Boat Drinks Virtual Election

[Glaucus]

Originally Posted by Garp

The very best thing to do during a recession is invest in infrastructure:
1) It's cheaper during recession than at other times
2) It creates a lot of jobs which in turn bolsters the economy
3) When the recession is finally over you've got new infrastructure in place that can be taken advantage of.

yep.

[Haly]

Originally Posted by Matblack

Why on earth would the majority want that? The majority would rather drive through the wreckage of society if they can do it in a nice car with an expensive CD player.

MB

That's why I said assuming Nearly threw in that it's a big assumption.

I'd much prefer fairer though and I like to think that viewpoint will remain no matter how rich I may or may not become in my lifetime!

Originally Posted by Garp

The very best thing to do during a recession is invest in infrastructure:
1) It's cheaper during recession than at other times
2) It creates a lot of jobs which in turn bolsters the economy
3) When the recession is finally over you've got new infrastructure in place that can be taken advantage of.

Bingo!

[Glaucus]

Originally Posted by Garp

The very best thing to do during a recession is invest in infrastructure:
1) It's cheaper during recession than at other times
2) It creates a lot of jobs which in turn bolsters the economy
3) When the recession is finally over you've got new infrastructure in place that can be taken advantage of.

yep.

But no Labour printed money which helps no one, doesn't go into anyones pocket and is a total waste.

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by AcidHell2

yep.

But no Labour printed money which helps no one, doesn't go into anyones pocket and is a total waste.

I am happy to be corrected on this but wasn't quantitative easing the decision of the BoE?

MB

[Will]

LD for me, by a country mile.

Then Conv holding up the rear.

No others are worth listening to IMO.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Matblack

So we keep a sledgehammer nuclear solution which is only good for MAD over a solution which can be tactically delivered to destroy a target without causing the mass destruction of Trident.

It's a fair point - any use of nuclear weapons would be a disaster - regardless of delivery system. However, it's arguable that we'd be better off with no nuclear option at all than we would with a Cruise-based system. I have no problem with people who take the view that the UK should be nuclear-free. Personally, I think the world should be nuclear-free, but Pandora won't be closing that box any time soon.

The biggest loss for a non-nuclear UK would of course be our seat on the Security Council.

Originally Posted by AcidHell2

Which is down to the government.

Several governments. It goes all the way back to Thatcher, and probably beyond. Being an island doesn't help either.

Originally Posted by AcidHell2

Also spending record amounts at a time of boom, is ridiculous and set us up for the fall.

No disagreement from me there.

Originally Posted by Haly

Why do you think they wouldn't benefit?

Because anyone under the existing £6.5k-ish won't benefit (which covers everyone on JSA, for example). Pensioners will barely benefit. I hadn't done the numbers for full-time minimum wage, so thanks for putting me right on that one.

But what about those on £50k - they'll get £700/year too (IIRC it's about £100k before it starts to hurt). That's the real problem I have with it - a large number of those who most need it don't benefit, and a large number of those who don't need it will benefit.

IMO, if they're going to increase the lower limit, or bring back 10%, then adjusting the 40% limit to compensate would be a good idea - even though that is shooting myself in the foot.

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Mark

However, it's arguable that we'd be better off with no nuclear option at all than we would with a Cruise-based system.

I'm happy to listen

MB

[Rich_L]

Tory/Lib Dem coalition in a hung Parliament and voting reform.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Matblack

I am happy to be corrected on this but wasn't quantitative easing the decision of the BoE?

It was their decision when, and how much - as a result of their monetary policy remit. I'm not sure who fired the starting gun on QE though - and it's pretty unlikely that was solely a BofE decision.

[Haly]

Originally Posted by Mark

Because anyone under the existing £6.5k-ish won't benefit (which covers everyone on JSA, for example). Pensioners will barely benefit. I hadn't done the numbers for full-time minimum wage, so thanks for putting me right on that one.

But what about those on £50k - they'll get £700/year too (IIRC it's about £100k before it starts to hurt). That's the real problem I have with it - a large number of those who most need it don't benefit, and a large number of those who don't need it will benefit.

IMO, if they're going to increase the lower limit, or bring back 10%, then adjusting the 40% limit to compensate would be a good idea - even though that is shooting myself in the foot.

Fair point Although I'd happily take the 10k tax allowance/reinstatement of the 10% to start with