Labour does not oppose any part of the Budget

1235»

Comments

  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    Markjuk wrote: »
    I agree with your post.

    However it is not only Osbourne but a fair number of politicians from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all at it in the world of property accumulation.

    Whilst MP's are also at it they have no incentive to help lower property prices, just to drive them up further.

    Indeed, if the newspapers have it right in the detailed analyses - the major culprit in government spending is housing allowance. That's consumed about the same money as the bloated age budget more since 2010 - even when the problem of poor small families living in mansions has supposedly been dealt with .

    While attention has focused on the ridiculous idea of spending more and more on aid as domestic social and health services, defence and policing collapse - it seems an equal amount has been wasted on paying landlords more for putting up rents? The 11 billion involved would fund a 3% rise for the NHS, reverse the defence and policing cuts and still have money left over...

    Has got anything to do with the builders being one of the biggest backers of political parties, or just love for property magnates? Why not just freeze rents or cap the allowances more - its hardly as if landlords will ant empty property.
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    Styker wrote: »
    Ttry reading the posts properly. The Tories in the 1980's justified privatisation on it would lead to lower prices and a lower burden on the customer/tax payer. What they meant by that was that shareholders would always fork out for investments in the companies instead of public subsidies being used but shareholders hardly ever use their own money for investments, they just allow the prices to go up and make the customer pay, so the Tories justification for privatisation was/is wrong.

    That's not how shares and stock markets work. Share holders rarely pay more in for investment spending - shares are a one off purchase. Companies rarely raise extra capital from shareholders - and usually for takeovers or very major projects. Companies spend on investment from profits ,and borrowing, the shares provide financial backing to the company to do that.

    That wasn't the argument for privatisation. The argument was that government had no money for investment,taxation was already too high and unsustainable, and what money could be found went up and down with the fiscal strategy at the time.Thats why there was massive under investment in everything from water pipes to railway rolling stock. That's still the case - there would have been no money for investment post 2008 when key areas of government spending were already being cut.

    Privatisation also served a political purpose. It provided investment that government couldn't, and avoided the situation where ministers got the blame for every burst pipe, phone not working and late train It also provides sales receipts that helped the budgets of the time. No future government is going to take on the expense of modernising the railways, replacing electric generation capacity , redoing the national grid rebuilding the sewers, on their own, and none will take on the blame for every service failing, ever again - nationalisation is a dead issue.

    Its inevitable that some people will still expect others to subsidise their train travel even more, and now are complaining about the delays caused by the fact that massive investment is going on. Things would be much grimmer with nationalisation, actual cuts in investment, and no private money helping fund major updates.
    .
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Styker wrote: »
    Ttry reading the posts properly. The Tories in the 1980's justified privatisation on it would lead to lower prices and a lower burden on the customer/tax payer. What they meant by that was that shareholders would always fork out for investments in the companies instead of public subsidies being used but shareholders hardly ever use their own money for investments, they just allow the prices to go up and make the customer pay, so the Tories justification for privatisation was/is wrong.

    the customers would pay whoever owned the company - the Ed Balls magic money tree doesnt actually exist.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Ed Balls has said there was nothing in a "pretty empty" Budget which Labour would reverse if it won the election. The shadow chancellor told the BBC he welcomed the plan to axe tax on the first £1,000 of interest from savings and to give help for first time buyers.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31956459

    Pretty astonishing stuff from Labour. I can't recall a budget where the opposition haven't found anything to criticise or anything they would change...!

    Labour have no better ideas.
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,542
    Forum Member
    That's not how shares and stock markets work. Share holders rarely pay more in for investment spending - shares are a one off purchase. Companies rarely raise extra capital from shareholders - and usually for takeovers or very major projects. Companies spend on investment from profits ,and borrowing, the shares provide financial backing to the company to do that.

    That wasn't the argument for privatisation. The argument was that government had no money for investment,taxation was already too high and unsustainable, and what money could be found went up and down with the fiscal strategy at the time.Thats why there was massive under investment in everything from water pipes to railway rolling stock. That's still the case - there would have been no money for investment post 2008 when key areas of government spending were already being cut.

    Privatisation also served a political purpose. It provided investment that government couldn't, and avoided the situation where ministers got the blame for every burst pipe, phone not working and late train It also provides sales receipts that helped the budgets of the time. No future government is going to take on the expense of modernising the railways, replacing electric generation capacity , redoing the national grid rebuilding the sewers, on their own, and none will take on the blame for every service failing, ever again - nationalisation is a dead issue.

    Its inevitable that some people will still expect others to subsidise their train travel even more, and now are complaining about the delays caused by the fact that massive investment is going on. Things would be much grimmer with nationalisation, actual cuts in investment, and no private money helping fund major updates.
    .


    The Tories did and still do make out that privatisation means the burden of investments would be taken off the people and would be borne by the companies and their shareholders.

    Nationalised companies should have had enough money from their bills to pay for investments, just look at the massive profits these companies make as proof. If nationalised companies needed susbisidies still then I'd say that we the people still do subsidise these companies in various ways and the bills have gone up massively so i think the companies would have been better off staying in state hands.

    Yes state owned companies allow workers to take advantage too much but that can be changed and tackled. I think we the people are financially a lot worse off having a lot of former state owned companies in private hands. Its part of the reason why so many people are in so much debt and don't have any savings at all.
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    Labour have no better ideas.

    Given that the Tories are trusted a lot more on the economy maybe Labour have given up....! ;-)
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Given that the Tories are trusted a lot more on the economy maybe Labour have given up....! ;-)

    There will still pick up the votes of many though:(
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    Labour have no better ideas.

    Neither do the Tories.

    Both parties are very similar and both lack any radical ideas.
Sign In or Register to comment.