General Election 2017

[Ben]

I also agree that the election result may have actually saved the conservatives, they now have to listen, adapt and reach out to people and I hope they do. Hopefully they've got the message and (just) kept themselves in power too.

Yes, maybe the election result will act as a wake up call for the Conservatives. That seems to be the case with a few government ministers speaking out against the pay cap, calling for a 'softening' in austerity, and trying to engage younger voters by having a rethink on issues such as tuition fees.

That said, the government's stance remains to have a pay cap, something that was enthusiastically cheered by MPs who all get wages rises and pay far beyond what these public sector workers do and for doing far less. And not only that, the truth is Cameron and Osborne left a lot of the deeper cuts for the current parliament, cuts which Hammond is enthusiastically embracing to public sector pay and with benefit freezes, while at the same time offering tax cuts worth £40bn to the most well-off and striking £1bn deals with the DUP. So there is still a real sense that this government still don't get the message of the last election and that they're continuing to make ideological choices that are both unfair and unjust.

 

[Alan M]

"for doing far less"? I'd beg to differ on such a blanket dismissal - there are a lot of hard-working MPs, I don't think they should all get tarred with the same brush as those with 27 outside interests and "part-time jobs" or those who never bother turning up for debates etc.

Somehow I don't think having a sudden rethink on tuition fees is going to woo that many younger voters - it is a misinterpretation of the myriad reasons why the Conservatives didn't enthuse that section of the electorate.

I bet those Barclays former executive bankers in the dock today never had to suffer a pay freeze either before or after 2008.

 

[Ben]

"for doing far less"? I'd beg to differ on such a blanket dismissal - there are a lot of hard-working MPs, I don't think they should all get tarred with the same brush as those with 27 outside interests and "part-time jobs" or those who never bother turning up for debates etc..

Alan, it wasn't a 'blanket dismissal'. Of course, there are hardworking MPs from all parties. My point was, that of those who voted against the pay cap for public sector workers, there would have been a number who earn far more and get far bigger pay rises and do indeed do far less. It was a general point about a sense of fairness in the decisions this government are making.

Somehow I don't think having a sudden rethink on tuition fees is going to woo that many younger voters - it is a misinterpretation of the myriad reasons why the Conservatives didn't enthuse that section of the electorate.

I hardly think what the Tories have said is revolutionary either, but at least there seems to be some form of acknowledgement from Damian Green in particular, that something needs to be done to woo young voters. I totally agree that there are a number of reasons why young voters didn't vote Tories, but my point was, that at least some government ministers seem to be starting to acknowledge this. As I go on to say, an awful lot more needs to be done.

Generally speaking, Alan, we're on the same page with our political views, so let's aim our arguments at the Tory voters on here!

 

[James Wood]

Brexit means Brexit. No hard, soft or medium boiled. The plan has been delayed because of Gina Miller, Tim nice but dim Farron, Jimmie Krankie and everyone else that couldn't (and still cant) accept the result.

But Paul, can you please advise us of what "The Plan" consists of?

If you can, then you are clearly a major player in HM Government because it appears to most of us that no one in high office has frankly the first idea as to what "The Plan" is.

Seems to me that the phrase "Bloody shambles" sums the present position re HM Government re this matter.

Which given the massive importance that this issue has and will continue to have on all of our lives over the next decade or more is a damning indictment on the party that has got us into this dreadful situation.

Thanks to the utter self interest of the 'Nasty Party', we know find ourselves outside of our biggest market and in an unequal battle of 27 v 1 (which we will never win).

Oh, and remind me. How much of that £350M per week that the 'Out' campaign said would be directed back to the NHS has so far found its way into its coffers?

I'll tell you.

Nowt. Zero. Bugger all. Diddly squat. Zippo.

 

[Knutsfordian]

I wasn't going to post on this thread again - but the love in amongst the corbynistas on here is getting to be a bit overwhelming.

Austerity - what austerity? One may argue that there hasn't been any austerity with borrowing continuing to increase. Whilst wages may not have gone up in line with inflation, many public sector employees have received incremental pay awards as well as annual pay awards and actual pay is only part of the picture. Tax thresholds have been increased significantly, but more importantly interest rates have not been normalised as they should have been. If these rates had been moved to where they should be in a healthy economy (say 5%) any inflation level pay award would have been wiped out by increased living costs for the vast majority of people living with personal debts. So be careful what you wish for. Get more actual pay and see other bills soar? Is that what you really want? I think a huge number of people live in a bubble where the implications of what happens within the wider economy and the correlation (?) between various elements are not understood. Thereby looking at 1 element - public sector pay as an example - can take you down a path you really don't want to go down. Even if the pay cap is lifted the question is then by how much? What number of billions do we pour into the public sector to assuage anger over pay? Do some groups get more than others? If the pay cap is lifted the ground is being set for inter group warfare and flexing of muscles to drive a better bargain.

