Yay I made a post in here that's not a one-liner abusing Craig.

What does this Fabian Review actually aim to prevent - is it the continued rise in debt-to-GDP ratio or is it more an expansion of government spending? Of course, to prevent the former all you need is a boom or (election-suicide?) tax rises. I honestly think the UK's economy has the capacity for one in the medium term. London's position as a world city has only strengthened in the last few decades, and will continue to do so, and as long as some sense is employed, spillover to other urban areas in the same country is surely inevitable. A completely scientific analysis, I realise.

 

I think we will still be an equally credible country to lend to, come the next time we need to borrow substantially, too. Perhaps the forthcoming addition of many more countries to such a credibility will mean we'll not stand out as much, but I don't see how that'll change the interest rate at which we'll be able to borrow.

 

It seems obvious to me that taking a Tory-lite stance on government spending won't really benefit Labour. Similarly, it was you, Tyron, claiming that the Tories moving towards UKIP's stance on this EU fiasco will only legitimise their policies / legitimise UKIP as a party rather than win back voters defected from the Tories, eh? Because that seems to be exactly what's happened.

'All you need is a boom' is a bit of a throwaway line. Planning that a boom will definitely happen at some point to save our budget calculations isn't exactly the responsible thing to do as a party hoping to run things, especially when we don't know if that boom will be big enough to make the sums add up. The Fabian Review aims to restore our debt-to-GDP ratio to pre-2008 levels (amongst other things) - which I think is necessary for us to get borrowing at conditions at all as favourable as they were in 2008 by the time of the next recession.

 

I really don't see how anybody could expect the markets to be as friendly to us as they were then if by the time of the next crash we haven't brought down the deficit and reduced overall debt-to-GDP ratio significantly, as it really isn't sustainable to just keep on borrowing. And yeah, we could do it through tax rises. It would probably be immensely unpopular (just watch the screams of 'WHY ARE MY TAXES GOING UP WHEN WE'RE SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON SCROUNGERS AND MPs WAGES', and that'll be the polite ones.), but it could be done - presuming it wouldn't cause a drag on the economy in any case. And before anybody mentions, I don't think we could plug the gap with just the salve of tax rises on those on the top rate and 40p rate. Unless we REALLY went to town on it, but if we did that it would likely be counterproductive. I don't agree with Craig at all that tax rises of a few pence are enough to send everyone on the top rate screaming abroad. Rising them to something like 60+p probably would be.

 

The last sentence doesn't really recognise that I identified that there's a pretty big disconnect between what could win an election and what a government that won it would have to do. The central problem for Labour isn't how to win the next election (which is a problem, but one which has answers and is solvable.), but how to win the next election without either Labour tearing itself apart in 2016, the public tearing us apart in 2016, or the markets tearing us apart in 2020 - or sooner.

Edited December 23, 201311 yr by Cassandra

I really don't see how anybody could expect the markets to be as friendly to us as they were then if by the time of the next crash we haven't brought down the deficit and reduced overall debt-to-GDP ratio significantly, as it really isn't sustainable to just keep on borrowing.

 

But Japan still have an extremely high deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio, and have consistently refused to bow to calls to bring in huge cuts, and there's still been no market reaction whatsoever, despite the predictable doom-mongers who routinely screech about how they're losing "credibility". So if Japan are OK, I can't see why we would be in difficulty, especially since our longterm demographic trends are much healthier than Japan's are (thanks to immigration :angel: ).

 

What really terrified markets about the Euro was not the levels of debt per se, it was the fear that the political momentum was rushing towards the Euro collapsing altogether.

 

And yeah, we could do it through tax rises. It would probably be immensely unpopular (just watch the screams of 'WHY ARE MY TAXES GOING UP WHEN WE'RE SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON SCROUNGERS AND MPs WAGES', and that'll be the polite ones.), but it could be done - presuming it wouldn't cause a drag on the economy in any case. And before anybody mentions, I don't think we could plug the gap with just the salve of tax rises on those on the top rate and 40p rate. Unless we REALLY went to town on it, but if we did that it would likely be counterproductive. I don't agree with Craig at all that tax rises of a few pence are enough to send everyone on the top rate screaming abroad. Rising them to something like 60+p probably would be.

