UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

@LitterBug - Is it not the case that Labour's economic projections were also inaccurate? Moreover, are you suggesting that a Labour government would have been immune to the effects of the Eurozne crisis, or more latterly the depression in oil prices?

Recall that Labour would not have even made an attempt to protect NHS spending, and eventually its foolish spending practices must result in damaging pressures upon hospitals.

 

[LitterBug]

@LitterBug - Is it not the case that Labour's economic projections were also inaccurate? Moreover, are you suggesting that a Labour government would have been immune to the effects of the Eurozne crisis, or more latterly the depression in oil prices?

Recall that Labour would not have even made an attempt to protect NHS spending, and eventually its foolish spending practices must result in damaging pressures upon hospitals.

Its very much a case of global recession happened and the UK was affected like every other country in the whole world. Conservatives blame Labour for the recession and praise themselves for the recovery both events in which they have close to 0 control over. The fact that people are worse off then when they came into power, and much much worse off than before the recession just shows that we've not actually made progress, we've actually regressed.

My point in simple terms is this:

Labour final term - recession - bad economy - bad for people - expected result
Conservatives current term - growth - good economy - worse for people - how?

 

[Ubik]

So the tories minimum wage idea does benefit higher earners. Surprise.

Generally looks a shit manifesto to me but then I'm far from one of their target voters.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Its very much a case of global recession happened and the UK was affected like every other country in the whole world. Conservatives blame Labour for the recession and praise themselves for the recovery both events in which they have close to 0 control over. The fact that people are worse off then when they came into power, and much much worse off than before the recession just shows that we've not actually made progress, we've actually regressed.

My point in simple terms is this:

Labour final term - recession - bad economy - bad for people - expected result
Conservatives current term - growth - good economy - worse for people - how?

For clarification i was referring to the Eurozone crisis post 2010. Though the economy is buoyant enough at present, this wasn't the case during the first half of the last Parliament in particular.

What reason is there to suppose that Labour would have faired any better? They were presumably your preferred candidates in 2010. Whilst i believe that the coalition has spent rather poorly at times, Labour would simply have committed to different errors.

 

[soap]

Replace Conservative for Labour in that and the length of government and it would read just the same. It's always the same though, look through history, Labour feck everything up and the Torys come along & sort everything out, but everyone hates them for it.

I hqve never voted for Labour and am unlikely to do so in the forseeable futute but this is a total myth. only two Labour governments have left office leaving the national debt higher than it was when they came to power, and both times coincided with huge global financial crashes, 1929 and 2008. Compare that to Gideon who's ran up national debt 26% in five years, 15% more than labour did in thirteen years, and overseen the longest decline in wages in history. If that's them "cleaning up labours mess" I think I'd rather they left it a mess tbh.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

So the tories minimum wage idea does benefit higher earners. Surprise.

Do you think the proposal is intended to benefit to harm those low incomes?

A cynic might wonder if this change merely balances out losses incurred through cuts to welfare, and they could well be right. Of some note however, is the fact Ed Balls has also refused to protect the DWP from further cuts; which if no to the tune of 12bn will nevertheless be significant.

 

[bishblaize]

Do you seriously claim that the Labour government left those 3 areas in good order? They spent fortunes on the NHS increasing salaries, which might sound like a good idea when it's you getting the money, but the basic service remained shite, the staff remain totally demotivated. Transport is still shite, really really shite. Schools? seriously.

Lets face it, government after the government, on both sides, have been unable to properly address these 3 important issues, but don't tell me that Labour have made any better fist of it than the Tories, because I'm not having it.

tbh that comment suggests its not a topic you're at all familiar with. That Labour made major delivery breakthroughs on those areas isn't open to debate.

Here's a link about labour's work on the NHS.
Here's a link about labours spending on educational attainment.

Both show a long list of major improvements. In the NHS the improvement is particularly profound - the list of positive outcomes is about 3 pages long in that report. In education there are also unquestionable improvements. Page 35 of that shows the improvement in a nutshell.

