Reply With QuoteThe money is there , they found it for the DUP !!Originally Posted by Nick
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
:) !
The money is there , they found it for the DUP !!
And I have just told you , the money's there to go to war , prop up a minority government , it's a simple question of priority
My mother's local church talks a god game but ask them to put up a rough sleeper over Christmas and they would run a mile
Clearing up a few of these tax loopholes which the mega rich use would help.
Sludge. Your hatred of the Conservatives is legendary on here, and I’m not disagreeing with you, but if 90% of the wealth in the UK is owned by 10% of the people, how come they are in power most of the time, and when Labour are in charge, why do things never seem to get better? After all, if Labour did a better, fairer job of running the country then they’d surely stay in power longer?
They are as bad as each other.
Because, until recently, Rupert Murdoch decided who would win which election. It rarely has anything to do with policy, and almost always is Hobson's choice of "best of the worst".
Labour in 1997 were Tory Lite - I didn't vote for them after 1997 until 2010 because I thought Brown had the best plan to get out of the global financial crisis. I still think he had the best plan.
I couldn't vote for Miliband, and I didn't think I could vote for Corbyn but then I read his policies and he got my vote, and will get it again in the next election (February/March 2018).
For me, power and wealth have bought most of the media - those that have the most are able to impart the most influence over people. Brexit was a prime example of that where multi-millionaires were able to convince people to leave the EU. The Sun's record at "backing the winner" of general elections is strong (or influencing the electorate, your choice). The printed media's influence has been massive, though with the advent of social media, their power is on the wane.
Through this, people's opinion of Labour is that they'd crash the ecomony again. This myth (lie) has gone unchallenged for almost a decade and in general, people trust the Conservatives with the economy. It should be pointed out that, in opposition, George Osborne has said that he would have done exactly the same as Labour did and spent the same way had he been in power, yet the Conservative press were able to instill into the public a thought that Labour crashed the economy. That was mainly caused by bailing out the banks, which the Conservatives would have done. Had the Tories been in power between 2005-10, the economy would have been in virtually the same state as it was when they joined forces with the Lib Dems in 2010. (It's interesting to note that, despite nearly a decade of austerity, public spending has hardly dropped, yet the worst off have been the most affected while the top earners have had tax cuts; this will bite the Tories in the next election).
A friend of mine is a known economist and lecturer, whose name I shan't divulge. With regard Labour overspending causing a financial crisis, he discovered that the only organisation that claimed this was the Tories. Not one single independent financial organisation did (OBR, IFS etc), yet the right-wing media have pedalled these lines to the point where most believe them to be true.
I can think of one way of summing up the right-wing Tory media - newspapers so clever at manipulating people to think that immigrants and benefit scroungers have caused Britain to be in the state it is, yet have been involved with financial practices that have robbed the country of far more than any group they care to demonise and encouraging people to vote so they can continue doing this. The EU is set to announce major obstacles to the way the mega wealthy and corporations can avoid paying tax. No wonder the Mail, Express, Arron Banks etc wanted out and would do anything to achieve this.
It's all about the powerful and wealthy manipulating the rest of us.
You should cover you're face if you think that second hand caravans are a housing policy in this day n age.There are 10,000 people on the housing waiting list in Cardiff.
Any ideas?
Blair's government are amongst the worst offenders in housing policy agreed. Governments have built homes before. I not going to believe that the private sector is going to fill the void. They won't. You know it, I know it. Government intervention is required. Who else is going to build affordable homes.
Well we could always stick with the status quo and say it can't be done. Why not borrow to build homes. Its not like you won't get a return on the investment. It needs a political will. Its a big ask of course but its a big problem.
Good shout.
We can afford tax cuts for the most wealthy. We don't get a return on that and it costs the economy, but we can afford that. Long term, building has to be more affordable than private renting.
Labour failed on getting enough new homes built - but in other areas of housing policy the Blair/Brown government was light years ahead of what had come before (since the 1970s). The green paper in 2000 'Quality And Choice For All' was the first policy paper in over a generation that thought housing was about more than Right To Buy and interest rates. It set out to transform social rented housing (Choice Based Lettings, the Decent Homes programme and much more) and it also in its last couple of years freed up Councils to start building again (with the work on Self Financing Housing Revenue Accounts that went live under Cameron in 2010). Labour also produced the two housing ministers from the last four decades who cared about housing and knew what they were talking about - Nick Raynsford and John Healey. Governments since 2010 have rolled back to the pathetic stance of the Thatcher/Major years - using the financial crisis and cult of austerity as cover.