 

Taxes are a more difficult topic, I agree it would probably be hard for Labour to rise taxes for the average person at this time (especially since it would undermine their "cost of living" stuff), but I definitely think there's STRONG public support for raising taxes on the rich, as shown by the fact the biggest movement in the polls since the last election was the scrapping of the 50p tax rate (yes, I definitely think it was the 50p rate and to a lesser extent the pasty tax that were responsible for that, not the whole "omnishambles" aspect which the Westminster media tends to think was the main reason for the government's slide into unpopularity, purely because they're obsessed with competence whereas most of the public don't really care too much about it). As I said in the previous post, there's such a strong anti-rich feeling now that even the so-called "aspirational" class would not care about the "the rich will leave the country" argument.

 

There's a big opportunity for Ed Miliband to draw a comparison between Thatcher "bringing the trade unions into heel" and what needs to be done with the super-rich and big businesses now, by saying it's just as unacceptable for them to act like they're above democratically-elected governments and to hold the country to ransom whenever they're threatened to be weakened -- I really think such a statement would be very popular, regardless of how realistic it is, simply because people aren't used to mainstream politicians even acknowledging there's a problem with the richest expecting to be held to a different standard than the rest of us, just as it was for politicians to even attempt to "sort out" the unions in the 70s. But of course, I won't hold my breath for it to actually happen, since the likes of Ed Balls and the "Blairites" would probably have a fit just at the mention of such a thing.

Edited December 23, 201311 yr by Danny

Japan's debt's really anomalous though - it's mostly internal debt to its own citizens rather than foreign debt. Hence it's not quite as dangerous as ours in that the creditors tend to be the people they're serving.

There seems to be an assumption that all tax rises would have to come from 'visible' taxes like income, council and VAT. It doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and there's far more potential to slap on huge progressive rises in things that people won't screech about when it comes through on a piece of paper.

There seems to be an assumption that all tax rises would have to come from 'visible' taxes like income, council and VAT. It doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and there's far more potential to slap on huge progressive rises in things that people won't screech about when it comes through on a piece of paper.

 

Especially taxes on land. To paraphrase Vince Cable: "no amount of indignance and blackmail can make mansions run away to a different country". Let's see how many of these people are actually prepared to follow through on their threats to leave completely, rather than doing what they do now by domiciling themselves for tax purposes somewhere else, while still living here and leeching off the society the rest of us are paying for.

Edited December 23, 201311 yr by Danny

'All you need is a boom' is a bit of a throwaway line. Planning that a boom will definitely happen at some point to save our budget calculations isn't exactly the responsible thing to do as a party hoping to run things, especially when we don't know if that boom will be big enough to make the sums add up. The Fabian Review aims to restore our debt-to-GDP ratio to pre-2008 levels (amongst other things) - which I think is necessary for us to get borrowing at conditions at all as favourable as they were in 2008 by the time of the next recession.

 

I really don't see how anybody could expect the markets to be as friendly to us as they were then if by the time of the next crash we haven't brought down the deficit and reduced overall debt-to-GDP ratio significantly, as it really isn't sustainable to just keep on borrowing. And yeah, we could do it through tax rises. It would probably be immensely unpopular (just watch the screams of 'WHY ARE MY TAXES GOING UP WHEN WE'RE SPENDING ALL OUR MONEY ON SCROUNGERS AND MPs WAGES', and that'll be the polite ones.), but it could be done - presuming it wouldn't cause a drag on the economy in any case. And before anybody mentions, I don't think we could plug the gap with just the salve of tax rises on those on the top rate and 40p rate. Unless we REALLY went to town on it, but if we did that it would likely be counterproductive. I don't agree with Craig at all that tax rises of a few pence are enough to send everyone on the top rate screaming abroad. Rising them to something like 60+p probably would be.

 

The last sentence doesn't really recognise that I identified that there's a pretty big disconnect between what could win an election and what a government that won it would have to do. The central problem for Labour isn't how to win the next election (which is a problem, but one which has answers and is solvable.), but how to win the next election without either Labour tearing itself apart in 2016, the public tearing us apart in 2016, or the markets tearing us apart in 2020 - or sooner.