I know how to what level the country can afford to service government debt is contentious. In my view debt has to be repaid at some point. Paying ourselves more now to provide services we can't afford is leaving the next generation with even greater problems. We have to have a realistic debate about what is affordable and how that debt will be serviced.

For me the greatest priority isn't even public sector pay, its student debt. We are loading the next generation with huge amounts of personal debt that comes with a vicious price tag through above inflation interest rates - equivalent to many people's mortgages and taking as long to repay. If we are serious about being fair to future generations we should start there by at least making student debt interest free.

 

[Alan M]

No austerity? So to what do you attribute the 40% reduction in budgets for local authorities over the past few years? Or the resultant slashing of local authority controlled public services, eg spending on libraries, toilets, social care, highways, etc. Or the cuts to the police, prison service and armed forces? Or the pretence that maintaining schools funding at current levels is not a cut in an era of rising school populations? Or the cuts imposed on almost every single benefit available to the disabled and the working poor? Or the freezing of government-level infrastructure projects? And that's without mentioning the pay freeze in the public sector from 2011, which a few years later became a pay cap.

Auserity describes the macro-economics of a government policy. Poverty describes the micro-economics of the effects on individuals. The two should not be confused.

And there is an argument for saying that increased levels of debt and borrowing are far from a sign of individual prosperity, but of individuals' incapacity to "cut their cloth" - for some admittedly their own fault, for others out of their control with income levels falling and bills rising. Finally, we don't just split into "haves" and "have nots", we now have a middle category of "want to haves" - witness the increased proportion of the borrowing linked to new car financing.

 

[Knutsfordian]

There's a lot of hype about how bad austerity is now and the impact on jobs and wages - but its as nothing compared to the depression of the 1980's where inflation was over 10%, Interest rates over 10%, over 3 million unemployed and in some areas the unemployment rate was over 20% and social unrest on the streets, so for those who think these are tough times think again it could get an awful lot worse.

There's no doubt big spending departments and local government have had to start spending their money more carefully and there will always be headlines about exceptional cases that fall outside the norm, but what's the reality? Life goes on. Roads get mended (sometimes), bins get emptied, children go to school and the council still collects its tax. And we are still spending more than we can afford to personally and government borrowing continues to increase despite the restraints on spending. So where would it be with no restraints? Someone will have to pay up at some point.

Is there more poverty now than in the 1980's? I doubt that very much. Are any levels of poverty acceptable ? I don't think so. Can it be eliminated in one generation? I don't think so. Will spending even more money now solve the problem in the long term? I don't think so. Unless all the parties can agree a baseline for government borrowing and spending we will continue to have this cycle of spend and cuts with the outcomes being oh so familiar

 

[Joe Reacher]

This reminds me of a question from my daughter - "Why doesn't the government just print more money and give it out to everyone? Then we can all have more money to spend!"
Such a simple and innocent question!

 

[Alan M]

They've tried that one - and given it the fancy name of quantitative easing

 

[Knutsfordian]

at least we agree on that one !!

 

[Alan M]

I think we also agree on the essential message of your final paragraph, but that's to some extent a consequence of our adversarial two-party system

 

[Kit]

I don't know why we all can't just agree that no matter what is going on with Brexit and pay caps (of which I have been a 'victim' for 7 years), Corbyn and his socialism are not the answer.

 

[Alan M]

Because that would also take some people to admit that May, Davies and co are not the answer either.

Personally I can be confident there is enough of me on this thread to show I am not a wild fan of Corbyn, but we have a system which presents us with two alternatives neither of which could ever be described as ideal.

I see the latest bit of the Tory manifesto to be introduced to the No10 shredder is the plan to scrap school lunches "because we've listened to parents and schools". Maybe someone should introduce them to the novel idea of consulting stakeholders before announcing policies, rather than after (cf. the social care cap debacle).

 

[Kit]

Totally agree Alan, the Tory manifesto must go down as one of the worst in history. They took voters for granted and failed to understand that people wanted to talk about more than Brexit.

