Tory Manifesto discussion anyone?

[Lardylassnomore]

This www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/conservative-manifesto-party-pledges-guardian-writers makes interesting reading especially the first columnist and her point about HA's and the legalities of being a charity and the right to buy.

'Right to Buy' is like marmite; my short answer is a good AS LONG as they are replaced (and then some), but after a period when abysmal home building of all sorts was not enough for our domestic population growth - never mind during a period of such rapid population growth, over so such a short period of time, since 1066 - it may be the wrong time for it.

But then again, we're often told it's the 'wrong time' to have children, build High Speed railways up t'north, CrossRail etc etc etc - usually due to cost, but if we waited until we had all our economic ducks lined up in a row, we'd never do a thing.

We CAN 'build for England' if we set our minds to do it, IF government, the local authorities and private sector can work together. IMO

Draylon ..... Re your "Where does that leave all those thousands of responsible young etc"

Has there not been loads of initiatives announced over the past 5-years to help the young, first time buyers and try to build similar type homes - and all I ever read on here was the Coalition was causing a price boom by doing so, mainly because they unlocked the mortgage log-jam they inherited.

In Council homes, I read a while back the Coalition had built more in 3-4 years than Labour did in 13-years and the Conservatives have a far better record than Labour pre 2010 in building social homes, double in fact.

Where did all the money go?

Over the past 5-years I believe we are back to pre crash home build levels but in 2010 there was a massive skills shortage e.g. brickies, as when building stopped dead, many left the industry, so that was many problems including chronic lack of home builder confidence, that had to be sorted.

As to "the wealth elderly being given such an easy ride from the Tories" . I'd guess because ALL the elderly were shit on from a great height by Labour, as the State Pension rises didn't even match Council Tax rises e.g. an average in England of 105%, Private Pensions were raided in 1997 by Brown/Balls and cost them £250 billion etc etc.

At what does Labour want to keep when taking away the Fuel Allowance, the allowance that means Labour gets to 'means test' the elderly, as thats how they roll.

Here was the social home record of the two main parties pre 2010; I'd suggest that any Labour claims to be able to 'build for England', never mind support this policy, should have the greater scepticism - but we have an economic recovery on track. and more likely to build far more with the 'carrot', rather than fat State 'stick'.

Taking council/social homes; using Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLC) figures, and using the full 18-year term of the last Conservative government (including a few recessions) but only the first 11-years under Labour (therefore before the worst recession in nearly a century), the Conservatives averaged 50,761 new social housing sector homes a year, while the last Labour government averaged 24,299 per year.

Putting the decline rate in context, the new social housing sector build HIGH was 88,530 new homes in 1980 (around the time ‘Right to Buy’ was a policy) and the LOW was 130 new social homes in 2004 at the height of an immigration boom – no doubt STILL selling off Right to Buy Homes, with a resulting large NET REDUCTION of council housing stock for that year.

UK Labour did not initiate the recession. It was world-wide.

Not this old chestnut again. The recession was caused by a number of factors.

But one thing I think you cannot dispute. Traditionally Keynesian economic theory has it that governments save cash during the good times to spend during the bad.

So during the boom years, the debt should have been paid down, some money should have been squirreled away for the inevitable bust.

But remember Gordon Brown economic theory was that he had banished boom & bust so threw money around during the good times meaning there was no money for the bad.

Of course die-hard Labour supporters will claim this is somehow all the Tories fault since it always is.

Well, niceguy, that still doesn't disprove that the global financial crisis was caused by casino Capitalism, rather than UK public spending on schools, doctors and nurses.

I'm glad you're a supporter of traditional Keynesian economics. Keynesian economic theory also asserts that during a recession, that last thing in the world you want to do is drastically cut spending.

Keynesian economics says that you should do the opposite: you should increase public spending during a recession in order to promote economic activity and invest when it would otherwise be absent.

This may help explain why it has taken 5 years to recover from the recession (the longest period over the 20th and 21st Century).

Readers will also note that most UK governments have run deficits most of the time for many decades now:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

Blacksunday …. So still repeating that inaccurate twaddle despite the facts – and we are on the -isms are we? lol

The global financial crash triggered by a U.S. Sub Prime Mortgage crisis (a quasi government mortgage lending vehicle to the poor since the 1930’s) and the UK suffered worse because of Brown’s lighter regulation to the banks (creating a financial ‘bubble’) and unbalanced UK economy - relying on the proceeds of that ‘bubble’ to finance/increase government spending - so when the bubble burst , it created the largest peace time UK budget deficit, also the largest in Europe.

