Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Housing and transport require higher taxes? The private sector says high, especially in the case of housing it is government (mostly local) holding things back.
    What if I told you the main reason house prices are high is because interest rates are low. And arguably the main reason interest rates remain low is because the government is rather happy paying low rates to finance its debt.

    Both households and the government are so endebted that the BofE feels it needs to protect them with low rates, and savers and the young can go hang for all they care.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If you think Pinochet was on the whole the right thing for Chile you are a bit of a fascist.

    You are all such (well not Dajiv038, we have history :boxing:) snowflakes. It's the easiet way to wind you all up. I don't cry when I get called a commie. But then again unlike with fascism, there are actually commendable things about being a communist.
    But you're missing my point, it's not about you hurting people's feelings (which tbh, I couldn't care less about), it's about you shutting down a conversation. By calling someone a fascist, you say that their opinion should be discarded as a possible point of conversation. It's an intellectually lazy tactic used by now both sides of the aisle, the right call the left, "lazy" and "snowflakes" and the left call the right, "bigots" and "racist".

    I am interested to hear why you think being a communist is commendable, considering, like fascism, millions of people were killed in its name.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Housing and transport require higher taxes? The private sector says high, especially in the case of housing it is government (mostly local) holding things back.
    General tax on the public is needed for that investment.

    We are never going to build enough houses until the government directly commissions houses to be built for example.

    The roads needed 20 billion spent on them just to bring them up to good working condition and that’s without building the new roads needed.

    And so on.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YouMadBro!)
    But you're missing my point, it's not about you hurting people's feelings (which tbh, I couldn't care less about), it's about you shutting down a conversation.
    I'm not interested in a conversation. It's a waste of time. The positions are just so apposed that we can not even agree on what is the objective reality we are talking about is. I was all idealistic with this sort of thing a couple of years ago. Yeah the different wings of Labour should be rerpesented on the front bench, or so I thought. Then they enacted a leadership challange and constantly undermined the labour left. Now the only conversations worth happening are the ones that are strategically and tactically useful. It doesn't matter what I say, these poeple are never going to vote to place the Labour left in power. And by treating them with intellectual respect you just give legitamcy to thier views which creates the false impression of undecided bystanders that there side is an equally valid point to take. No. If your are a pro trans leftist you are better of just dismissing them as bigots like we do with homophobes. It is a better and more effective strategy.

    Yeah politics is cynical and ****, but that is life.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    General tax on the public is needed for that investment.

    We are never going to build enough houses until the government directly commissions houses to be built for example.

    The roads needed 20 billion spent on them just to bring them up to good working condition and that’s without building the new roads needed.

    And so on.
    As a Kier Group investor, here-here!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    May I remind you how this all started. It did not begin with Cameron/Osborne slashing budgets, but with Gordon Brown as chancellor believing he had abolished boom and bust and embarking on a debt-fueled spending spree, confident that future growth would be sufficient to pay for it. But then **** happened and we're still paying for it a decade later. How short must our memories be to already risk making the same mistake again?

    A prudent government needs to, at the very least, have a coherent plan about how it intends to balance its budget. We can avoid pain today only at the expense of giving the next generation a much more uncertain future. Because we do not at all know that the next generation will be able to fund even just the same level of benefits that we receive now for themselves, and if we ask them to pay for a good chunk of ours too then that likelihood can only be substantially less.

    And by 'the next generation' I largely mean us. And by 'us' I largely mean our parents, but there we go.
    I got a brand new school built under New Labour with top class facilities. People benefited from that a lot.
    Spending wasn't the problem, the deregulation of the financial sector was. Osborne pledged to 'match Labour's spending pound for pound'. There were no calls for lesser spending. If there was no crash, there would have been no issue.

    In 2007 we could genuinely say 'we've made a lot of progress in the last ten years. We could have said that ten years earlier too, and ten years before that etc. But honestly, can you say this country is in a better place than it was ten years ago? Wages have still not caught up to where they were and our health service is in a worse state. Jobs often seem less, not more secure.

    Every generation will always say 'if we spend money on ourselves, we are asking the next generation to pay'. But when does anyone actually get to spend money on themselves? If we all work every day and we can't afford good public services to serve the population, then it seems a pretty raw deal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I got a brand new school built under New Labour with top class facilities. People benefited from that a lot.
    Spending wasn't the problem, the deregulation of the financial sector was. Osborne pledged to 'match Labour's spending pound for pound'. There were no calls for lesser spending. If there was no crash, there would have been no issue.

