What do people make of Labour's proposed 'British Investment Bank'?
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Yeah there've been a few in here thinking the same, in fairness by looking at the national share of the vote it seems logical they would get that, but it's very hard for small parties to break through in our electoral system.
The seats should probably better reflect the national opinion but I've made a solemn vow to never be on the same side as UKIP on anything so I won't complain. That might explain why there seems to be more talk about the SNP then UKIP. Their breakthrough has happened in a more focused area so their support results in seats while UKIP's doesn't. At least that's what I think is happening.
I plugged a UKIP forecast of 14% of the vote in England and Wales into the seat calculator which gave them no seats.
Yup pretty much, they have a very efficient vote whereby they can transfer a few percent in popular vote terms UK wide into nearly 10% of the seats. UKIP meanwhile score highly in a lot of seats nationwide but can rarely get enough concentrated support to win the actual seat, so will only get a handful despite getting probably over 10% of the vote nationwide. I hate FPTP, but will allow myself a chuckle as the populist right self-combusts about it after the electionThe seats should probably better reflect the national opinion but I've made a solemn vow to never be on the same side as UKIP on anything so I won't complain. That might explain why there seems to be more talk about the SNP then UKIP. Their breakthrough has happened in a more focused area so their support results in seats while UKIP's doesn't. At least that's what I think is happening.
We already have government-owned banks. Just make them do what banks are supposed to do ie take deposits and lend money instead of pissing money up the wall in casino finance.
Labour continue to insist on the one on one debate but Cameron is still running scared. A petition has been signed. This is bad for Cameron either way.
I noticed that, too.
Maybe I'm just cynical but looks like David is fishing for ethnic votes in church
Yup pretty much, they have a very efficient vote whereby they can transfer a few percent in popular vote terms UK wide into nearly 10% of the seats. UKIP meanwhile score highly in a lot of seats nationwide but can rarely get enough concentrated support to win the actual seat, so will only get a handful despite getting probably over 10% of the vote nationwide. I hate FPTP, but will allow myself a chuckle as the populist right self-combusts about it after the election
As long as it makes UKIP combust, I'm on board.
These things work on swings? That would make sense.
I think they'll probably get at least two. Carswell shold hold on and Farage should win in South Thanet. Don't fancy Reckless to cling on but there could be one or two surprises elsewhere... (please not Rotherham).
Like 3 or 4, I think. Optimistic ukippers are saying 7-8.
There is still this special ep of Question Time on the 30th, and with so few days remaining it could prove to be crucial for any winner. The audience is an obvious negative but what can you do.
Last edited:
Despite that debate with Cam and Cleggy I think Ed will continue to press for a one on one with Cameron and depending on the polls Cam might be forced to do it as the only way to have a chance of winning, or suffer a voters backlash for running scared from the man whom he and the Conservative party label as a pillock who's not fit to be a prime minister.
Yes and no, most of the electorate aren't even watching these debates and as such likely couldn't care less. From Cameron's PoV is it better to be seen as stubborn or owning to an error? He's gone too far down this road to turn back now i think. If i were advising him i'd suggest that arrange an increasing number of TV appearances, get out and interact with the public.
Becoming more like the first episode of Black Mirror with every passing day. Beyond parody.
Labour apparently pushing hard for South Thanet now, last poll there showed essentially a three way tie so anything could happen there at the moment.
It's the economy, stupid? Some interesting reading...
If Britain’s top economists were in charge, what policies would they implement?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7da2852c-e3af-11e4-9a82-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Xei2ggGl
Osbournia Revisited
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/osbornia-revisited/
The Importance of Elections for UK Economic Activity
http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity
If Britain’s top economists were in charge, what policies would they implement?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7da2852c-e3af-11e4-9a82-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Xei2ggGl
Osbournia Revisited
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/osbornia-revisited/
The Importance of Elections for UK Economic Activity
http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity
Last edited:
Thanks. Based on what I've seen in newspapers, the SNP could win 10 times that and if Labour and the Conservatives are neck and neck...