Would you like Brown and his created regulatory ‘monster’ (the FSA) admission on guilt (links) for the TENTH time?

The recession recovery is the longest on record, as the ‘great recession’ Labour helped deepen was the deepest on record – and Labour did NOTHING in the first two years to help falling ‘real’ incomes (in fact keep putting up taxes to the masses, rather than lowering them like other countries) CHOSING to maintain/increase the bloated State they created.

Called McClusky –ism; The State creates and maintain a small army of government quangocrats, administrators and non jobs (like post war East Germany) and those salaries filter down to the ‘plebs’ paying for them, and sold as a form of ‘redistribution’;

The economic theory is thus

”Pay government quangocrat £100,000 per year of taxpayers money, the quangocrat pays £30,000 of taxes back to the taxpayer (net loss of £70,000), the government mentions a ‘fiscal golden rule’ and spends it again – and then wonders why they have a honking great budget deficit.”

Next Micawber-ism: The Labour State is content (up to May 2010) to sit back with that disastrous economic model and sitting on their tin hats and pushing faith to its limits, hopes that “something will turn up”.
But Labour divert from Micawber-ism for 5-years, they now know it all and oppose everything a young handsome (lol) David C. is advising Mr Micawber, why can’t you do the math and remember your own quote;

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

Micawber-ism given another chance in 2015 seriously hopes that “One learns by experience”, but putting ‘fiscal responsibility’ on your manifesto front page so you remember it, means diddly squat, especially when using the same words as your Labour predecessor “borrow to invest” (right before the crash) and claiming that fiscal responsibility high ground.
news.sky.com/story/1464254/balancing-the-books-can-mean-different-things

P.S. No fiscal moral high ground has TWO sets of financial books,
news.sky.com/story/1464829/labours-two-elections-spending-dilemma

Draylon …. While similar to myself, your parents have sadly passed and had decent pensions, may I suggest that your survey ‘sample’is rather small and much of their pension saving was done under the 18-years of a Conservative government - and taken before/soon after 1997 – when back then, the Conservative government encouraged savings over debt, and left the best funded private pension scheme in Europe?

So a Labour government thinking they saw a ‘surplus’ also thought ( without mentioning it in their 1997 manifesto) that they would take away a pensions tax relief that without ever revising, would both decimate private sector pensions, and make it more expensive for taxpayers to fund public sector pensions, especially Final Salary ones.

Apr 2014; ”Revealed:Labour's 'stealth raid' took £118BILLION off pensions, 'paving the way for the end of final salary schemes as they were suddenly unaffordable'
• Gordon Brown scrapped tax relief on pension firms' dividends in 1997
• Move blamed for wrecking industry and decimating final-salary schemes

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

”Analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility shows it has saved the Treasury almost £7billion a year – £2billion more than Mr Brown had expected.”

”The annual gain is expected to top £9.7billion this year with £117.9billion saved between 1997 and 2014.”

”Since 1997, the number of private sector workers with a defined benefit pension has collapsed from 5million to 1.7million.”

”In 1997, 34 per cent of staff at private sector firms were in a final salary – or defined benefit – scheme. By 2012, this had slumped to just 8 per cent – just one in 12.”

”Each year the dividend payments that pension funds were stripped of would have been reinvested and grown.”

”One financial expert calculates that the total amount stripped from the nation’s pensions could amount to as much as £260billion. With less money in their coffers and with pensioners living longer and needing money for longer, pension funds soon ran into major difficulties.”

And as a further example of the damage done By Brown (and his advisor Ed Balls) in 1997, the figures versus the Public Sector - where few can every mind Final Salary pensions to any public servant on the ‘front line’ - were as follows;
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10698432/Final-salary-pensions-10-times-more-common-in-public-sector.html

Keynesian economics says that you should do the opposite: you should increase public spending during a recession in order to promote economic activity and invest when it would otherwise be absent.

Agreed but with what? How do you increase spending when you are already up to your eyeballs in debt, spending a lot more than you earn each month and your bank is nervous as hell about lending you more money? Which is pretty much what happened.

The difference here is confidence. Economies nowadays run on confidence and that's pretty much all money is nowadays because lord knows it doesn't really exist or backed by gold anymore.

Let's be honest, had the Tories been in charge prior to 2008 then chances are we'd be in a very similar if not identical situation. But they weren't. Labour had been in power for three terms and inherited a balanced budget.

As I try to teach my kids, there's a difference between fault & responsibility. The global meltdown may not have been directly their fault but it sure as hell was Labour's responsibility.