Yeah I can't say I thought too much about my post or that I know what I'm talking about. :D Especially when it comes to the politics side of things.

 

Ohh, I thought the Fabian Review was something commissioned by the UK government to ensure austerity after 2015 rather than a thinktank's report. Nevertheless the SUMMARY OF THE 20-SOMETHING PAGE SUMMARY was interesting.

 

I recognise that fiscal restraint/the debt-to-GDP ratio, coupled only with a risk of debt defaulting, caused the PIGS' government bond interest rates to teeter into the danger zone but I really think the need to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio is still overstated, and as we've said before that if it's not done in the right places (are Labour gonna mention anything about pensions/pension age??) at the right time then it's counterproductive. There's so much more that can affect gilt yields: QE reduced the rates substantially and the pound being relatively stable has helped the UK be seen as a credible borrower (amongst many other things). And unlike the US, we don't have a broken political system that teases defaulting, which helps too. The 10-year gilt yield has risen fairy substantially in the last year because the expected date for raising the BoE interest rate again has been brought forward, due to the recovery being stronger than expected (which, bringing full circle, has helped narrow the deficit and yet raised the cost of government borrowing. IT'S ALL CONNECTED <3).

Now LAND VALUE TAX is something I'm very much on board with.

RETURN OF THE 100% BETTERMENT TAX

 

No seriously though, inheritance tax revised and made more progressive plz.

There's a big opportunity for Ed Miliband to draw a comparison between Thatcher "bringing the trade unions into heel" and what needs to be done with the super-rich and big businesses now, by saying it's just as unacceptable for them to act like they're above democratically-elected governments and to hold the country to ransom whenever they're threatened to be weakened -- I really think such a statement would be very popular, regardless of how realistic it is, simply because people aren't used to mainstream politicians even acknowledging there's a problem with the richest expecting to be held to a different standard than the rest of us, just as it was for politicians to even attempt to "sort out" the unions in the 70s. But of course, I won't hold my breath for it to actually happen, since the likes of Ed Balls and the "Blairites" would probably have a fit just at the mention of such a thing.

 

Hear hear. When Blair was elected I, as a non-Labour-party-voter, was appalled at how not-left-wing he was in the sense of allowing ridiculous Tory policies of Thatcher to stay in place (ie the ones that have since proven to have done in the economy). His big biz sycophancy was disgusting and they need bringing down a peg. We need more industry and less money-jugglers.

Especially taxes on land. To paraphrase Vince Cable: "no amount of indignance and blackmail can make mansions run away to a different country". Let's see how many of these people are actually prepared to follow through on their threats to leave completely, rather than doing what they do now by domiciling themselves for tax purposes somewhere else, while still living here and leeching off the society the rest of us are paying for.

 

and hear hear here too. Vince Cable is a smart man and less full of political bull than most. I'd add that a major cause of London property price rises are foreign investors making cash out of the market which has a knock-on effect down the line. Rich people always protect their cash. They hire people to do just that. If someone is making a fortune out of British consumers they aren't going to b*gger off abroad due to tax rises, as long as they don't get to the ridiculous 95% levels of the 60's

First YouGov poll of the year has Labour 8% ahead, 40% to 32%. "There is going to be a lot of tears for the cleaners of [Tory] HQ to mop up in the morning :D "

Edited January 6, 201411 yr by Danny

People have to take responsibility for their own actions though

 

Someone i have on Facebook has just taken out a wonga loan to get the new X Box, when he cant keep up with the payments it will be hard to have any sympathy for him, he didn't need an X Box it is not a life essential, he bought something he cant afford outright at ridiculous interest

 

Sadly there are a lot like him out there

 

 

That's nothing Craig. A recent documentary said people take out Wonga loans for nights out clubbing. :rolleyes:

First YouGov poll of the year has Labour 8% ahead, 40% to 32%. "There is going to be a lot of tears for the cleaners of [Tory] HQ to mop up in the morning :D "

 

Early days dear boy early days

 