Krugman's made some unpleasant calls, saying 9/11 could be 'good for economic growth' and said in 2011 that a war would help with recovery. All economists get loads wrong.
I rate Marc Faber more highly. He is good at calling inflection points on both the upside and downside. Krugman a bit of a one-track Keynesian.
Is he wrong or unpleasant? They're not necessarily synonymous.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/oh-what-a-lovely-war/ , right? He's pointing out a simple, self-evident economic fact, that heavy governmental spending would provide a stimulus to the economy, even if its for armaments and troop increases. Nothing either wrong or immoral with that as far as I can tell?
Buy on the sound of the guns is a pretty well-known stock market adage.
It is, but not very Nobel from the laureate. Krugman has plenty of critics and whole websites and blogs dedicated to pointing out some of his bad calls.
Economist is a tough gig though tbf.
Economist is a tough gig though tbf.
It's a weird fact of politics that changes of position are portrayed so negatively that the Tories can't respond to criticism of their austerity by saying 'look, we tried the really heavy austerity in 2010-2011, it wasn't working so we eased off bit and it's helped... aren't we smart?'
And similarly neither can Labour say 'look, we told you all along not to cut so hard while the recovery was in its early stages... once you eased off a bit, it started working better... aren't we smart?'
So we end up with stupid arguments where the politicians pretends that we have to keep cutting as deep as we possibly can. That said, it's still no excuse for the heavy austerity the Tories seemingly want to implement going forward. That is where ideology gets the better of them.
And similarly neither can Labour say 'look, we told you all along not to cut so hard while the recovery was in its early stages... once you eased off a bit, it started working better... aren't we smart?'
So we end up with stupid arguments where the politicians pretends that we have to keep cutting as deep as we possibly can. That said, it's still no excuse for the heavy austerity the Tories seemingly want to implement going forward. That is where ideology gets the better of them.
No one's really watching but the perception that Cameron's bottled it has taken hold. The Tory high-handed (Ed's a wanker, macro-economic) strategy - has blown up spectacularly).
Last edited:
I thought this would be a funny mash-up or something... Can we please get over this Christian nation crap? We're nowhere near it, and should continue to move away from it.
This kid made me laugh
I'm leaning towards Labour. Not entirely decided yet, and I wish Edward Miliband would stop trying to come across as an everyman, but hey... I'm not sure. I might fancy going right tomorrow.
This kid made me laugh
I'm leaning towards Labour. Not entirely decided yet, and I wish Edward Miliband would stop trying to come across as an everyman, but hey... I'm not sure. I might fancy going right tomorrow.
I saw that on FB, gave me a good chuckle, even if the kids view is worrying.New Tory campaign poster:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...ster-in-new-Conservative-campaign-poster.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...ster-in-new-Conservative-campaign-poster.html
What are your thoughts on a Labour minority propped up by SNP votes? Hypothetically, do you think it a considerably worse prospect for the country than a Labour majority?
I don't understand why Cameron is allowed to talk about 'Labour's mess' unchallenged. He's at it on Andrew Marr even more fatuously than normal in the context of bailing out the banks.
Every £ saved by a millionaire by the tax change would be one saved by someone earning 150k+. The reverse is not true. Therefore, in total the value is lower, and as there are more millionaires, then the average too.
I agree that the situation in your second point isn't ideal, but not sure how it relates - this would be CGT (if not his primary residence), which the tories actually raised (possibly ineffectively).
Not sure if you're just curious or trying to draw an equivalence between the naming of this and the "millionaires" business.
But to answer it directly, I'm broadly neutral. In principle, it would be better to tax on wealth rather than the value of an asset in which one may have little equity, but on the other hand, the latter is probably more measurable and harder to avoid.