There are questions that remain of course. Could those improvements have been achieved more cheaply? Were they irreversible systematic changes or merely the short term effect of the extra money? Were those areas of spend priorities in the first place? And probably other issues.

But what's not open to debate is that the improvements occurred at all.

 

[LitterBug]

For clarification i was referring to the Eurozone crisis post 2010. Though the economy is buoyant enough at present, this wasn't the case during the first half of the last Parliament in particular.

What reason is there to suppose that Labour would have faired any better? They were presumably your preferred candidates in 2010. Whilst i believe that the coalition has spent rather poorly at times, Labour would simply have committed to different errors.

Why do I think Labour would have been better is the question? Easy answer. Their policies are more social and aimed at improving things for the people at the bottom of the income bracket, while Conservative policies are aimed at improving things for those at the top who quite frankly don't really need any help. That is why in my opinion people including myself would have been better off with a Labour government at least during the recovery, because it would have ensured that the gap wouldn't have vastly increased between the top and the bottom. While more people are facing queuing up for a food bank payday lending vultures whom have thrived under Conservative government are making hundreds of millions in profits.

 

[LitterBug]

Do you think the proposal is intended to benefit to harm those low incomes?

A cynic might wonder if this change merely balances out losses incurred through cuts to welfare, and they could well be right. Of some note however, is the fact Ed Balls has also refused to protect the DWP from further cuts; which if no to the tune of 12bn will nevertheless be significant.

This proposal is absolute rubbish. People on minimum wage working under 30 hours earn £10140 so they are already do not pay any tax and will likely not under a Conservative government as they do not have any plans to increase minimum wage. Furthermore this will not benefit virtually anyone as people on minimum wage need much more than 30 hours to afford a living in London. When I was working on minimum wage I was doing close to 60 hours on a 6 day week in order to afford a living. How many of you could actually scrape by on £845 a month?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Why do I think Labour would have been better is the question? Easy answer. Their policies are more social and aimed at improving things for the people at the bottom of the income bracket, while Conservative policies are aimed at improving things for those at the top who quite frankly don't really need any help. That is why in my opinion people including myself would have been better off with a Labour government at least during the recovery, because it would have ensured that the gap wouldn't have vastly increased between the top and the bottom. While more people are facing queuing up for a food bank payday lending vultures whom have thrived under Conservative government are making hundreds of millions in profits.

So because you believe them to be well-meaning (belied by their deeds IMO), that means they'd have managed the economy better? The gap between rich and poor widened during Labour rule i believe; for short-term political gain the party exploited the poor of both Britain and Europe, successive governments just looked the other way. Labour fostered a culture that encouraged debt and dependency, and such is also their legacy.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

So the tories minimum wage idea does benefit higher earners. Surprise.

Generally looks a shit manifesto to me but then I'm far from one of their target voters.

Called it as soon as Nick posted the news last night. So transparent, yet people won't see through it, and the media probably won't bother to pick it apart.

I've been thinking about the whole idea of linking the income tax threshold to the minimum wage some more and while on first glance it looks like a positive idea (provided you lower the higher rate band accordingly), I actually think it's a very dangerous proposition. The reason it's potentially dangerous is that I think it may actually act as a disincentive to raise the minimum wage. Why? Because any raising of the minimum wage would actually lower the total tax take by reducing income tax on middle and high earners.

Think about it... every time a government raises the minimum wage, the income tax threshold rises by law and boom: automatic tax cut for all middle and high earners. Every time you try to help low earners, you spend more and more money subsidising the well off. Evil Tory genius.

 

[Chorley1974]

Why do I think Labour would have been better is the question? Easy answer. Their policies are more social and aimed at improving things for the people at the bottom of the income bracket, while Conservative policies are aimed at improving things for those at the top who quite frankly don't really need any help. That is why in my opinion people including myself would have been better off with a Labour government at least during the recovery, because it would have ensured that the gap wouldn't have vastly increased between the top and the bottom. While more people are facing queuing up for a food bank payday lending vultures whom have thrived under Conservative government are making hundreds of millions in profits.