We have 16 months worth of economic recovery ahead, if this does not transmit into increased tory votes I will be very surprised

That's nothing Craig. A recent documentary said people take out Wonga loans for nights out clubbing. :rolleyes:

 

This I can well believe :(

 

Just saw a program tonight called Benefits Street

 

It was like an 60 min advert for Currys with all the massive plasma screens, iPhones, satellite dishes and games consoles on display in claimants houses :angry: :angry:

Taking into account the likelyhood of continued growth all the time between now and next election, protest voters returning to the fold from UKIP, incumbency effect for existing tory mp's and Ed being a terrible orator in the election tv debates i think the result will be

 

Tory 39%

Labour 31%

Lib Dem 12%

UKIP 9%

Others 9%

Taking into account the likelyhood of continued growth all the time between now and next election, protest voters returning to the fold from UKIP, incumbency effect for existing tory mp's and Ed being a terrible orator in the election tv debates i think the result will be

 

Tory 39%

Labour 31%

Lib Dem 12%

UKIP 9%

Others 9%

It's been shown a million times that Labour stand to gain almost as much from a UKIP decline as the Tories, so how exactly you expect them to lose almost a quarter of their current polling figures I have no idea.

 

If I were being cynical:

 

Labour 36%

Tories 32%

UKIP 12%

Lib Dems 11%

Others 9%

 

According to Electoral Calculus that gives a seat breakdown according to universal swing of (Craig's in brackets):

 

Labour 346 (266)

Tories 253 (340)

Lib Dems 23 (16)

Others 28 (28)

It's been shown a million times that Labour stand to gain almost as much from a UKIP decline as the Tories, so how exactly you expect them to lose almost a quarter of their current polling figures I have no idea.

 

Improving economic conditions basically

 

By May 2014 :

 

People will feel more confident about the economy, every forecast shows continual growth between now and May 14

 

More people will be in jobs than now

 

Wages will keep up with or outstrip the cost of living in much of the private sector

 

The likely abysmal performances of Ed in the tv debates

 

The relentless media onslaught against Ed / Labour

 

More and more people joining the housing ladder, we had a massive lead over other parties among homeowners

 

 

 

 

I put the chances of a Conservative majority at below 10%. I feel like I've said this 20 times now in this thread because you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the voices of sanity - but improving economic conditions (completely based on unsustainable debt by the way) means nothing if the general populous feel poorer; wage stagnation, energy price inflation etc. Osborne is promising cuts to welfare (a small percentage of the work and pensions spending) yet also promises to keep increasing pensions (a huge and spiralling out of control percentage of work and pensions spending). The guy is an idiot.

 

Cameron is even too scared to take on a debate with Farage because he knows that he would be ANNIHILATED.

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by Doctor Blind

I put the chances of a Conservative majority at below 10%. I feel like I've said this 20 times now in this thread because you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the voices of sanity - but improving economic conditions (completely based on unsustainable debt by the way) means nothing if the general populous feel poorer; wage stagnation, energy price inflation etc. Osborne is promising cuts to welfare (a small percentage of the work and pensions spending) yet also promises to keep increasing pensions (a huge and spiralling out of control percentage of work and pensions spending). The guy is an idiot.

 

Cameron is even too scared to take on a debate with Farage because he knows that he would be ANNIHILATED.

 

Welfare claimants don't vote tory anyways so cuts to welfare won't affect the general election, welfare reform has been one of our most popular policies among the electorate so if we carry on reforming welfare then it will improve our ratings not damage them

 

Pensioners are also our core voters so keep them sweet they will vote for us

 

They may feel poorer NOW but there are 2 lots of wage increases coming up, April 14 and April 15 for those in work and the IOD reckon the average wage this year is going to go up by about 2.5% in the private sector, this is higher than inflation slightly so less and less people will be feeling worse off

 

Not at all in terms of Cameron, he has shown at PMQ that he is by far the best orator in politics today and Farage would come unstuck in a tv debate as he is a 2 trick pony, immigration and Europe, when he will have to explain to people that he wants a cleaner to pay the same amount of tax as Lord Sugar he will sink like a stone

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by Sandro Raniere