Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gogogo
The Tory campaign on immigration is designed to scare people to death. Consider one vital ingredient that you and the Tory propagandists misout. Any sensible discussion of immigration statistics must consider emigration statistics:
I suggest you read: FactCheck
The year 2002: 359,000 UK residents moved overseas.
The year 2003: 362,000 UK residents moved overseas.
The net difference hardly qualifies for alarm. |
You're missing the point I have been trying to make. The issue of rapid population increase is important primarily because of the localised effect it has. You simply can't say that, just because 362,000 people moved out of the UK in 2003, the resultant ease on overall population levels mitigates the effect of uncontrolled immigration. Where did the 362,000 come from? Do the numbers of emigrants from any particular town affected by immigration match the number of immigrants to the same town? I doubt it.
Quote:
Substance? Consider the vague notion of imposing a 50% tax on those earning over £100,00 0 pa. This rather vague idea seems quite magically resolve many Lib dem spending plans, it is quite frankly difficult for anyone to see how such an idea will resolve tax spending plans.
Consider: FactCheck
|
I say again, there is nothing vague about the Lib Dem plans, and you are unfairly deriding them for doing nothing different than every Party does. Yes, the IFS has demonstrated the assumptions made in the calculations and shown how things would not work out if certain factors altered. However the Lib Dems have done nothing different than any other Party in this respect. Brown is famous for sticking to growth projections that other financial analysts have derided. So far he has been proven right, by and large. Yet I don't hear you queueing up to call your Chancellor vague for making plans based on certain ssumptions, even though the experts were easily able to show how, if certain assumed outcomes did not occur, his plans would be in tatters.
Quote:
|
The answer to 1: The Labour Party was unfortunatetly in a mess at that time, there was no real opposition due to internal difficulties, made worse by the betrayal of the gang of four and the formation of the SDP.
|
Internal difficulties? The SDP? So mass nationalisation, a high tax regime, Union barons and unilateral disarmament had nothing to do with it? Come on, that's lame. Very lame indeed.
Quote:
|
The answer to 2: This is old ground; reasons were given in 1997 to continue as before, using Tory spending plans in place, which since then is of course is no longer the case. Privatisation has a role and I like many others accept such changes were necessary. Remember though that many former publically owned industries were sold off at below market values.Council House sales were clearly popular and I think we made a mistake on this one, you must realise of course that the sales were at knock down prices and were not at market rates.
|
So, to cut to the quick, there is at the start of the 21st century a consensus in mainstream British politics that the broad sweep of Thatcherite economics is the right thing for our country.
A couple of interesting side-points ... first, when Labour wants to trumpet its own Economic prowess, it is fair game to deride the Tories on the basis of their monumental cock-up with the ERM and the economy of the early 90s, but when someone wants to point out Labour's less than salubrious historic record on the economy, it's 'old ground'? Right ... well I guess it makes sense to someone.
and second ... I do realise that council houses were sold off at below market rates. That was the entire idea. I suggest that the reason Labour couldn't see the wood for the trees on this one is that if there's one thing that preoccupies them more than Redistribution, it is State control of as much as possible. Meanwhile the Tories take a more pragmatic stance, not averse to a massive wealth-redistributing project like selling off council houses on the cheap if it's a means to a greater end, the economic liberation of working people.
Oddly, John Humphreys on the
Today programme this morning was accusing Letwin of redistributive tax policy with regards to their pensions assistance policy announced this morning. Letwin made the point about pragmatism too.
To change the subject, if I may, what do we think about the pensions policy announcement and what are the other parties planning to do about the pensions crisis so deftly created by Gordon the Grabber Brown's £5 billion tax-raid on the UK's occupational pension funds?