Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
When this election is looked back on in say 2050,the question will be 'why was the election of 2010 known as the poison chalice'.This is the defining theme of this election no political party will be to disgruntled to lose this one,any thoughts please.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes Ive heard this 'poison chalice' notion mentioned John and indeed it is. Whoever wins, and it looks more and more like a coalition will run things, but it will be a miserable time of government. Cuts aplenty, which really equates to massive job losses, savings on waste ,which really amounts to more massive job losses, higher taxes across the board, which will mean yet more job losses because nobody will be buying anything in the shops, so demand will slump...austerity will rule and the population will be disgruntled and get even more fed up with politicians. So yes indeed, not an election to win.
When the Tories used the term 'age of austerity' they were essentially right, but immediately upon presenting us all with such a grim prospectus...their poll ratings hit the buffers, so they stopped using the term and their poll rating recovered somewhat. We expect it will be austere but clearly we dont want to hear about it.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Well just to say UKIP would like to win it,and the very first thing we would do is aske the public would you like us to get out of the EU and YES we would act on what the public told us.
Lots of job losses, yes. In the bloated public sector, yes. Hurrah I say!
I remember the big increases in Council Tax, a few years back, to pay for policing. When I delved into how the extra money was to be spent it was split (going from memory) 25% new coppers, 75% administration. Since 1997 we have had a growing army of public servants leeching off the private sector and it's high time this was stopped.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Sid log into my last post tonight please and read the last part of Lord Pearson email. thank you.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Along with job losses - public or private sector, will also be a loss to the government in taxes and an increase in benefits - which is worse ?
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to the poison chalice, the economist mervyn king stated today that the party that wins this election is likely to stay for one term and then spend a long time in the wilderness.
i think he is right, the austerity measures will hurt so many people that the government will be tarred for a long time as callous and uncaring.
maybe that is why the campaigning is so lacklustre.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Couldn't agree more Roger.
The loss in taxes from the 'bloated public sector' is something that hasn't been addressed. The public sector may leech off of the private sector (maybe since 1997, maybe longer) but lets face it, leeching off off of the public sector is what the private sector does best.
Take private health care for example. It costs the state around £240,000 to train a doctor and £40,000 a nurse. I don't see the private sector stumping up a susidy. To help the NHS we should be charging these state sponging companies through the nose everytime they use a professional trained by the state. The same could principle could be applied if the Tories get their way ill-conceived with education plan.
Cuts will prodominantly effect those at the lower paid end of society. I say hit the top, the free market and non domiciles, they can afford it and are the people really screwing our country.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Coming later the UKIP Manifesto on the NHS you should like what you read.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
DT1 - Public sector money is just recycled money.
The only new wealth generated is by private firms from sales and contracts that have no bearing upon public sector contracts/subsidy.
Right now the public sector accounts for 52% of the economy.
That means that 48% of the economy is having to prop up the other 52%. This is the worng way around and is therefore unstable and unsustainable. Think of a pyramid upside down. And right now this is getting worse and will continue to get worse for years to come.
This must be turned around and get that economic pyramid with a broader 'private sector' base on the ground so it is sustainable. This does mean shrinking the public sector to a sustainable size. I personally believe that once the public sector exceeds 40% of the economy you are on a declning curve of inefficiency and unsustainablility. We need to reduce the dependance on the public sector from 52% to 40%.
Yes it will be painful but it must be done, there is no other option. The fault for the need to cut lays entirely with Brown and his crazy economic policy.
I have to disagree Barry. Surely we want a burgeoning public sector with NO private sector to pay for it. While we're about it, re-nationalise everything the Tories sold off and turn it back into huge loss making industries.
Once we've acheived that we can all go to GReece for a holiday? What's the problem here, so many people actually think this makes sense!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
By the time that all happens Sid, Greece will have the Drachma back.
Roger
So, in a few weeks then Roger?
We all no the tough choices that will have to be made , surely taxing the rich and banks is the way to go . I find out today that barclays has made over a billion in the first quarter .
And although Barclays did not directly receive public money, we are underwriting them so if they do end up on a downward spiral we are promising to bail them out.
Lib Dems are right in demanding that high street banks are split from investment banking
Stephen do you think banks and other companys that make that sort of money should be taxed more , it seems obvious to me they should .
Yes, I think the transaction tax, set at about 0.05% is one way in which the banks can actually fund the insurance cover we provide. And I think there is scope for a higher rate of tax on profits - but that is my personal view and I'm not 100% sure on the Party line on that.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
You don't think that the banks won't just pass on a transaction tax to their customers? I do.
True friends stab you in the front.
They shouldn't as it will be such a small charge on individual transactions, and when you consider the grief they have all got over overdraft fees it is possible they may let it go. But we've also go t to assume that they are going to get rid of free banking saoon anyway because of the court cases over their charges - so we'll be paying for everything anyway.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Of course it would get passed on. All costs get passed on in one way or the other, there is no such thing as a free luch. What about the costs of administration. Just nonsense.