Current Affairs The General Election

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, they wouldn’t be nationalised by this.

Though I am a bit perplexed why you are suddenly interested in protecting local firms; I mean when it’s globalisation or technological change bringing benefits for many whilst harming a few you seem to be more in favour of it.

I mean, if 5G takes off and gives the sort of speeds it advocates (20gigs/sec) the likes of Zen are pretty much ruined anyway, aren’t they?

And yet you seemed quite happy for firms like that to go bust if it meant Labour got their way. Public is always good, private is always bad.

And for the record, I'm not in favour of protecting local firms from standard, run of the mill competition. I'm in favour of protecting them from a state deciding to wipe out their business due to ideological fervor.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

BT estimate the cost of Labour's renationalization (excuse my Z... Windows 10 auto spellchecker) at a cool 100bn.

Most of it on plastic phones you have to wait 6 months for.

It's the economic equivalent of Trump's 'building the wall and the Mexicans will pay for it'. The formula seems to be 'nationalise something > the rich/multinationals will pay for it'. They're treating people like utter cretins, but the base lap it up.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

It's the economic equivalent of Trump's 'building the wall and the Mexicans will pay for it'. The formula seems to be 'nationalise something > the rich/multinationals will pay for it'. They're treating people like utter cretins, but the base lap it up.

Both major parties are guilty of the "vote for free stuff!" strategy at the moment.

And both will be paid for by gargantuan amounts of borrowing and we'll all be right back where we started in 2008. I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread but this will be passed off as Keynesian economics whilst conveniently ignoring 50% of his rather (small c, people, relax!) conservative approach which was to run a surplus in the growth part of a cycle. We've just skipped (yet again) to the "borrow to invest in infrastructure in a recession" part, albeit permanantly.

The last British government to run a surplus was Blair for a brief moment in 2001. Before that it was Heath.

 

[tsubaki]

And yet you seemed quite happy for firms like that to go bust if it meant Labour got their way. Public is always good, private is always bad.

And for the record, I'm not in favour of protecting local firms from standard, run of the mill competition. I'm in favour of protecting them from a state deciding to wipe out their business due to ideological fervor.

No, I was happy for Plusnet to go bust because of my experience with them as a customer. I am more than happy with my current ISP, and have no wish to see them go under.

Also, how is “ideological fervour” behind this? The taxpayer is going to have to heavily get behind a full rollout of full fibre broadband anyway.

 

[tsubaki]

Both major parties are guilty of the "vote for free stuff!" strategy at the moment.

And both will be paid for by gargantuan amounts of borrowing and we'll all be right back where we started in 2008. I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread but this will be passed off as Keynesian economics whilst conveniently ignoring 50% of his rather (small c, people, relax!) conservative approach which was to run a surplus in the growth part of a cycle. We've just skipped (yet again) to the "borrow to invest in infrastructure in a recession" part, albeit permanantly.

The last British government to run a surplus was Blair for a brief moment in 2001. Before that it was Heath.

I agree, but the key difference here is that Labour are saying they’ll spend mainly on assets rather than just spending in the way that the Government is saying.

That at least allows the possibility of savings and incomes elsewhere to offset some of the spending (for example on Housing Benefit, where more council homes will equal less money paid to landlords in HB, and there will also be income from rents/sales).

 

[Milkman]

It's the economic equivalent of Trump's 'building the wall and the Mexicans will pay for it'. The formula seems to be 'nationalise something > the rich/multinationals will pay for it'. They're treating people like utter cretins, but the base lap it up.

Astonished that you can find an equivalence between a fundamentally racist policy and one about to making high speed broadband accessible for all.

It's stuff like that that gets you 5p charge on carrier bags in exchange for welfare cuts.

 

[abelard]

Both major parties are guilty of the "vote for free stuff!" strategy at the moment.