You really think that taxing the deck out of the wealthier would of helped to balance the books, and fuel a recovery? Labour's forecasts and predictions on the economy in this parliament have been woeful, to say the least. When you need investment, you don't go full on anti business. With a fragile global economic recovery we are competing with other companies for investment in this country, if that spanner Ed balls gets into no.11 I fear for the economy.

Also the gap between the wealthiest and the least wealthy in society accelerated under the last labour government, so not sure why you think they will address that in any significant way.

I just remember too many vanity projects under the last government, and how they spunked record tax incomes, leaving the cupboard bare. It's basic economics that you put money away in the good times, for the rainy days, they should have been running a healthy surplus prior to the recession, it was reckless, and reeked of stroking the egos of new labour, rather than doing what was right for Britain. Public spending increased sharply in the last two years of labour 2008-2010 as we were at the height of the financial crisis. The opportunity was there to address national debt was there in the good times, but wasn't taken.

 

[711]

Given free rein what might other parties have attempted in the past. Do Labour still remain so inherently authoritarian that they would again push for 90 day pre-charge detention?

Not as far as I know Nick. But if I exercise a little imagination then a seriously nasty terrorist campaign in the future might have most of us calling for more 'authoritarian' measures. Maybe even you would as well, but hopefully that will never be put to the test.

 

[evra]

Raising the income tax threshold is a great move. It benefits the only people likely to vote for the Conservatives, people who are actually working and contributing something to the country. I'm voting for the party that cuts taxes, not one ideologically destined to raise them.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Raising the income tax threshold is a great move. It benefits the only people likely to vote for the Conservatives, people who are actually working and contributing something to the country. I'm voting with the party that cuts taxes, not one ideologically destined to raise them.

Does that mean only 19% of people work and contribute to the country? No wonder Cameron could get chucked out.

 

[bishblaize]

Been reading through the Tory manifesto. That's one hell of a giveaway they're suggesting, even before we consider the claim that they'll move from deficit to surplus at the same time. How exactly are they proposing to afford this?

Also, funny to see Big Society rear its head again. Cameron got a lot of respect from the CVS last time round for that line; believe me, he hasn't got it now after the most traumatic period in the sector's history.

 

[evra]

Does that mean only 19% of people work and contribute to the country? No wonder Cameron could get chucked out.

They're raising the personal allowance, that's a tax cut for everyone in full-time work. Obviously if you're earning over £100k the situation is slightly more complicated and if you earn over £120k then you don't have any personal allowance left.

 

[bishblaize]

Also the gap between the wealthiest and the least wealthy in society accelerated under the last labour government, so not sure why you think they will address that in any significant way.

By which measure?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I'm not really a massive Labour fan, they weren't any great shakes for my area in the Blair/Brown years, but I think it's slightly unfair to tar this version of Labour by citing the failures of the Blair/Brown years. Whilst they're still far more centrist than I personally would like, this Milliband is far more likely to mark a departure from Labour's recent past than the other one would have been. I can't, for example, see this current set of senior Labour politicians embracing stuff like PFI like Blair and Brown did.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Also the gap between the wealthiest and the least wealthy in society accelerated under the last labour government, so not sure why you think they will address that in any significant way.

Inequality did not accelerate under New Labour. The gap grew far slower than under the Tory government of the 1980s.

Source: IFS

I just remember too many vanity projects under the last government, and how they spunked record tax incomes, leaving the cupboard bare. It's basic economics that you put money away in the good times, for the rainy days, they should have been running a healthy surplus prior to the recession, it was reckless, and reeked of stroking the egos of new labour, rather than doing what was right for Britain. Public spending increased sharply in the last two years of labour 2008-2010 as we were at the height of the financial crisis. The opportunity was there to address national debt was there in the good times, but wasn't taken.