    In 2007 we could genuinely say 'we've made a lot of progress in the last ten years. We could have said that ten years earlier too, and ten years before that etc. But honestly, can you say this country is in a better place than it was ten years ago? Wages have still not caught up to where they were and our health service is in a worse state. Jobs often seem less, not more secure.

    Every generation will always say 'if we spend money on ourselves, we are asking the next generation to pay'. But when does anyone actually get to spend money on themselves? If we all work every day and we can't afford good public services to serve the population, then it seems a pretty raw deal.
    You're ignoring the impact policy in one period has upon the next.

    Labour splashed the cash and made everyone feel good, but economic reality can't be deferred indefinitely. It's pretty myopic to talk about how great everything was under New Labour and how nasty it was under Cameron without addressing the point that the Conservatives were in the unenviable situation of having to clear up Brown's economic mess.

    Maybe austerity wasn't fun, but do not doubt that allowing the debt to mount could easily have led to worse problems. It's not as if there are no examples of countries in recent history who failed to cope with their debt burden and screwed over their youth.

    And it's not that we're spending money on ourselves, it's that we were spending more money than we were making, and then saying "don't worry, 2020s Britain will pay the difference!". I'm fine with us spending money we have, but spending money we don't have is an obvious problem. Sometimes reality isn't nice, but it's still reality.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by paul514)
    General tax on the public is needed for that investment.

    We are never going to build enough houses until the government directly commissions houses to be built for example.

    The roads needed 20 billion spent on them just to bring them up to good working condition and that’s without building the new roads needed.

    And so on.
    Not at all, implementation of laws or regulations to deal with NIMBY councils will help deal with the problem and maybe even partial relaxation of our greenbelt obsession. Direct government funding isn't needed to deal with the "housing crisis", just s reduction in the restrictions imposed by, mostly local, government

    as for the roads, where did that £20bn figure come from? And roads do not require state funding (there are countless " but who would build the roads" memes), private road ownership was formerly common in the UK and toll roads are still widespread on continental Europe
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    You're ignoring the impact policy in one period has upon the next.

    Labour splashed the cash and made everyone feel good, but economic reality can't be deferred indefinitely. It's pretty myopic to talk about how great everything was under New Labour and how nasty it was under Cameron without addressing the point that the Conservatives were in the unenviable situation of having to clear up Brown's economic mess.

    Maybe austerity wasn't fun, but do not doubt that allowing the debt to mount could easily have led to worse problems. It's not as if there are no examples of countries in recent history who failed to cope with their debt burden and screwed over their youth.

    And it's not that we're spending money on ourselves, it's that we were spending more money than we were making, and then saying "don't worry, 2020s Britain will pay the difference!". I'm fine with us spending money we have, but spending money we don't have is an obvious problem. Sometimes reality isn't nice, but it's still reality.
    You realise Cameron implimented less austerity than Brown proposed right?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not at all, implementation of laws or regulations to deal with NIMBY councils will help deal with the problem and maybe even partial relaxation of our greenbelt obsession. Direct government funding isn't needed to deal with the "housing crisis", just s reduction in the restrictions imposed by, mostly local, government

    as for the roads, where did that £20bn figure come from? And roads do not require state funding (there are countless " but who would build the roads" memes), private road ownership was formerly common in the UK and toll roads are still widespread on continental Europe
    Look you have an ideological hard on for an Uber free market I get that, but I don’t care one way or the other.

    All I’m interested in is a pragmatic way to sort the issues.

    Doing the things you mentioned on housing will help it will not solve the issue, it’s not in the interest of the house builders and it does nothing for council housing.

    With that in mind that requires government to commission house building.

    Your suggestion for road maintenance and building is laughable, sorry but nothing more needs to be said on that.

    The figures are official ones on road building it’s 14 billion to fix pot holes on their own let alone the extra cost to relay roads.

    Of course this isn’t a two issue problem there is tens of structural problems like this that need to be sorted out
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    You're ignoring the impact policy in one period has upon the next.

    Labour splashed the cash and made everyone feel good, but economic reality can't be deferred indefinitely. It's pretty myopic to talk about how great everything was under New Labour and how nasty it was under Cameron without addressing the point that the Conservatives were in the unenviable situation of having to clear up Brown's economic mess.