And both will be paid for by gargantuan amounts of borrowing and we'll all be right back where we started in 2008. I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread but this will be passed off as Keynesian economics whilst conveniently ignoring 50% of his rather (small c, people, relax!) conservative approach which was to run a surplus in the growth part of a cycle. We've just skipped (yet again) to the "borrow to invest in infrastructure in a recession" part, albeit permanantly.

The last British government to run a surplus was Blair for a brief moment in 2001. Before that it was Heath.

The 2008 crash was caused by private debt, not public debt. By definition, private debt swells when public debt shrinks.

The last quarter was the worst since 2009, and most of the country likely is already in recession. We are not in a growth cycle, and have not been since the crash. The economy has been stagnant ever since, because the government at the time foolish opted to contract it by cutting spending at the height of the recession.

This is the perfect time for governments to invest in long-term future growth and productivity. Our infrastructure is among the worst in Europe, and borrowing has never been cheaper - it is considerably lower than inflation in the UK and at negative rates in the Eurozone.

Moreover, government disinvestment and reliance on rate cuts and quantitative easing for life support has destroyed pensions and created serious asset price distortions in equities and real estate, which will A) cause the next crash B) ensure that it is even worse than the last time and C) preclude the central banks from bringing us back from the dead like they did last time.

We might quibble on the wisdom of where they are spending, but in broad terms Labour macroeconomic policy is not only sound but necessary in order to rebalance the economy and temper the distortions of combining fiscal austerity with monetary expansion.

 

[Walken]

I realise he is hardly a credible source, but should farages accusations of bribery not be you know... investigated a bit

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

The 2008 crash was caused by private debt, not public debt. By definition, private debt swells when public debt shrinks.

The last quarter was the worst since 2009, and most of the country likely is already in recession. We are not in a growth cycle, and have not been since the crash. The economy has been stagnant ever since, because the government at the time foolish opted to contract it by cutting spending at the height of the recession.

This is the perfect time for governments to invest in long-term future growth and productivity. Our infrastructure is among the worst in Europe, and borrowing has never been cheaper - it is considerably lower than inflation in the UK and at negative rates in the Eurozone.

Moreover, government disinvestment and reliance on rate cuts and quantitative easing for life support has destroyed pensions and created serious asset price distortions in equities and real estate, which will A) cause the next crash B) ensure that it is even worse than the last time and C) preclude the central banks from bringing us back from the dead like they did last time.

We might quibble on the wisdom of where they are spending, but Labour macroeconomic policy is not only sound, but necessary in order to rebalance the economy and temper the distortions from combining fiscal austerity with monetary expansion.

You're agreeing with me. Right up to the point where they stop spending/borrowing in the upcycle.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

I realise he is hardly a credible source, but should farages accusations of bribery not be you know... investigated a bit

He can take them to the police along with his supporting evidence, like any other member of the public.

 

[Walken]

Astonished that you can find an equivalence between a fundamentally racist policy and one about to making high speed broadband accessible for all.

It's stuff like that that gets you 5p charge on carrier bags in exchange for welfare cuts.

this is what you are dealing with when trying to make positive change against the free market, it's not long before the 'communist' or other variations of extremism are lazily thrown in, innovation only appeals to libertarians when it can be monetized

 

[Walken]

He can take them to the police along with his supporting evidence, like any other member of the public.

So only if Johnson sues him for slander or farage actually seeks to make a charge will it be investigated? genuine question as we are talking about buying an election

 

[abelard]

You're agreeing with me. Right up to the point where they stop spending/borrowing in the upcycle.

You seem to know the future better than I do.

For now, I'll vote to address the problems we currently face rather than abstain because of what might come later.

 

[peteblue]

Free broadband from labour... Interesting

It didn’t take long for them to realise they are getting battered...bring out the freebies, bring out the freebies....

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

So only if Johnson sues him for slander or farage actually seeks to make a charge will it be investigated? genuine question as we are talking about buying an election

Well, yes. Or unless a member of the public with some kind of evidence makes a complaint. If it were true, why would he not go to the police?