Niceguy2 …. With respect, looking at the FACTS, your statement "Let's be honest, had the Tories been in charge prior to 2008 then chances are we'd be in a very similar if not identical situation. But they weren't." - is disingenuous at best.

In 1997 (as now) the Conservatives were budgeting to end a budget deficit built up after a (early 1990’s) recession, that was budgeted to happen by 2001/2.

Brown accepted that 'plan' in 1997 as sceptics did not believe Labour had changed it’s 1970’s spots – so there is no basis to assume that unlike other European countries (then) growing slower than the UK, we would start PAYING DOWN the Nation Debt that had accumulated from those deficits, rather than go on a Brown spending spree.

Brown visiting ex Fed Chairman Greenspan pre/post 1997 election, and was fully signed up ideologically to looser banking financial regulation, there is even news footage of his trying to spread the word to a relatively deaf Europe, after becoming Chancellor.

Brown took away sole bank regulation from the BoE in 1997, and formed a regulatory tri-partite of the BoE, the newly formed FSA and the UK Treasury (two of which he controlled and later to ‘drop the ball’ on bank supervision and totally under estimating UK tax receipts up to 2010) and there is no evidence I see the Conservative were going to do that.

When the ‘run’ on Northern Rock’s deposits was broadcast around the world (as people were queuing to take their money out) and confidence on our whole banking system tanked, the tripartite had no powers to rescue NR, as if you dig deep, Brown had not allocated that power to any member of the tripartite to do so – as if I remember correctly, that was quietly snuck in via parliament in early 2009.

Finally if the UK banks balance sheets had not been allowed to get so highly leverage up by the FSA (the Conservative did not form), the UK would not have had to nationalise UK banks e.g. RBS, to protect them – as I fail to see any other international banks that had to have that level of government intervention.

So yes under the Conservatives we would have been hurt by a America, UK and European banking crisis and the resulting economic slump, but Labour’s policies made the effects of BOTH worse, and the financial/economic recovery harder.

niceguy-

In every recession, the economy goes in to deficit, and in pretty much every recession that government has been in debt, to a more or less extent.

That's the whole point of the argument, niceguy. If recessions didn't cause a deficit, then there wouldn't be anti-Keynesians who think that way out of a deficit is to keep cutting spending.

You do realise that after WWII, world economies were in record debt and deficit, and yet managed to pull themselves out it, partly thanks to Keynesian spending stimulus?

As I'm sure you will agree (being a Keynesian), this is counter-productive, since during a recession, businesses are loath to hire and invest and there is less economic activity.

Furthermore, under this recession, the UK could for many years borrow at record low interest rates.

As I try to teach my kids, there's a difference between fault & responsibility. The global meltdown may not have been directly their fault but it sure as hell was Labour's responsibility.

Not really.

The recent global meltdown is the result of

a) The cyclical and inevitable crises of Capitalism

b) Globalisation, leading to further interdependence of economies.

c) The past 30+ years of neo-liberal deregulation of financial markets.

Both previous Tory, Labour, Reagan, Clinton, and governments of Western economies who all willingly participated in the turning the world economy in to one big gambling market are responsible.

niceguy-

I do agree with you that Brown's assertion of 'No more boom and bust' is absurd, though.

So long as there is Capitalism, there will be boom and bust. Is is endemic to the Capitalist mode of production.

Stop posting Tory propaganda, Isitmebut.

I've already pointed out to you, with links, several times, that there has been a series of events starting from 1979, with various governments in the US and UK enacting legislation to deregulate the banks and financial sector.

Your repetitive Tory propaganda is tedious, dishonest, and purposely misleading.

Readers can Google 'History of financial deregulation', or click on this link:

www.google.com/search?q=History+of+financial+deregulation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

To get a broad picture of financial deregulation, rather than read your propaganda broadcast from Tory HQ.

Blacksunday ... once again, I can swear on my family/childrens lives that I do not work for Tory HQ or constituency, I have never worked for the Tories (apart from delivering leaflets one year) I am not (or ever been) a card carrying member of any political party, or any trade union - so while we are being honest on this board, YOU DO THE SAME.

Your 'boring the pants off' history lesson of Trot soundbites, pretending the 1970's were our finest hour as everything after was Thatcher's fault (oops, they've gone around my ankles) is wearing thin as Labour's excuse for their own actions.

Tell me, looking at my last post to niceguy on the events leading to the 1997 crash, WHAT do you challenge?

Start with with why UK bank mortgage lending going from £21 billion a year in 1997, to £115 billion a year by September 2007, and why the average price of a home (when hardly building any) going up from £73,000 in 1997 to £232,000 in Feb 2008 - is Thatchers fault and not Browns, ann why alarm bells were not allowed to ring?