Again, that's not really true. Before the 2008 recession, government spending was lower (as a percentage of GDP) under Labour than under Thatcher. However, Labour did not up the revenues (as a percentage of GDP) as much as it should have to somewhat reverse the Tory tax cuts.

Spoiler: More boring data...

Average expenditure and taxation receipts 1978/79-2009/10

Callaghan (1978/79)*
Average expenditure (% GDP) - 45.6
Average taxation receipts (% GDP) - 41.3

Thatcher (1979/80-1990/91)
Average expenditure (% GDP) - 44.2
Average taxation receipts (% GDP) - 42.0

Major (1991/92-1996/97)
Average expenditure (% GDP) - 42.1
Average taxation receipts (% GDP) - 36.6

Blair (1997/98-2006/07)
Average expenditure (% GDP) - 38.7
Average taxation receipts (% GDP) - 37.5

Brown (2007/08-2009/10)
Average expenditure (% GDP) - 44.2
Average taxation receipts (% GDP) - 37.4

Source: UK Treasury; * Last year only

The government deficit / surplus argument is all a little bit false anyway... Spain was running a nice surplus before the crash but it didn't help them much.

 

[LitterBug]

They're raising the personal allowance, that's a tax cut for everyone in full-time work. Obviously if you're earning over £100k the situation is slightly more complicated and if you earn over £120k then you don't have any personal allowance left.

Personal allowance has not yet caught up with the loss of net income the 2.5% increase in VAT caused.

IFS calculated at the time that the poorest would be hit hardest by the VAT increase and that it would cost them around 2.25% of their net income.

By those calculations here's a simple table:

Tax Year    Salary    Takehome    VAT Impact    Total    PA Gain 
09/10        12000    10203         £0         £10,203     
10/11        12000    10203         £255       £9,948    -£255 
11/12        12000    10521         £263       £10,258    £55 
12/13        12000    10691         £267       £10,424    £221 
13/14        12000    10978         £274       £10,704    £501 
14/15        12000    11115         £278       £10,837    £634 
                                   £1,338                £1,155     Total

There's an old saying "The Conservative doesn't giveth what he hathn't already taken away..."

I may have made that up but its fitting.

 

[evra]

@LitterBug I'm not going to defend the policy of increasing VAT, I fundamentally disagree with that decision (and the tax in general) because it discourages spending. What I have said is that increasing the personal allowance is a good policy, it benefits all working people except those earning > £120k.

I will not dispute the figures used in your table even though I suspect the 2.25% figure is an incredible simplification (given that a large % of the items bought by poorer people will not be subject to VAT - most food, for example). However, by your own table's calculations the figures for 13/14 and 14/15 are going in that individual's favour, by 15/16 it would have caught up, aided by the increase in the personal allowance.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

@LitterBug I'm not going to defend the policy of increasing VAT, I fundamentally disagree with that decision (and the tax in general) because it discourages spending. What I have said is that increasing the personal allowance is a good policy, it benefits all working people except those earning > £120k.

I will not dispute the figures used in your table even though I suspect the 2.25% figure is an incredible simplification (given that a large % of the items bought by poorer people will not be subject to VAT - most food, for example). However, by your own table's calculations the figures for 13/14 and 14/15 are going in that individual's favour, by 15/16 it would have caught up, aided by the increase in the personal allowance.

If you look at what the coalition has done over the last 5 years, the poor have been hammered by tax and welfare changes. There has basically been an transfer of cash upwards from the poor to the upper-middle classes. Again.

Source: IFS

The increases in indirect taxes (largely VAT) far outweigh the small gains from increasing the income tax threshold. And that's before you take in to account the slashing of benefits.

If you look at the 'Total as a % of net income' on the above chart, you will see the poorest have lost a whopping 4% of their already meagre income. The upper-middle and high earners have lost nothing. And the extremely rich have lost under 3%. It's obscene and immoral. Sickening to be honest.

