Who Should You Vote For?

[Boby Brno]

Both main parties pretty much have the same economic plans. I'm far from convinced it makes much difference who is in charge economically. But then I don't subscribe to the view that we are where we are because of overspending.

 

We are here because that banks fucked up and we had to bail them out.,...free market my arse. No government could have done any different.

 

The Tories economically want to play divide and rule. Labour want to pretend they won't make any cuts even though they've laid out a whole raft of them. Like you I'd probably be happy with a Tory Lib dem coalition again but the past week has changed my mind from giving Cameron my vote.

It's all political bullshit leading up to the election. They make promises they can't and have no intention of fulfilling, The media will dissect and twist every comment by all parties. That's democracy for you.

[exiledwhite2]

Both main parties pretty much have the same economic plans. I'm far from convinced it makes much difference who is in charge economically. But then I don't subscribe to the view that we are where we are because of overspending.

We are here because that banks fucked up and we had to bail them out.,...free market my arse. No government could have done any different.

The Tories economically want to play divide and rule. Labour want to pretend they won't make any cuts even though they've laid out a whole raft of them. Like you I'd probably be happy with a Tory Lib dem coalition again but the past week has changed my mind from giving Cameron my vote.

With all respect you're wrong and a cursory google search would show you how much spending ramped up under labour. It's a fact.

 

The more we generated the more they spent, if they'd not bloated the public sector and benefits so much the crash wouldn't have hit so hard and we would have had a surplus and some money banked to absorb it.

 

We were the family who's income kept on rising so we just developed ever more expensive tastes instead of putting ourselves on a sound financial footing.

 

I say this as somebody who has always voted labour.

[Guest]

[quote name="bwfcfan5" post="1510337" timestamp="1429366

We are here because that banks fucked up and we had to bail them out.,...free market my arse. No government could have done any different

 

 

I respect your opinion, but take a look at how Canada fared through the global "bank" crisis

[exiledwhite2]

It's all political bullshit leading up to the election. They make promises they can't and have no intention of fulfilling, The media will dissect and twist every comment by all parties. That's democracy for you.

There have been analyses of the Tory and lib dem manifesto recently and the Tories largely delivered what they said they would, policy wise. It's untrue to say that parties don't do what they say they will.

 

Whether those policies work however...

[Guest]

With all respect you're wrong and a cursory google search would show you how much spending ramped up under labour. It's a fact.

 

The more we generated the more they spent, if they'd not bloated the public sector and benefits so much the crash wouldn't have hit so hard and we would have had a surplus and some money banked to absorb it.

 

We were the family who's income kept on rising so we just developed ever more expensive tastes instead of putting ourselves on a sound financial footing.

 

I say this as somebody who has always voted labour.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg

 

Sorry but no. Labour did nothing different to Major's government spending wise till the banks collapsed.

 

No party is promising to tackle the failing premise of the free market and thus we are continually locked into boom and bust economics.

[exiledwhite2]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg

Sorry but no. Labour did nothing different to Major's government spending wise till the banks collapsed.

No party is promising to tackle the failing premise of the free market and thus we are continually locked into boom and bust economics.

I'm talking about real terms spending, I thought I made that quite clear.

 

Not spending as a % of GDP.

 

The actual amount of money we were spending.

 

It's the whole point I'm trying to make to be fair. We should have been spending far less and running a big surplus.

 

It was fairly obvious that we were in the midst of a golden era, economically. We blew it.

[exiledwhite2]

Look at this for an illustration. Eye watering to me.

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

[only1swanny]

The government now owns shares in the banks and the banks have started making profit..

 

Go figure

[Guest]

I'm talking about real terms spending, I thought I made that quite clear.

Not spending as a % of GDP.

The actual amount of money we were spending.

It's the whole point I'm trying to make to be fair. We should have been spending far less and running a big surplus.

It was fairly obvious that we were in the midst of a golden era, economically. We blew it.

Disagree. No party wanted to spend less. The economy was growing, Osborne himself said economic growth would easily outstrip Labours spending plans.

 

Anyhow looking spending only makes sense in context of GDP. The banks fucked is over through sheer greed and showed why the market cannot regulate itself. As if we needed another lesson.

[exiledwhite2]

Disagree. No party wanted to spend less. The economy was growing, Osborne himself said economic growth would easily outstrip Labours spending plans.

Anyhow looking spending only makes sense in context of GDP. The banks fucked is over through sheer greed and showed why the market cannot regulate itself. As if we needed another lesson.

There is nothing to disagree on mucker, public spending went through the roof under labour and that's a fact. You can qualify it all you like but you can't deny it.

[Guest]

There is nothing to disagree on mucker, public spending went through the roof under labour and that's a fact. You can qualify it all you like but you can't deny it.

It did not go through the roof at all. Unless you think it was also through the roof under Majors government as well. Which it wasn't. It was spending at a level that any developed nation would expect during a long period of economic growth.

 

But whatever it is the exact same amount of spending that the Tories would have committed us to, going to demonstrate my earlier point, economically Labour or Tory there is virtually no difference.

[Guest]

It did not go through the roof at all. Unless you think it was also through the roof under Majors government as well. Which it wasn't. It was spending at a level that any developed nation would expect during a long period of economic growth.

But whatever it is the exact same amount of spending that the Tories would have committed us to, going to demonstrate my earlier point, economically Labour or Tory there is virtually no difference.

Of course it did. G Brown publicly stated he wanted to double public spending in 10 years.

[exiledwhite2]

It did not go through the roof at all. Unless you think it was also through the roof under Majors government as well. Which it wasn't. It was spending at a level that any developed nation would expect during a long period of economic growth.