In any event, the proposal has actually been made a mansion-and-income tax in order to avoid hitting those with low incomes and equity. Not sure why this is preferable to just raising taxes on properties over £2m through stamp duty, which the tories have done anyway.
Could you answer either of those (pretty simple) questions?
Only a small proportion watch the debates but you find that a lot of those who do are looking to make their mind up. A lot of them will be sitting on the fence and as a result of last election debates where Cameron did much better than Brown, the conservatives won seats that they would never have dreamed of. I mean just look at the effect Sturgeons performance is having. A lot of people in England are saying that they would vote for her if they could. And even if the debate is not watched, the whole country listens to the news every so often, and if all they will be hearing is Cameron avoiding the debate, what kind of perception will they form about the man who wants to be a prime minister.
The fact is that Cameron does not want a debate because since Ed Miliband was confirmed as the leader of the Labour party they have been planting this false image of him being a stooge and a pillock in the media for so long and he is afraid that people will actually see through it if he destroys Cameron in a one on one. He is confident that he can because his record as a prime minister is shambolic.
People have in fact started to see that Ed is not what the Conservatives want them to believe and that's why he has overtaken Cameron in the public opinion of who they want to be prime minister.
Personally I'm against the mansion tax
The house I'm moving to would be well short of qualifying as i live in the east Midlands
If I brought the same house in the reading are area and certainly in London then it would almost certainly qualify...
And I was in two minds between moving back to reading / London m4 corridor for work or staying up here so my parents get to see more of the grandchild.
It just seems a bit unfair taxing people who live in different areas simply because of house values
Perhaps a tax based on the top 1 or 1/2% of houses (run along council tax bands or similar) in all regions would be fairer... I would probably have to pay the tax on that basis so personally it would be bad for me but at least it would be fair across the uk
Because without investing just £1m in the bank would earn you around £60k at 6% AER. Several millions would earn more. Investing in property means you'll pay less tax in capital gains but all your assets are tied up and there's a slower rate of return. Most millionaires have not gone done this route because they always want MORE!
As I told you before when you chose to ignore it millionaires are included in the set of people earning over £150k a year and they would benefit most if the rate was cut.
Set of millionaires like your parents who do not earn over £150k are not affected either way so I don't see what the problem is?
I appreciate the intention, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to effectively give London/SE a relative tax break. This would make a £1.9m house in London relatively more attractive compared with a £1.9m house in East Midlands, pushing the value up further and therefore exacerbating the problem it's intending to relieve.
As someone who wishes to see the union remain strong, i would consider SNP involvement to be a negative particularly at this moment. That being said, such a relationship (even if of a confidence and supply nature) ought to present English political parties with a readily exploitable point of attack. Where lies the greater good? A Labour majority for five years would be preferable to Labour-SNP over the same period, yet if the latter were but a two-year failed experiment the situation might be endurable. Miliband and Balls are planning their own raft of cuts don't forget, while the Eurozone continues to a place of instability, so if the electorate are looking for certainty they might do well to wait until 2020.
How many bank accounts pay interest annually?
Property as an investment gives a decent income, but more to the point, the inflation of the assets (not to mention inheritance etc) has made many people millionaires without a £150k+ income. There are more of the former than the latter, so your apparent disbelief that it is possible is misplaced to put it mildly.
I ignored it because I've already explained that it's not relevant.
See previous explanation as to why the bold bit is incorrect.
It's hardly surprising that a tax cut benefits most those people who are defined by it, and not a different set of people defined by a different measure.
What the hell are you on about?
You've brought in all sorts of irrelevant rubbish and derailed the discussion.
This whole debate was about Labour misleading people that a cut of the top rate of tax is a tax break for millionaires and over the course of many posts I have proved that its not misleading at all.
As a final thought on the subject since we're discussing politics on a football forum I'll ask you a rhetorical question, David Milliband earned around £175k as a Sunderland director while Defoe earns around £3.5m. If the top rate of tax was cut who would get the bigger tax break?