Well I know that you know youre housing policy from you're second hand caravan policy so I will take your word for it. I think now though that although the policies, papers and meanings were sound that we have a serious shortage of actual dwellings of a standard for people to occupy. You would think a Labour government would have delivered more actual quality and affordable dwellings. Actual housing stock. The financial crisis and the follow on austerity choice is indeed a useful tool for yet more hand wringing when it comes to getting housing stock built.
There is no bigger issue for me than housing currently. I can't see how it will improve under this shower of c#nts.
This where will the money come from lark. Surely a government that can borrow money at a record low rate, create jobs through constructing housing stock that will in turn generate income and become an assert improve health, criminal justice cots, related improvements in getting people back to or keeping them in work, save countless millions on b and b s, housing benefit rip offs. The wider benefits to society of well housed people. You could ask what will the cost be of not doing it.
Ninian - I'm not saying it's not the case. It just sounds very much like a leasing scheme which all the authorities with their managing agents operate. It could be another scheme as all individual authorities have various schemes in order to utilise the private rented sector. It's foolish of local authorities not to look to utilise the existing housing stock and working with the private housing sector can have other benefits such as bringing empty homes back into use.
Unfortunately, the incentives for private landlords are diminishing (returns and income) due to concerns with continued welfare reform/Universal Credit, reductions in tax relief and increased income tax. Some will have little sympathy for landlords as they are viewed negatively but it will just be another factor in this country's housing crisis.
That's basic economics. Austerity strangled the British economy and it has not brought about the savings to the public purse relative to the misery it has caused millions.
The UK government and every other government who issues its own currency doesn't need to borrow money with any interest attached because it can create any amount for itself at 0% - that's commonly known as quantitative easing, and the UK has magicked £450b of that into existence since 2008. Just 7% of that found its way into the economy, much of the rest lined the pockets of the usual suspects, the bankers.
UK debt to GDP is 90%. The government make out that's horrifically high as cover for swingeing cuts and the poorest have been in the crosshairs. What they never let on is it stood at almost 250% of GDP after World War 2. Britain recovered not by implementing austerity but the direct opposite. One component was building a million prefab homes in 7 years.
What a load of rubbish. You actually think that the Labour government pre 2010 have nothing to do with the state the country is in now ?. They spent billions of pounds of money they didn't have, which our children and childrens children will still be paying for in 50-100 years time. The country was almost bankrupt in 2010 and Corbyns answer to all this is to propose spending and borrowing more in future. How do you know who votes for the Conservatives anyway. There are many of working class and vulnerable people who must have voted for them in 2010 and since in order for them to get in. Corbyn and Mcdonnell are basically communists who dont give a fig about the ordinary people of this country and are only interested in lining their own pockets and the pockets of the people who are backing them (the Corbynistas). The richest and most powerful people in far left/communist places like Russia and China are the leaders, whilst most of the prople live in abject poverty.
George Osborne said he would have spent exactly the same as Labour had he been in power, so what is your point?
he was making a statement about how government spending in the run up to the crash meant the country was unprepared for the downturn. I thought it was quite obvious really.
So when asked the question recently by Andrew Neil, "Would you do what Labour did" and Osborne's reply was "broadly speaking, yes", coupled with the fact that Osborne backed Labour's spending plans 100% when in opposition, should we assume that had the Conservatives been in power, they would have spent the same or not?
Perhaps, given policy would have been different e.g. we may not have light touch regulation although I doubt it.
don't get on your high horse about Labour being at the tiller. It happened when they were in power. If the Tories were in power it may also have happened as I imagine regulation would have been no more stringent than under labour.
I have no doubts that the same would have happened had the Conservatives been in power, which is why it is utterly hypocritcal of them (or their voters) to blame another party for doing exactly what they would have done. However, this is what has happened. The interesting thing in all of this is that not one single independent fiscal organisation have agreed with the Tory mantra that Labour's spending helped cause a crash. Indeed, the BoE, IFS, OBR have all said the opposite.
We have never had a proper socialist Labour government , that's why , Blair was Thatcher in a suit
Posting Permissions