 

[LitterBug]

@LitterBug I'm not going to defend the policy of increasing VAT, I fundamentally disagree with that decision (and the tax in general) because it discourages spending. What I have said is that increasing the personal allowance is a good policy, it benefits all working people except those earning > £120k.

I will not dispute the figures used in your table even though I suspect the 2.25% figure is an incredible simplification (given that a large % of the items bought by poorer people will not be subject to VAT - most food, for example). However, by your own table's calculations the figures for 13/14 and 14/15 are going in that individual's favour, by 15/16 it would have caught up, aided by the increase in the personal allowance.

It will catch up by 15/16 unless we have another VAT increase. It was calculated by IFS at the time and not a simplification. Here's the table below.

Conservatives say that we have increased personal allowance, we have made the economy strong and blah blah blah, but people are worse off. And this is just one of the many reasons.

If you want we can go into healthcare, £3bn is what the reorganization they pledged not to do cost. £3bn that could have paid for a lot of things the NHS is struggling with. There's videos circulating of them pledging to inject £8bn in the NHS however not a single answer of where the money will come from. It was avoided 18 times by Osborne. Pickles did the same when asked where the money to fund 3 days leave for people to do volunteering would come from.

From what I see the Conservatives have decided we're not staying another term after this anyway so lets just lie our way through by promising people what they want to get into power and then do what we want anyway like we did last time.

 

[peterstorey]

Despite the fact that they consistently feck everything up time after time, people still vote for Labour in their droves, not only that, they are going to have to snuggle up the SNP to form a government, a party that doesn't even want to be part of the UK.

Vote for those useless cnuts if you want, you'll get what you deserve. Gawd help us...

Labour forked it up? Nope. It was global finance that forked the world up. But of course you're a part of the finance industry so we expect sloping shoulders and blame avoidance

 

[Ubik]

Excellent, the graphs are coming out

Do you think the proposal is intended to benefit to harm those low incomes?

A cynic might wonder if this change merely balances out losses incurred through cuts to welfare, and they could well be right. Of some note however, is the fact Ed Balls has also refused to protect the DWP from further cuts; which if no to the tune of 12bn will nevertheless be significant.

Doesn't take a cynic by any stretch of the imagination, the poorest strata have been hit repeatedly in the form of welfare cuts, tax credit reductions, the bedroom tax and the VAT rise, so I very much doubt it neatly balances out, and even if it did you tend to ask why they take all the targeted relief away and replace it with a scheme that gives a tax break to people that are very well off at the same time, thereby costing a lot more (which results in George taking the axe back to the welfare budget in order to balance things up).

There will no doubt be cuts under Labour to the DWP, probably far stronger than most of their voters can stomach, but their deficit target is far easier (and in the view of many economists, more sensible) to reach, giving them a hell of a lot more leeway. You can really see why the Tories didn't want the OBR to vet the costing of the manifestos a few months back, theirs would have been absolutely shredded to pieces.

 

[Ubik]

Also an interesting article from the Spectator about the conflicting ideologies of right-to-buy and cuts to inheritance tax - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...-ownership-he-would-increase-inheritance-tax/

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

When compared with Labour's manifesto the Tory section on the environment is surprisingly detailed. However their record in government (particularly with regard to domestic matters) was somewhat patchy, with the forests and planning controversies as early as 10/11.

Oh and according to the Conservative manifesto, local residents now have the right to hold referenda in objection to council tax increases. Has one of these ever actually been held?

If you want we can go into healthcare, £3bn is what the reorganization they pledged not to do cost. £3bn that could have paid for a lot of things the NHS is struggling with.

What total would Labour's NHS "efficiencies" have amounted to? Moreover, it did used to Andy Burnham's opinion than real terms increases to the NHS budget should not take place. Throw in PFI to boot and...

