spendings which nearly bankrupted Germany again.

    The biggest issue in the UK in my eyes over the years is spending and the infrastructure... we need to build new, for decades we have thrown piddly amounts at propping up a failing infrastructure, Victorian sewer systems, Victorian railway system with no real investment... and by that I mean long term.
    No Government is sadly going to put the country into a 20 year programme of spending XYZ billions completely overhauling and rebuilding the rail network for a 21 century consumer, same with the crumbling road network, as they know it will be their death knell at the next election, so they throw good money after bad at it which just patches an ever crumbling system and ensures a chance of getting re-elected. And until the parties come together and agree a long term system where they all agree to go forward, nothing will change.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Hitler was indeed a populist. He managed to make the long view a popular thing, thousand year reich, monumental architecture, autobahns and what-have-you. The surprising thing to many (it has not been a popular field of study) is that he did NOT bankrupt Germany doing it. Quite the opposite.

    Other 'popular' waves that he worked up and then rode included xenophobia, book burning and ultimately genocide. This is why comparing this to the agenda of the Labour party is a bit off. The cons have embraced the first bit nicely, though. Some, like John, would be keen to see the second.

    What is more, if JC were a populist he would now be saying very different things about Europe and Immigration to his natural constituencies - and would aleady have risen and fallen with Mr. Blair.
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 13:18.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,878
    But there is a lot of blame going on in the left. Things not going their way? Blame the MSM, Laura Kuenssberg, the PLP - anyone who doesn't follow their view. I actually find it quite alarming at best, and unsettling at worst. Unless people can hold an open debate (as we are here) without resorting to name calling and witch hunts, what kind of society do we have?

    Twitter is especially bad at this.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    I have a sort of theory that the web is an artificial environment much like a school playground, where anti-social behaviour, bullying and name calling are sort of expected and excused. It makes some people regress to that stage of development, perhaps.

    Have you ever noticed the odd tension between Laura K and Jeremy C when they are in a room together? It's very visible. If I didn't know better...

    Now I'm being childish!
    Last edited by Beermat; 18th May 2017 at 14:33.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,395
    Hitler was indeed a populist. He managed to make the long view a popular thing, thousand year reich, monumental architecture, autobahns and what-have-you. The surprising thing to many (it has not been a popular field of study) is that he did NOT bankrupt Germany doing it. Quite the opposite.
    Utter rubbish! You had better have something concrete to back that up...

    ...unless you're also advocating a total pay freeze, abolition of trade unions, virtual banning of imports (except raw materials) and wholesale 'legalised' state theft of businesses and property from Jews! And even then the Nazi state ran up huge debts before 1939. All this was utterly unsustainable; Germany certainly would have gone bankrupt...

    ...if it hadn't started World War Two before this happened!
    WA$.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES