B
Made me chuckle - Tory PM hopefuls promising to right wrongs ...
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Sponsored Links
B
Bodd
B
Bodd
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Debt - that points been pushed again and again and it's been factully destroyed each time and you then we say whats wrong with you - don't you understand?
Uncontrolled - we control non EU immigration and as to EU immigration we can control that as well - neither Labour or the Tories chose to as the benefits outweighed the costs. However the benefits were not equally distributed - but then that is the free market which you cherish.
I did vote for Cameron in 2010 - Labour under Brown had lost their way but not for the reasons you state, however voting Tory was the only way for me to exert any influence in this two party system.
I voted for Cameraon again in 2015 but I won't be voting Tory again - they need to reform.
Floating vote is the only real way you can influence the current system. it's broken.
B
Bodd
So letting in criminals and foreign labour no better than the local cowboys outweighs the costs
That's crazy don't you think?
I think he believes it's Boddistan
B
Bodd
I think he believes it's Boddistan
A Land of Bods
"Factually"? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, manipulated to paint the picture that the author wants painting.
According to FullFact, it is not clear which colour of government is "worse" for debt (however you want to measure it).
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Not sure the point your making?
Bodd point was Labour caused the debt, facts are its risen under the Torys. What you post confirms that.
Also if we want to look at Tory and labour government debts since the war and adjust it for inflation you will find which party is better at managing the debt.
Now debt in of itself is not a bad thing, what matters is how it arose.
You can have debt of 1m against a property worth 1m, or have no debt or assets. Point is it all depends whats backing the debt.
Its prudent for economies to issue debt if An economic slowdown occurs to maintain spending levels. If not you can exacerbate the fall in national income.
Its about timing as well. The current obsession with Austerity was not needed its just unnecessary suffering.
Your post doesn't make sense / avoids answering (you'll see that too, if you read it back).
Whether the debt did or didn't rise "under the Tories", has no direct relationship to whether (or not) Labour "caused the debt".
Anyhoo, Labour's expansion of PFI schemes has been very poor value for money, caused a lot of financial suffering for those unfortunate enough to have "benefited" from it, and has burdened them for decades to come. It may also screw the state as well, with vastly-inflated renationalisation costs. Ironically for a "Labour" government though, it did make a quite a few private institutions (banks, and facilities management companies, to name but two) a lot of money.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Avoids anwering what? Bodd mentioned debt under Labour but didnt expand on it. So he must believe the debt was caused by Labour - why else he mention it?
The debt did rise under the tories - there is no "didnt" part - you can argue how to measure it but no one will say it hasn't risen.
But as I pointed out - depends if it was debt backed by assets or cyclical etc.
PFI was horrible and remains horrible. Time to refinance it all - these companie have more than made a nice return on it. The only negative aspect of forcibly cancelling PFI is the effect on the markets. Most of these contracts are tied up in a few companies so it won't be much of an issue to refinance the debt on better terms. Also in future it will set a precedent for the Government to achieve better terms.
Its a nice political solution though for our short term system.
A government can build nice new hospitals, it hardly costs a thing at the time
And their finance mates get a nice contract or 2.
Everyones a winner
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Its a nice political solution though for our short term system.
A government can build nice new hospitals, it hardly costs a thing at the time
And their finance mates get a nice contract or 2.
Everyones a winner
Norhing inherintly wrong with PFI concept but it has three pitfalls, pricing, risk, inflexibility
You can negotiate better terms.
The problem is who is burdened with the risk? If its all private then they become too important to fail, so moral hazard happens. If all the risk is on the Gov then why do we need private finance? If its shared it becomes a legal mess.
Finally if contracts are signed for such long terms you lose flexibility to reallocate resources.
In a 60yr PFI - that could span the gamut of joining Europe, Brexit and then rejoining and still have a few decades to spare.
Sponsored Links
