General Election 2015

[somerset]

Cost of Trident as admitted by the government is £20 billion. Others say this is a massive underestimate. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed
Cost of HS2 as admitted by the government is £43 billion. Others, including powerful figures in the Conservative party say this is a massive underestimate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-cost-over-70billion-says-Boris-Johnson.html

The figures are of course, total costs, so would not acheive this saving on an annual basis.

Aaaah,... the price of living in a modern, competitive nation,........ or perhaps we should sit in the 1950's, warmly cuddle the welfare state, and let those other more imaginative nations forge a modern progressive future.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Aaaah,... the price of living in a modern, competitive nation,........ or perhaps we should sit in the 1950's, warmly cuddle the welfare state, and let those other more imaginative nations forge a modern progressive future.

You need some imagination to think HS2 is useful or worth the money.

 

[Stato]

Aaaah,... the price of living in a modern, competitive nation,........ or perhaps we should sit in the 1950's, warmly cuddle the welfare state, and let those other more imaginative nations forge a modern progressive future.

Given that the theory of trickle down economics has been proven by the last four decades to be wrong, what is progressive about governments investing massively in projects for business? Surely the mantra is that, if there is a need for HS2, a market will form without state intereference.

 

[somerset]

Given that the theory of trickle down economics has been proven by the last four decades to be wrong, what is progressive about governments investing massively in projects for business? Surely the mantra is that, if there is a need for HS2, a market will form without state intereference.

Who said there isn't a market?..... oh sorry, a few vocal Guardian readers maybe,.. and labour MP's playing party politics.

 

[somerset]

You need some imagination to think HS2 is useful or worth the money.

... and you need to be Mystic Meg to be able to predict that it isn't........ and anyway, are you not part of that left leaning political cadre that firmly believe that you need to spend spend spend to stimulate the economy? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Stato]

Who said there isn't a market?..... oh sorry, a few vocal Guardian readers maybe,.. and labour MP's playing party politics.

You miss the point. Market theory economics suggest that, if there is demand for a good or service, a supply will follow without need for state intervention. It follows that, if there is demand for HS2 there should be private investors willing to meet that demand. There are not. Private industry wants the state to pay for it. As always, the market forces argument is not applied if state funding is being given to business, not people.

 

[beorhthelm]

The figures are of course, total costs, so would not acheive this saving on an annual basis.

that is what is said. you suggested removing Trident/HS2 would remove £60bn from the deficit, which is what yxee was highlighting when talking of the £75bn subsidy from the private investors that the government currently requires to meet spending commitments.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who said there isn't a market?..... oh sorry, a few vocal Guardian readers maybe,.. and labour MP's playing party politics.

I'm anything but a Guardian reader but I have caught numerous trains from London to Birmingham ( using Virgin ) and it is one of the fastest and most reliable services going. The investment required for HS2 to save 20 minutes is an utter farce. They would be better off using it to upgrade the Brighton to London services and services from the West Country to London.

 

[Titanic]

Latest Populus Poll:

Lab 35 (-2)
Con 32 (=)
LD 9 (-1)
UKIP 14 (+1)
Oth 10 (+2)

Tables here: popu.lu/sVI160115

 

[beorhthelm]

Who said there isn't a market?..... oh sorry, a few vocal Guardian readers maybe,.. and labour MP's playing party politics.

indeed, its odd that a proposal by a Labour government, benefiting mainly Labour constituencies in the Midlands/North is being opposed by Labour a few years later.

 

[somerset]

You miss the point. Market theory economics suggest that, if there is demand for a good or service, a supply will follow without need for state intervention. It follows that, if there is demand for HS2 there should be private investors willing to meet that demand. There are not. Private industry wants the state to pay for it. As always, the market forces argument is not applied if state funding is being given to business, not people.

I suspect there is a degree of risk mitigation going on in the private interests, the markets are up and down, cyclical in a way they rarely have been during the boom era of the entire latter half of the 20th century.

 

[Stato]

that is what is said. you suggested removing Trident/HS2 would remove £60bn from the deficit, which is what yxee was highlighting when talking of the £75bn subsidy from the private investors that the government currently requires to meet spending commitments.

Sorry if it was misleading. That wasn't my intent, but reading it back, I can see why it would be interpreted this way.

To be clear, I was suggesting that there are savings which can be made from spending which would release revenue to lower the deficit. Scrapping these projects could have freed £60 billion plus to reduce the deficit, but this would have been realised over time, not offset against Year One.

