How much can the SNP do to mitigate the effects of the Bedroom Tax if it's still Westminster policy? Serious question, I don't actually know.

They can divert some of their budget to local authorities to fund the tax benefit lost by the bedroom tax

How much can the SNP do to mitigate the effects of the Bedroom Tax if it's still Westminster policy? Serious question, I don't actually know.

 

If they hold the balance of power convincingly there could be a beautiful irony in the party wanting to leave the United Kingdom having control/say in it. It would also be an opportunity to see how another party acts in coalition given that the very act means "compromise on policies" and see if they come out of it smelling any better than the LibDems.

 

 

The main parties' favourite issue of the deficit getting even LESS important in the eyes of the public as the election draws closer, despite the politicians constantly ranting on about it.

 

 

There have been several reports recently about how Ed Miliband intends to use the NHS as a political weapon. These have all been reported as if it is some sort of exclusive despite the fact that Miliband has already said that it is one of Labour's five priorities. Somehow it doesn't seem to have made the Tories' slightly longer list of six priorities.

 

The Tories are clearly trying to suggest that the NHS should somehow be "above politics". What they are really saying is "We screwed up badly in trying to reorganise the NHS so we'd be awfully grateful if nobody mentioned it in the election campaign. It's notable that each of their most reliable supporters in the press have now led on this story.

The main parties' favourite issue of the deficit getting even LESS important in the eyes of the public as the election draws closer, despite the politicians constantly ranting on about it.

 

 

Got a link to the data? Or else "the video" beckons.

 

Got a link to the data? Or else "the video" beckons.

 

http://comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_1...anuary_2015.pdf

There have been several reports recently about how Ed Miliband intends to use the NHS as a political weapon. These have all been reported as if it is some sort of exclusive despite the fact that Miliband has already said that it is one of Labour's five priorities. Somehow it doesn't seem to have made the Tories' slightly longer list of six priorities.

 

The Tories are clearly trying to suggest that the NHS should somehow be "above politics". What they are really saying is "We screwed up badly in trying to reorganise the NHS so we'd be awfully grateful if nobody mentioned it in the election campaign. It's notable that each of their most reliable supporters in the press have now led on this story.

 

It should be an issue given we'll all need it (except for those well off of course, private hospitals are a world away from the NHS, seen it with my own eye, talked to the staff). This week an elderly friend/father of friend is getting first-hand experience of the new reality as he was given 2 days to live 4 days ago (at home), reluctant to provide care in hospital or at home (even though said care did improve his quality of life) and the first question you get asked these days if you're old and looking frail, in hospital, is "could you please sign here giving us permission not revive you if you die? Cheers, it's for the best, keeps our costs down, youre going to die anyway at some point." I paraphrase and translate a bit there for convenience. If you don't sign, they usually take a view not to revive anyway.

 

As long as rich people continue to pay for their own better care, they will continue to prefer not to be that concerned about the NHS - being as they never step foot in the place.

 

Just a thought....

The head of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies today pointing out that this election's £40bn difference will be the biggest difference between the two parties on spending since 1992, or even 1983. But of course, ALL THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!!!1!1!

 

I don’t like to make predictions, but here are two. First, if Labour wins the next election, it will not, contrary to claims by the Conservatives last week, increase planned public spending in 2015-16 by anything like £20 billion.

 

Second, if the Conservatives win the election, they, despite what the opposition would have us believe, will neither destroy the NHS nor return the welfare state to some Dickensian, or at least 1930s, level of provision.

 

These hyperbolic claims are, of course, part of normal election rhetoric. At one level they are nonsense, but the competing claims do tell us something. This time around, the stated fiscal positions of Labour and the Tories are really very different — more different than in any other election since at least 1992 and, arguably, since 1983.

 

Suppose we look at what each party has said about its own aspirations, rather than at what each has said about the other. If we take their statements at face value, then by 2020 an Ed Miliband-led government would be borrowing and spending a lot more than a David Cameron-led government.

 

Conversely, a Cameron-led government would have implemented much more severe spending cuts than would one led by Mr Miliband.

 

Labour has said that it wants to achieve balance or surplus on the present budget. That is, it would be happy to keep borrowing to pay for investment spending — at present levels of investment, spending that would allow it to borrow about £25 billion a year.