    Maybe austerity wasn't fun, but do not doubt that allowing the debt to mount could easily have led to worse problems. It's not as if there are no examples of countries in recent history who failed to cope with their debt burden and screwed over their youth.

    And it's not that we're spending money on ourselves, it's that we were spending more money than we were making, and then saying "don't worry, 2020s Britain will pay the difference!". I'm fine with us spending money we have, but spending money we don't have is an obvious problem. Sometimes reality isn't nice, but it's still reality.
    It wasn't really a Tory v Labour type thing, as I generally think that from the 1950s to 2008, at almost any point you would be able to say 'this country is a better place than it was ten years ago', whoever the government was at the time. Sure there were set backs and bumps in the road, but the general trend was clear.

    But you also can't knock the opportunities that New Labour gave to people, including myself. I got a new school, with an increased budget which certainly has helped me and others who went there. Child benefits allowed parents to gain qualifications while still being able to afford to bring up their kids. The NHS was in a better state with waiting times right down compared to what they were now. Things like tax credits greatly helped low earners and helped people climb. Home ownership was up. Take someone like Angela Rayner (whatever you think of her policies), the support she received from the state was pivotal in helping her succeed from humble beginnings. I'm by no means the biggest advocate for New Labour either (I could write essays about stuff they got wrong). People may argue it was unsustainable, which I disagree with, but lots of people ended up in a much better position than they were.

    I still maintain that austerity and cutting spending was the wrong course in 2010 and I do accept that Labour were also proposing it. It was like they gave up and rather than blame the financial sector, they blamed their spending. In the last few months of 2010 the economy was already growing without cuts and we should have continued on that path. Perhaps the greatest annoyance was people like Osborne saying 'we are all in this together' without a hint of irony.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Look you have an ideological hard on for an Uber free market I get that, but I don’t care one way or the other.

    All I’m interested in is a pragmatic way to sort the issues.

    Doing the things you mentioned on housing will help it will not solve the issue, it’s not in the interest of the house builders and it does nothing for council housing.

    With that in mind that requires government to commission house building.

    Your suggestion for road maintenance and building is laughable, sorry but nothing more needs to be said on that.

    The figures are official ones on road building it’s 14 billion to fix pot holes on their own let alone the extra cost to relay roads.

    Of course this isn’t a two issue problem there is tens of structural problems like this that need to be sorted out
    I did chuckle at the idea of having all our roads privatised. Great.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Aren't we the only EU nation other than Greece who's wages are still below pre-crash levels? I mean we've had low growth economically, wage stagnation, the destruction of our social services, and the deficit still isn't (properly) eradicated. Perhaps we should of taken a more sensible, mainstream route and actually invested into our economy and our people.

    Even May has recognised this and is trying to move more towards one nation/social conservatism, and away from the extreme ultra Liberal hysteria that has affected the Tories and our economy in recent years.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    You realise Cameron implimented less austerity than Brown proposed right?
    Yep.

    I am addressing narrowly the idea that everything was swell under Labour because he got a brand new school but bad under the Conservatives because austerity.

    I'm well aware Brown proposed austerity too, but really that backs up my point that it was a simple consequence of economic reality, rather than just a choice made by those nasty Tories.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by "mature"student)
    Aren't we the only EU nation other than Greece who's wages are still below pre-crash levels? I mean we've had low growth economically, wage stagnation, the destruction of our social services, and the deficit still isn't (properly) eradicated. Perhaps we should of taken a more sensible, mainstream route and actually invested into our economy and our people.

    Even May has recognised this and is trying to move more towards one nation/social conservatism, and away from the extreme ultra Liberal hysteria that has affected the Tories and our economy in recent years.
    Lower in real terms yes but we also have much higher employment then those other countries.

    In other words it was a trade off
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Yep.

    I am addressing narrowly the idea that everything was swell under Labour because he got a brand new school but bad under the Conservatives because austerity.

    I'm well aware Brown proposed austerity too, but really that backs up my point that it was a simple consequence of economic reality, rather than just a choice made by those nasty Tories.
    Brown was wrong to do that. It wasn't even an anti tory point. I believe things got better under Thatcher and lots of people benefited, as they did under Major and Blair. And if Brown had implemented similar austerity I would be saying exactly the same. You don't need to get sensitive with the 'nasty tory' remarks.