You got me! I admit it... I'm.... I'M..... A SOCIALIST!!!!

Tell me, looking at my last post to niceguy on the events leading to the 1997 crash, WHAT do you challenge?

What, exactly, do you not understand about this sentence:

"I've already pointed out to you, with links, several times, that there has been a series of events starting from 1979, with various governments in the US and UK enacting legislation to deregulate the banks and financial sector"?

Ha ha ha .. with that pathetic rationale, Samuel Colt was responsible for every gun death from a revolver.

So for Labour m'lud, here are their 'smokin' guns.

“Gordon Brown: I made ‘big mistake’ on banks before financial crisis”
metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

“Gordon Brown has admitted making a ‘big mistake’ in regulating Britain’s banks before the country was plunged into recession by the 2008 financial crisis, as current chancellor. George Osborne prepares to hand power back to the Bank of England.”

“Labour's lax regulation of the City contributed to RBS collapse – watchdog”
www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

“FSA says Labour leadership had encouraged it to take a 'light touch' on banks and must take share of blame for financial crisis”

If bank lending was 'normal' in 1997 and then say massive bank balance sheet leverage under Brown, you really have to grow some, accept responsibility and for feck sake, stop blaming Thatcher/Conservatives for EVERYTHING on Labour's last watch.

No, the people who pulled the trigger are responsible for the gun deaths.

In the same way that the people who implemented neo-liberal policies, including banking deregulation and financialisation, since the early 1980s are responsible for the financial crisis - or at least, making it more severe.

Capitalism periodically goes through a crisis in any case. It's endemic to the Capitalist mode of production.

I understand that you really, really desperately want to make this a Blue Team vs Red Team political party issue, but I'm afraid I can't help you by playing along.

It is absolutely true that Labour is responsible for enacting neo-liberal deregulations whilst they were in power. It is also absolutely true that so did their predecessors.

Housing associations say they'll sue if the Tories force them to sell off homes under right-to-buy

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/housing-associations-say-theyll-sue-if-the-tories-force-them-to-sell-off-homes-under-right-to-buy-10175492.html?utm_content=bufferdf7f0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

blacksunday ... re your "In the same way that the people who implemented neo-liberal policies, including banking deregulation and financialisation, since the early 1980s are responsible for the financial crisis - or at least, making it more severe."

Where you are going wrong is linking what happened re the 1980's onwards financial market CHANGES in how they functioned, to Brown deciding for SOME REASON unknown to me, that he had to follow the U.S. in deregulating from a U.S. act brought in (to separate retail and investment banking) after their Wall Street crash, which we never had. Duh.

“Repeal of U.S. Glass-Steagall Act (1933) Caused the (2008) Financial Crisis”
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
”In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis.”

Briefly pre big bang, the UK had a Jobber/Broker system where all UK prices were made in the London Stock Exchange, but that don't work when global fund mangers etc want to trade in global markets 24-hours a day - so global equity/bond/commodity/FOREX prices were made at financial company dealing desks needing lots of capital, with financial firms also needing offices in London, Tokyo and New York time zones to do so.

More evolution, than deregulation, and those global capital markets for nearly 40-years, are responsible for financing god knows how many government to pay their bills, mature economy jobs, and the lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty financing emerging markets.

Until the day the World Bank can snap its finger and launch a $5 billion bond issue without batting an eyelid from a high street bank, capitalism via investment banks will be essential, as proved when the interbank market closed, at the great recession followed.

So I'm sorry Cochise, Brown is on his own re the extent of OUR financial crash.

Underlining it doesn't make it any more true, you know..

I'm confused by the claim the Tories "build more social housing". the government doesn't build most of the social housing- HAs and other developers do. They are not obliged to do what Gov tell them to, being private enterprises, so respond only to incentives. The Tories cut social housing grant which used to be a huge incentive to build.
Many providers stopped building altogether when this ceased. However many started again, self funding, when the housing market picked up and it was profitable for them to build. not really thanks to the conservatives?

Also I'm not sure how RTB will work for HAs and am sure they will take the Gov to court should this be a reality.
How can they be forced to sell say, high value real estate which they own and may have loans/ debt against, at less than market value?
The lenders will hate this and may limit HA borrowing. HAs could go bust, and we've generally been under the impression the gov could not let a HA go bust but would
Be forced to intervene, as with the banks. A few years ago the gov did allow a small HA to go under but the regulator arranged a buy out. This was major news. The industry couldn't handle multiple situations like that.

TendonQueen ... then why don't you take the trouble to FACTUALLY dispute what I've said, without the use of lines? lol