 

To achieve that, it would need to find spending cuts, or tax increases, of about £7 billion after 2015-16, perhaps not easy after so many years of austerity. And don’t forget that both parties are signed up to a tough spending round in 2015-16 itself. Yet cuts of this magnitude over the rest of the parliament would be modest relative to what has been delivered thus far.

 

The Conservative plans are rather different. They want to achieve a surplus on the overall budget and so would not be happy to borrow to invest. That means that they would need to find spending cuts of about £33 billion after 2015-16. Lest there be any doubt, there is a big difference between £7 billion of cuts and £33 billion of cuts.

 

In fact, the difference between the parties may be even greater than that. If you take the plans set out in the autumn statement at face value, spending cuts of more than £50 billion could be required after 2015-16. It was this apparent ambition that led the Office for Budget Responsibility to warn that spending on public services could fall to its lowest level since the 1930s.

 

One thing that all the parties seem to agree on, though, is that spending on health, schools and pensions should be protected, but these are the biggest bits of spending. If these protections are continued, the scale of Labour/Conservative differences can be seen particularly starkly.

 

Under autumn statement plans, Conservatives could be cutting unprotected budgets by 26 per cent after 2015-16, or an extraordinary 41 per cent over the whole period from 2010. Even merely to meet their more modest fiscal target, these budgets would need to be cut by more than 15 per cent after 2015-16. Labour would need to implement cuts of only 3 per cent.

 

All of this, of course, points to another big difference. If Labour is spending more — and if it doesn’t raise taxes — it will be borrowing more and, perhaps more important, presiding over a greater burden of debt.

 

The effect of this might be relatively modest in the short term, but borrowing as much as their rule would allow beyond 2020 would mean national debt about £170 billion higher (in today’s terms) by the end of the 2020s than would be achieved through a balanced budget.

 

So, even if Labour does keep spending cuts to a minimum over the next parliament, further tax increases or spending cuts might prove necessary down the line to reduce risks with the long-term state of the public finances further.

 

So the choices are pretty stark. One thing that Labour and the Conservatives have in common is an unwillingness to discuss the third leg of the fiscal stool — taxes. But don’t let it be said that they offer no choice at this election. These are real, meaty, political choices.

 

In case there's any doubt on the difference, let's not forget that abolishing Trident (which some sectors of the left seem to think would be enough to create a utopia of social justice) would only raise £1.5bn a year. We're talking a lot here.

How is "lots of cuts" or "lots and lots of cuts" going to appear a clear, appetising choice to the 50%+ of the public who want no cuts at all? Irrespective of personal opinions, I'm still yet to understand the rationale behind how Labour think this is going to be a winning strategy.

 

I couldn't care less how much difference there is between the two main parties compared to the past, when the whole spectrum for the mainstream parties has been shifted massively to the right on economic issues.

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by Danny

That's an interesting read. Thanks for posting that Tirren.

 

What is interesting is that they have looked at the deficit and budget cuts alone without really considering the implications of the tax changes proposed by both sides. This would arguably widen the gap further. As i understand it, Labour currently plans to introduce a Mansion Tax and there is talk of the 50% rate returning. Any follow through on rhetoric regarding the Living Wage would see VAT receipts, or Tax on Savings receipts, rise also. Then there is the economic boost of £25bn of investment p.a. While the overall debt may be increased, some £125bn in investment over a parliament will have substantial knock on effects to tax receipts and GDP so the effect wouldn't be as pronounced.

 

I read a fantastic article on the Guardian's Australian site last week about deficits and national debt that's worth a read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...get?CMP=soc_567 It makes an interesting argument that national debt is effectively a control on inflation and that any nation with a free trading currency should actively be looking to borrow to help it control inflation.

"I don’t like to make predictions but..." is definitely the "I'm not being racist but..." of the statistical world.

"I don’t like to make predictions but..." is definitely the "I'm not being racist but..." of the statistical world.

:D!

That's an interesting read. Thanks for posting that Tirren.

