Does it matter who I vote for?

[srb7677]

No, it just meant you were borrowing at a slower rate, until you were borrowing at a faster rate again, let's stop kidding ourselves the Westminster voted for the current crisis unanimously. Now they going to milk it for all its worth hoping they can get their voters back I don't see it personally,

There remains the problem of millions of sheeple who invariably vote Labour or Tory no matter what, useful idiots on behalf of the establishment. Until their voting power can be broken we are stuck with the same old shite all the time.

[Sheepy]

Government borrowing was less as in austerity was reducing the amount we borrowed, meaning we could pay more back, thus reducing the interest paid, meaning the finances were in far better shape than when Labour were in. Meaning the feckless could all have Sky movies as well as Sky sports!!

Would hate to disappoint Mr C 😉

No, it just meant you were borrowing at a slower rate, until you were borrowing at a faster rate again, let's stop kidding ourselves the Westminster voted for the current crisis unanimously. Now they going to milk it for all its worth hoping they can get their voters back I don't see it personally, 

[Nick]

So, government borrowing was less as in not so high, for a time, until it was at an all-time high again. So, in actual fact austerity didn't fix anything but reduce borrowing for a short time.

Government borrowing was less as in austerity was reducing the amount we borrowed, meaning we could pay more back, thus reducing the interest paid, meaning the finances were in far better shape than when Labour were in. Meaning the feckless could all have Sky movies as well as Sky sports!! 

Would hate to disappoint Mr C 😉 

[patman post]

Aren't you going to put your property in your girls names?

And pay them market rent as pocket money?

There's other options...

[Sheepy]

Government borrowing had been reducing over the period of austerity.

So, government borrowing was less as in not so high, for a time, until it was at an all-time high again. So, in actual fact austerity didn't fix anything but reduce borrowing for a short time. 

[Borchester]

I think inheritance tax should only kick in at £2 million — and a party which proposes that will get my vote. Rising property prices have pushed many people into being asset rich, but cash poor.

I know there are various provisions for bereaved spouses and cohabitees, but how much of the £6 billion raised annually, actually comes from the likes of Great Aunt Maisie's or Uncle Fred's Victorian end of terrace in Shoreditch...?

Aren't you going to put your property in your girls names?

[patman post]

I think inheritance tax should only kick in at £2 million — and a party which proposes that will get my vote. Rising property prices have pushed many people into being asset rich, but cash poor.

I know there are various provisions for bereaved spouses and cohabitees, but how much of the £6 billion raised annually, actually comes from the likes of Great Aunt Maisie's or Uncle Fred's Victorian end of terrace in Shoreditch...?

[johnofgwent]

<sub>To revisit the thread title again for a moment....

I recall after Ed Milliband took over the party in obscurity and lost his marbles (sorry, Ed Stones) I did actually get a copy of both manifestoes at the election Ed lost for them.</sub>

After speed reading both it seemed to me the only difference was one wanted to set an inheritance tax threshold about £100k higher than the other.

[patman post]

Yes, it was, you can blame its failure on whatever you like, it has still failed.

Seems like the last stages of scrapie are kicking in there, but let's address the proposition.

Government borrowing had been reducing over the period of austerity.

In 2009/10, the Government borrowed around £1 of every £4.50 it spent, but by 2018/19 this had declined to £1 in every £20.50. Mostly the result of the Government limiting its spending, with day-to-day spending on public services particularly squeezed. **

In 2019/20, borrowing was £57 billion, and was scheduled to be further down to £55 billion in 2020/21.

But Covid kicked in, and the emergency requirements pushed borrowing up to £323 billion (15.1% of GDP — a peacetime record).

The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in very high levels of public spending. As of March 2022, estimates of the cost of Government measures announced so far range from about £310 to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.***

Now there are calls for Government to alleviate rising household energy costs caused by rising world gas and oil prices.

Even supposing the Government picks up 50% of each family's bill (estimated to hit an average of £3000 this year) — that's another £1500 x 25 million. And will it stop there...?

** https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/government-spending-borrowing-and-debt/

*** https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9309/CBP-9309.pdf

[Sheepy]

No it wasn't: UK debt had started to come down, it was Covid that upset that.

Yes, it was, you can blame its failure on whatever you like, it has still failed.

[Nick]

years of austerity was a failure

No it wasn't: UK debt had started to come down, it was Covid that upset that.

[Sheepy]

So, quantitative easing was a failure, years of austerity was a failure, the present situation is driven by greed of commodity brokers and the corporations who own the commodities, the same people who received the benefits of quantitative easing filled their coffers with the banks, while trickledown economics was advertised as the great way forward, who is going to tell them they have all been scammed again by a crooked system? the masses are under constant financial attack by greed? which it doesn't matter who you vote for the attacks on them are constant.

[patman post]

This depends on where you live, as in most cases if you do not agree with the politics of your sitting MP voting against them achiev s f**k all.

Apologies for dragging this up again, but I disagree.

There could come a time when the sense you see in the arguments put forward by the party you support might be shared by enough others to elect the person you support. BUT, how would you feel if your favoured candidate missed out by just one vote, and you'd not bothered to vote?

I'm a Tory supporter. However, I have consistently voted for Diane Abbott** as my local MP because a) she and her team look after Stoke Newington residents, and b) some of the strange opponents that might have conceivably won.

Not wishing to be disrespectful, but she appears now to be a far from well woman and should retire.

Where my vote goes now requires a bit of thinking — but may well come down to a gut reaction on the day...

[Sheepy]

The banking crisis was international, Labour , had one responsibility and that was to try to stop the whole system collapsing, in that they succeeded. The fact that it was international tells all. And is totally different to the unaccountable borrowing that has happened ever since.
A. No, as  you can see I blame the banks. It didn't take eight years to sort , it took eight years to have the banks sitting on more money than ever before, and creat a wealth gap bigger than for many years past. Whilst the countries economy bumped along the bottom on minimum growth.
B, No, Do I blame the banking crisis on Labour ?No.
A question .Where has this £800billion pre 2019 gone ? When we now propose , or so we are told ,to replace all the cuts that were made in ten years, with what more borrowing ,according to Truss.
If the record of Covid spending is to go by , it's probably just as well if we never know.

Did they? Seems to me after 14 years it is worse than when it started.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/editorpicks/time-to-tackle-the-uk-s-quantitative-easing-problem/ar-AA10hDyo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=defe2484e98847799b3f4c24bb47d5f0

[Good old]

Thats the crux of the whole argument with you: you say Labour had nowt to do with the banking crisis, so the economy wasn't there fault and then you point to the enormous hike in UK debt under the tories.
As I've said three times now, the Tories managed to reverse the tragectary that the 2008 crisis put us on, until Covid hit.

It's dead simple...

A) Do you blame the Tories for the mess they inherited in 2008, which took them 8 years to sort?

B) Do you blame the Tories for Covid?

Both of which are encompassed in your "Look what the Tories did to the national debt".

The banking crisis was international, Labour , had one responsibility and that was to try to stop the whole system collapsing, in that they succeeded. The fact that it was international tells all. And is totally different to the unaccountable borrowing that has happened ever since.
A. No, as  you can see I blame the banks. It didn't take eight years to sort , it took eight years to have the banks sitting on more money than ever before, and creat a wealth gap bigger than for many years past. Whilst the countries economy bumped along the bottom on minimum growth.
B, No, Do I blame the banking crisis on Labour ?No.
A question .Where has this £800billion pre 2019 gone ? When we now propose , or so we are told ,to replace all the cuts that were made in ten years, with what more borrowing ,according to Truss.
If the record of Covid spending is to go by , it's probably just as well if we never know.