 

[Ben]

I don't know why we all can't just agree that no matter what is going on with Brexit and pay caps (of which I have been a 'victim' for 7 years), Corbyn and his socialism are not the answer.

Millions of voters disagree with you. To be precise, almost 13 million people voted for Corbyn and his Socialism.

Exact figures - Tory 13,667,213
- Labour 12,874,985

There ain't much in that! Personally, I think Corbyn and his Socialism is the answer, let's start seeing some spending and growth-based policies that can get the economy moving again, rather than tired old austerity (even if the Tory voters on here insist it doesn't exist)!

 

[Alan M]

Again, and at the risk of being accused of sitting on a fence, I would argue that a lot of those 13 million voted against May and her policies of Brexitism with a dash of Conservativism as much as voting for Corbyn and his Socialism.

Kit's point is an illustration of this - the Conservatives focused on "vote for me, I'm wonderful, oh and by the way that means vote Conservative", then came out with a manifesto which focused on "we can't be bothered thinking of any joined up policies or of consulting on them or even costing them because the only thing that matters is Brexit, so you'll just have to put up with us for the next five years", while Labour produced what was seen by many (rightly or wrongly) as offering them a way out of their misery. There was no real alternative on offer to either of these viewpoints. Labour won the election debate hands down, but they had an impossible mountain to climb in terms of seats and so we ended up with the mess we have now, with a government limping along on a non-exisitent majority, led by a PM who has lost all the respect of most of her ministers and who are ignoring the idea of collective cabinet responsibility as they jockey for position behind her. However you spin it, though, Labour did not win, or Corbyn would be in No 10 now, and I have the feeling that now she's discovered the magic money tree in the back garden of No 10 and plundered it to buy off the DUP she'll be forced to pick a few more of its fruits before the year is out in order to bolster support for her party (but not with her at the helm) for when another election does finally get foisted upon us.

For the oldies amongst us, she's a Jack Bonell figure ...

 

[James Wood]

They've tried that one - and given it the fancy name of quantitative easing

Strange how many terms making money available at a drop of a hat when just five minutes before there seemed to be none available there are. IMHO, Quantitative Easing sounds pretty similar to 'The Magic Money Tree' that the Tories used to criticize Labour's spending plans. But despite sating that the cupboard was bare and austerity needed to continue, all of a sudden, 'Spreadsheet Phil' managed to find £1bn of readies beneath the mattress at No 11 to help fund their sordid little deal with the DUP.

 

[toddyb]

Can we end this thread now,it's getting boring just going round in circles.

 

[Nicki]

Toddy - I feel your pain but take solace in the fact that you don't have to read it.

Just give the thread a wide berth... put your efforts into Witton-bashing instead! You've been neglecting those duties recently.

 

[James Wood]

No austerity? So to what do you attribute the 40% reduction in budgets for local authorities over the past few years? Or the resultant slashing of local authority controlled public services, eg spending on libraries, toilets, social care, highways, etc.

Alan - you are spot on (as ever) to focus upon the biggest and most hidden slashing of the public sector has been on the unsexy but vital area of Local Government. It doesn't have the profile like nurses, fireman, teachers, police et al, but in many respects the Cinderella services actually provide the majority of services that the vast majority of people rely on day to day, week to week. By way of example of how the cuts have hit us in Northwich, our household waste site closes at 4pm on a Tuesday and does not re-open until 8am on the Friday morning. Ok, this might be the 'quietest' time in terms of use, but by the evidence I have seen in the immediate area, this has lead to a higher level of fly-tipping - presumably from those who have rocked up expecting the site to be open as previously but had nowhere to store the rubbish that they expected they could deposit at the HWS. Not condoning their actions for one moment, but that is just my observation.

How much it costs to deal with this fly-tipping is open to debate. But it won't be cheap.

And before anyone accuses me of making this a political issue, this change was made as part of the current CWaC Labour administration's response to the situation they found themselves in relation to the funding - or lack of it - they have been given from central government. Had it been a Tory Council, I suspect that they would have been left with a similar choice.

Reductions in Library's, supported transported, highways maintenance, social care (which is the main reason we are seeing so much 'bed blocking' in the NHS), teaching assistants, country parks, arts initiatives - need I go on?

Yes, some might think that these are 'nice to haves', but for Christ's sake, we are the 5th richest economy in the world. If we can afford to bail out the banks to the tune of several billions, then surely we can fund our library and social care systems?

If we can't, then maybe we've got our priorities seriously wrong....