 

What is interesting is that they have looked at the deficit and budget cuts alone without really considering the implications of the tax changes proposed by both sides. This would arguably widen the gap further. As i understand it, Labour currently plans to introduce a Mansion Tax and there is talk of the 50% rate returning. Any follow through on rhetoric regarding the Living Wage would see VAT receipts, or Tax on Savings receipts, rise also. Then there is the economic boost of £25bn of investment p.a. While the overall debt may be increased, some £125bn in investment over a parliament will have substantial knock on effects to tax receipts and GDP so the effect wouldn't be as pronounced.

 

I read a fantastic article on the Guardian's Australian site last week about deficits and national debt that's worth a read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...get?CMP=soc_567 It makes an interesting argument that national debt is effectively a control on inflation and that any nation with a free trading currency should actively be looking to borrow to help it control inflation.

 

looked at the article, and I immediately take issue with the statement that the 50's and 60's were some sort of golden era rising standards of living despite war debt. Not in the UK I grew up in they weren't, the average standard of living for most of us would make the average modern council estate resident look incredibly affluent. It was an austere time with little in the way of luxury for the not-well-off until the much-maligned 70's, the decade that time forgot what with all the strikes and inflation.

 

Of course, using logic, if it were as easy as hey lets all borrow madly and have an affluent society, then who's going to lend, why would they lend, and what about all those countries that borrowed and borrowed and defaulted cos they'd borrowed to the point where they could borrow no more.

 

Borrowing for something useful (eg building say half a million council houses in 2015/16 guaranteed, no arguments, no backing out, we'll definitely do it) yes, would be a huge help for the country in so many ways, including reducing rents to the private sector, socially fair, and councils actually get income for their assets from the rents (minus repairs) not to mention solar panel leases on the roofs to generate electricity and sell it to the foreign companies who control power. There would of course be a side effect, falling house prices as Buy To Rent profits drop so people will be in negative equity (again) for years. banks debts that havent been sorted would increase as asset worth drop. Win-win then! :lol:

 

 

Labour might be ditching the one policy which was close to getting any public awareness and that was an asset (disclaimer: the Sun is the source, thus obvious caveats apply):

 

Labour preparing to u-turn on energy price freeze

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by Danny

Labour might be ditching the one policy which was close to getting any public awareness and that was an asset (disclaimer: the Sun is the source):

 

Labour preparing to u-turn on energy price freeze

So far as I know it would almost certainly be changed to another one that you'd probably be even keener on. The reason there have been echoes that we should probably change our position recently is because oil prices have collapsed by about half in the last six months, so an energy price freeze would actually leave the energy companies better off - so the sensible thing (this is total speculation, mind) would be to change it to a price cap which lowers bills, gives them capacity to fall further, but acts as a ceiling to prevent collusion.

There's nothing wrong with a party changing their policy if the facts change. The slump in the oil price may well mean that Labour need to reassess their energy price policy.

The Tories are happily promoting the fact that Labour have signed up to Tory economic plans:

 

Mr McCartney was contacted earlier this month by a constituent who said she was angered by the cuts to library and bus services and an apparent disparity between the level of cuts in the south east compared to West Yorkshire.

 

Mr McCartney, who has a majority of 4,837, urged her to support Chas Ball, the local Green candidate, providing a link to his website.

 

“You are of very fixed political views and I respect that,” he said, in an email seen by the Telegraph.

 

“You do not want to hear that no other major party is offering anything different except perhaps the Greens. As I said before there will be even more cuts for Kirklees if we get a Labour government.”

 

He went on: “Thank you for taking the time to give me your views, which I do appreciate it, even though we disagree. Chas Ball is the Green candidate in our area at the General Election and from everything you have said he is the only candidate who matches what you believe.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/g...the-Greens.html

If that is a direct quote, I don't think much of his command of English. What sort of sentence is "Thank you for taking the time to give me your views, which I do appreciate it, even though we disagree."?

So far as I know it would almost certainly be changed to another one that you'd probably be even keener on. The reason there have been echoes that we should probably change our position recently is because oil prices have collapsed by about half in the last six months, so an energy price freeze would actually leave the energy companies better off - so the sensible thing (this is total speculation, mind) would be to change it to a price cap which lowers bills, gives them capacity to fall further, but acts as a ceiling to prevent collusion.

 

spot on I'm sure. Some airlines have fallen foul of this too, buying in advance at a fixed (now higher) rate...