    It was a general point. How many people could say that the last ten years of government has really benefited them? But a lot of people could have said that in 2008 or 1998 or 1988 etc. It's been a lost decade and they can't blame Labour.

    This country is more angrily divided than it has been in years and years. And not in a healthy way.

    But I also don't get why people don't justify austerity on ideological rather than practical grounds. Cameron and Osborne believed in a smaller state with less spending didn't they?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    How many people could say that the last ten years of government has really benefited them?
    More than you might think imho.

    Unemployment is lower than a decade ago
    Income tax is lower for those earning under £40k (about 80% of people)
    State pension has risen faster than inflation and earnings growth (good for those over 65)
    Minimum wage has risen far faster than inflation and general earnings
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    More than you might think imho.

    Unemployment is lower than a decade ago
    Income tax is lower for those earning under £40k (about 80% of people)
    State pension has risen faster than inflation and earnings growth (good for those over 65)
    Minimum wage has risen far faster than inflation and general earnings
    Well pensioners, I'll grant you.
    Though not those who need social care.

    Unemployment is lower but jobs are far more insecure, with more people self employed or reliant on the insecure gig economy for work.

    Income tax for some may be lower but Vat is higher and other benefits such as housing benefit and tax credit are lower. Wages still remain below what they were pre 2008 and home ownership is tumbling.

    Does it honestly feel to you that we've made ten years worth of progress?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm not interested in a conversation. It's a waste of time. The positions are just so apposed that we can not even agree on what is the objective reality we are talking about is. I was all idealistic with this sort of thing a couple of years ago.
    Maybe I haven't matured enough because I disagree, I think that people do change their opinion. Look at Hillary Clinton, first she was against gay marriage saying in 2000, "I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." I think you would agree this a quite right conservative opinion and yet she changed her opinion later and ran for a left wing party in the most recent presidential election.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yeah the different wings of Labour should be rerpesented on the front bench, or so I thought. Then they enacted a leadership challange and constantly undermined the labour left.
    Isn't that just democracy though? Wouldn't you say this is more about comprising and finding a middle ground rather than having a completely far left labour party. Taking Jeremy Corbyn as an example, would you agree he's left to the previous labour party? and yet, he is pro-brexit which is a right wing opinion. Some may say, he also compromised.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    by treating them with intellectual respect you just give legitamcy to thier views which creates the false impression of undecided bystanders that there side is an equally valid point to take. No. If your are a pro trans leftist you are better of just dismissing them as bigots like we do with homophobes. It is a better and more effective strategy.

    Yeah politics is cynical and ****, but that is life.
    Do you not see how dangerous that is? You are saying, that if you do not agree with someone's opinion, call them a slur, then dismiss their ideas. Don't you think that is going to prevent the evolution of ideas?
    Try flipping this to the right wing in somewhere like Russia, They may say like you, "by treating homosexuals with intellectual respect you just give legitamcy to thier views which creates the false impression of undecided bystanders that there side is an equally valid point to take. No. If your are a pro orthodox conservative you are better of just dismissing them as f*gs".
    Your probably thinking that is taking you out of context, but it is actually happening in the real word, right now. Whenever Putin is called corrupt, he claims it's the same in the west and therefore just the way the world is. By calling people slurs who have a different opinion, just legitimises his tactics to shut down dissenting viewpoints.

    I'm still interested to hear why you think being a communist is commendable, considering, like fascism, millions of people were killed in its name.

    P.S. Sorry if it seems like I am laying into you, I really don't meant too. I just have had these questions in my head and haven't been able to actually discuss them with someone who doesn't have a similar opinion than me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not at all, implementation of laws or regulations to deal with NIMBY councils will help deal with the problem and maybe even partial relaxation of our greenbelt obsession. Direct government funding isn't needed to deal with the "housing crisis", just s reduction in the restrictions imposed by, mostly local, government

    as for the roads, where did that £20bn figure come from? And roads do not require state funding (there are countless " but who would build the roads" memes), private road ownership was formerly common in the UK and toll roads are still widespread on continental Europe
    So we just need to loosen up planning laws and the private sector will deliver all the affordable housing we need? What a ****ing lark.
 
 
 

945

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.