 

[yxee]

What the crisis in the NHS and LA social care sectors aptly demonstrates is that there is a structural need for more resources.

I don't know if I accept that. There are many reports about why it's in "crisis": 111 helpline, unnecessary A&E visits, poor outpatient procedures.

Throwing money at a failing system doesn't guarantee a fix.

Whereas this government are right on top of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ady-huge-budget-deficit-is-still-growing.html

If you agree that it is a problem then we're on the same page- but do you really think Labour would have done any better? They can criticise all they like but they would have us in a far worse situation by now.

 

[Stato]

If you agree that it is a problem then we're on the same page- but do you really think Labour would have done any better? They can criticise all they like but they would have us in a far worse situation by now.

I don't think Labour would have done any better, but as explained in my previous thread, I also don't think that they would have made attempts to asset strip the public sector. The current government has made massive changes to the structure of Education and Health with little effective challenge from Labour and the support of the Lib Dems. Gove has done things which will prove to be massively detrimental to the future quality of education. None of it was anything to do with the deficit, none of it saved any money, and it was steamrollered through parliament with very little debate.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

if this is the case and the cause of problems, then how is Labour's suggested policy of throwing a couple of £billion at the NHS going to do to resolve it? are we going to see an additional spend allocated to address another issue, once that comes into focus?

The worst NHS A&E performance in the UK is in Wales (Labour government)

Interesting that for this election Polys & Uni's cannot register all of their students as eligible to vote in one whole block. Bizarre that this was ever the case but should lower the student & labour vote should it not??

Meanwhile, the Blues have today become Favourites to win the most seats 10/11 Reds 19/20

 

[Hastings gull]

I don't think Labour would have done any better, but as explained in my previous thread, I also don't think that they would have made attempts to asset strip the public sector. The current government has made massive changes to the structure of Education and Health with little effective challenge from Labour and the support of the Lib Dems. Gove has done things which will prove to be massively detrimental to the future quality of education. None of it was anything to do with the deficit, none of it saved any money, and it was steamrollered through parliament with very little debate.

I would be most intrigued as to what you mean. this is rather vague -could you elaborate, please?

 

[Stato]

[/B]

I would be most intrigued as to what you mean. this is rather vague -could you elaborate, please?

Bulldozed academies bill without proper debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10664722
Allowed unqualified teachers in academies: http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...alified-teachers-state-funded-schools-england
Introduced examinations which tested things that are irrelevant and out of date to the detriment of teaching children how to learn for themselves: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ests-and-targets-are-damaging-childhoods.html
Gave away 2,000 schools to private organisations with no charge: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development
Sowed the seeds for a school places crisis by deliberately preventing local authorities from opening new schools for ideological reasons: http://www.local.gov.uk/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/5416718/NEWS (Free schools mean that anyone can open a new school. Anyone except those who have been doing it successfully for the last 100 years. They can't for no other reason than that they are part of the public sector.)
Allowed academies to sell playing fields: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...g-fields-can-be-sold-off-ministers-admit.html. (By the way, the restrictions on community schools using land to extend schools have been made tighter at the same time and the rules about how much playing field is required are more generous for academies and free schools than for everyone else.)

 

[Titanic]

Latest Populus VI:
Lab 36 (+1)
Con 35 (+3)
LD 8 (-1)
UKIP 13 (-1)
Greens 4 (-2)

Tables here: popu.lu/sVI190115

 

[Hastings gull]

Bulldozed academies bill without proper debate: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10664722
Allowed unqualified teachers in academies: http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...alified-teachers-state-funded-schools-england
Introduced examinations which tested things that are irrelevant and out of date to the detriment of teaching children how to learn for themselves: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ests-and-targets-are-damaging-childhoods.html
Gave away 2,000 schools to private organisations with no charge: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development
Sowed the seeds for a school places crisis by deliberately preventing local authorities from opening new schools for ideological reasons: http://www.local.gov.uk/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/5416718/NEWS (Free schools mean that anyone can open a new school. Anyone except those who have been doing it successfully for the last 100 years. They can't for no other reason than that they are part of the public sector.)
Allowed academies to sell playing fields: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...g-fields-can-be-sold-off-ministers-admit.html. (By the way, the restrictions on community schools using land to extend schools have been made tighter at the same time and the rules about how much playing field is required are more generous for academies and free schools than for everyone else.)

Thank you for taking the trouble -fascinating stuff.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I wonder what Ed will do now that one of his policies has become absolutely pointless - i.e. an energy price freeze ?