There's videos circulating of them pledging to inject £8bn in the NHS however not a single answer of where the money will come from. It was avoided 18 times by Osborne. Pickles did the same when asked where the money to fund 3 days leave for people to do volunteering would come from.

Well, should the electorate return the Tories to power he'll have four years to come up with a satisfactory answer.

They do appear to have provided themselves with at least that degree of wriggle room.

 

[bishblaize]

From what I see the Conservatives have decided we're not staying another term after this anyway so lets just lie our way through by promising people what they want to get into power and then do what we want anyway like we did last time.

I must say it feels very odd to hear the Tories suddenly coming up with this massive cash giveaway after all the Jazz of the last five years. It kinda feels like they're desperate. After criticising labour for uncosted or unfunded policies all term, they have an entire manifesto of them.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Excellent, the graphs are coming out

Nothing kills the debate quite like a graph but I can't help it.

 

[bishblaize]

Moreover, it did used to Andy Burnham's opinion than real terms increases to the NHS budget should not take place. Throw in PFI to boot and...
.

Selective memory there. He said that because there has to be parity between tertiary care services and social care services or you end up with bed blocking. Increasing funding to one but not the other unbalances the system.

The Tories didn't raise nhs funding but slashed local authority funding (which funds social care) and created the very imbalance he warned about.

As of March this year bed blocking costs the NHS about a quarter of a billion quid a year.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Selective memory there. He said that because there has to be parity between tertiary care services and social care services or you end up with bed blocking. Increasing funding to one but not the other unbalances the system.

The Tories didn't raise nhs funding but slashed local authority funding (which funds social care) and created the very imbalance he warned about.

As of March this year bed blocking costs the NHS about a quarter of a billion quid a year.

A pity that Burnham didn't come to that realisation when he was actually in a position to do something about it, perhaps he was too busy sitting on his hands while scandal and neglect beset the patients of Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

 

[Ubik]

A pity that Burnham didn't come to that realisation when he was actually in a position to do something about it, perhaps he was too busy sitting on his hands while scandal and neglect beset the patients of Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

Are you scheduled to go on Question Time for the Tories the week Nick? That's pretty much their stock answer every time. Just need to stick the word "chaos" in there somewhere.

 

[peterstorey]

I must say it feels very odd to hear the Tories suddenly coming up with this massive cash giveaway after all the Jazz of the last five years. It kinda feels like they're desperate. After criticising labour for uncosted or unfunded policies all term, they have an entire manifesto of them.

They've belatedly realised that people don't vote on macro-economics (or for a pitch that's less than compelling) so they've had to start doling out micro-economic sweeties.

 

[LitterBug]

Are you scheduled to go on Question Time for the Tories the week Nick? That's pretty much their stock answer every time. Just need to stick the word "chaos" in there somewhere.

Tory supporters are printed in series...

 

[SteveJ]

 

[Madthinker]

A pity that Burnham didn't come to that realisation when he was actually in a position to do something about it, perhaps he was too busy sitting on his hands while scandal and neglect beset the patients of Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

Come now, that's not fair. He wasn't merely sitting on his hands, but actively approving the trust's foundation status.

 

[Madthinker]

Are you scheduled to go on Question Time for the Tories the week Nick? That's pretty much their stock answer every time. Just need to stick the word "chaos" in there somewhere.

Do you not consider it relevant to point out the negligence of the shadow health secretary?

Personally I'd go for the "The only person to privatise an NHS hospital is Andy Burnham" line.

 

[bishblaize]

A pity that Burnham didn't come to that realisation when he was actually in a position to do something about it, perhaps he was too busy sitting on his hands while scandal and neglect beset the patients of Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

That comment would be too cheap even for Question Time.

 

[bishblaize]

Are you scheduled to go on Question Time for the Tories the week Nick? That's pretty much their stock answer every time. Just need to stick the word "chaos" in there somewhere.

Ha, didn't see your reply.