Just a reminder folks, as long as you are registered to vote you can. You don't need a polling card but it just makes things a bit quicker on the day.
(31-05-2017 15:44 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ] (31-05-2017 14:21 )SOCATOA Wrote: [ -> ]CONservatives have stated no change of plan, Mother Theresa will not do a televised debate with other party leaders. Is Mother Theresa frightened they ask about, dementia tax, cold weather allowance, free bus passes, school meals for kids, CONservative protection of House of Commons peado ring, selling off state industry,police numbers cut, etc. Strong and Stable leadership, my arse, the woman is weak and cowardly.
Wasn't Corbyn an IRA sympathiser? An anti monachist that wants to dismantle the UK's defence?
But, he's very good at spending money he hasn't got yet.
Seems the right man for the job, even his own party have always thought so.
All governments spend money they haven't got yet. Public spending is not funded by tax revenue. I know that sounds counterintuitive to most people, but it's true.
(31-05-2017 12:21 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]It's going to be a tough decision
Labour would have to borrow £25 billion plus a year to meet there commitments. And they plan to abolish MI5 & MI6
The Conservatives plan to bring in their dementia tax.
The Liberal's are in denial regarding Brexit. And they want to raise your taxes
UKIP are a party of the past. And they are run by some very dangerous people.
The Green's would probably make us all ride round on bikes.
And the SNP are just focused on getting independance
If only there was a party that I could vote for. Doesn't the Monster Raving Lonny party still exist?
On the question of borrowing, there are two options:
1. Borrow more in the short-term to fund capital investment that will raise productivity and economic growth, resulting in less borrowing required to fund current spending in future.
2. Refuse to borrow to fund capital investment, because there is 'no money tree blah blah'. Attempt to reduce borrowing to fund current spending by reducing said spending whilst introducing supply-side tax cuts (voodoo austerity economics).
The problem with option 2 is that, firstly, there is a limit to how much you can cut public spending without significantly worsening the quality/scarcity of public goods, and since the one of the main purposes of economic progress (especially in the modern developed economy where we no longer have a scarcity in private goods) is to enable improvements in said goods, it kind of defeats the object.
Secondly, the effect of cutting public spending is to reduce aggregate demand by taking money out of ordinary people's pockets. With less money to spend, they purchase fewer goods and services, so the people who provide those goods and services also have less money to spend, and so on. The net result is lower economic growth. To get around this problem, people are provided with consumer credit, but many people are now becoming over-burdened with debt, and are having to reduce spending.
My prediction: With a Tory government, we'll have another recession before 2020. Of course, it will all be down to 'the mess we inherited'. We just need to give the 'long-term economic plan' some more time.
(31-05-2017 23:11 )marxian Wrote: [ -> ]My prediction: With a Tory government, we'll have another recession before 2020. Of course, it will all be down to 'the mess we inherited'. We just need to give the 'long-term economic plan' some more time.
With that prediction in mind I would say that would be a real
big possibility but the frightening thing is that I fear that if the next recession caused another huge financial collapse I reckon if those two factors were combined together, they probably
could kill off the high street as we know it altogether
^ You have to feel for Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
Her father had died a few days ago and the PM still wanted her to cover for her on the show. Her mind must not have been on the election and fair play to her in continuing with last nights appearance