But whatever it is the exact same amount of spending that the Tories would have committed us to, going to demonstrate my earlier point, economically Labour or Tory there is virtually no difference.

It nearly doubled for crying out loud, get a grip!

 

You have no objectivity at all.

[MickyD]

Gordon Brown recouped all his losses when he sold out all the bullion reserve while gold was at an all time low. Great economics lesson.

[Guest]

It nearly doubled for crying out loud, get a grip!

 

You have no objectivity at all.

It nearly doubled? And? It more than doubled during Thatchers time. It is what it is relative to GDP that counts. In 2007 it was 40% or thereabouts. Same as it was for most of John Major's time.

 

It was nothing remarkable at all. Nothing outlandish certainly. And I've got a shock for you. Spending is going up still. And will go up year on year irrespective of who the government is.

[Guest]

It nearly doubled? And? It more than doubled during Thatchers time. It is what it is relative to GDP that counts. In 2007 it was 40% or thereabouts. Same as it was for most of John Major's time.

It was nothing remarkable at all. Nothing outlandish certainly. And I've got a shock for you. Spending is going up still. And will go up year on year irrespective of who the government is.

 

Exactly

 

 

Hardly "austerity"

[Youri McAnespie]

Gordon Brown recouped all his losses when he sold out all the bullion reserve while gold was at an all time low. Great economics lesson.

He did that on purpose...

[only1swanny]

Video doing the rounds now on Facebook of a Labour Councillor and Parliamentary candidate canvassing.. They couldn't come up with a single policy between them and the councillor stormed off because he was being videoed. 

 

 

Ignoring which party it is... Is this the type of person we want helping run this country?? Shocking.. And place this person in a labour stronghold .. they are pretty much guaranteed a place in Parliament.!

[gonzo]

It nearly doubled? And? It more than doubled during Thatchers time. It is what it is relative to GDP that counts. In 2007 it was 40% or thereabouts. Same as it was for most of John Major's time.

 

It was nothing remarkable at all. Nothing outlandish certainly. And I've got a shock for you. Spending is going up still. And will go up year on year irrespective of who the government is.

Didnt you post a link where Osbourne,whilst as shadow chancellor,said that he would match labours spending if elected? Pre arse falling out obviously.

[birch-chorley]

It nearly doubled for crying out loud, get a grip!

 

You have no objectivity at all.

Every action has a reaction though

 

That additional labour spending had a direct impact on the economy and our GDP

 

If as you say they squirrelled away a surplus then our GDP wouldn't have been risen as strong as it did, tax receipts would have been lower and there wouldn't have been as much if any of a surplus the following year

 

On the Canada front they are raw material rich and have a very small financial services industry in comparison to us

 

Comparing them to us is like apples and pears - the USA would probably be the best comparison in terms of how important FS is to the total economy

[birch-chorley]

Gordon Brown recouped all his losses when he sold out all the bullion reserve while gold was at an all time low. Great economics lesson.

This is another great myth as well

 

Like everything would have been different if we had held onto our gold

 

The fact is we had a tiny gold reserve in the grand scheme of things. Labour inherited a small reserve from the previous Tory government.

 

In fact even with the benefit of hindsight if the gold wasn't sold at that low point and instead was sold at the highest price it's been since then (nearly 10 years later) the difference in income would be £6b

 

Now granted for me and you its a healthy sum but in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't have scratched the surface in the proceeding credit crunch.

 

How much did the Tories lose on the recent Rotal Mail deal £1.5b - it's all small potatoes.

 

If we are talking about losing out over time, imagine how much money would have been raised if we had sold BT, Bristish Gas, BP etc etc in the mid 2000's rather than early 90's - now that would have been a huge increase in revenue (I'm all for privatisation mind)

 

I think that the previous torie government should have taken that privatisation windfall and invested it a huge gold reserve in the early 90's rather than passing over the poultry reserve that they did do.

Edited April 19, 2015 by birch-chorley

[Spider]

This is another great myth as well

Like everything would have been different if we had held onto our gold

The fact is we had a tiny gold reserve in the grand scheme of things. Labour inherited a small reserve from the previous Tory government.

In fact even with the benefit of hindsight if the gold wasn't sold at that low point and instead was sold at the highest price it's been since then (nearly 10 years later) the difference in income would be £6b

Now granted for me and you its a healthy sum but in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't have scratched the surface in the proceeding credit crunch.

How much did the Tories lose on the recent Rotal Mail deal £1.5b - it's all small potatoes.

If we are talking about losing out over time, imagine how much money would have been raised if we had sold BT, Bristish Gas, BP etc etc in the mid 2000's rather than early 90's - now that would have been a huge increase in revenue (I'm all for privatisation mind)

I think that the previous torie government should have taken that privatisation windfall and invested it a huge gold reserve in the early 90's rather than passing over the poultry reserve that they did do.

This poultry reserve

 

How many chickens are we talking?

[Guest]

Didnt you post a link where Osbourne,whilst as shadow chancellor,said that he would match labours spending if elected? Pre arse falling out obviously.

Yes. And he said that it didn't matter about spending money because the economic growth would easily outstrip spending. It is why the argument that Labour made a terrible error spending all that money is a falsehood. They spent within acceptable limits up until having to bail out the banks. People who talk about them creating a surplus miss that doing that would have slowed or stalled the growth of the economy and also miss that they were doing what practically every expert on both political sides said they should,

 

The point of argument might come on how the money was spent but that is a different argument......

[RoadRunnerFan]

This poultry reserve

 

How many chickens are we talking?

 

I cry fowl here, did we sell them to Turkey?

[MickyD]

This is another great myth as well

Like everything would have been different if we had held onto our gold

The fact is we had a tiny gold reserve in the grand scheme of things. Labour inherited a small reserve from the previous Tory government.

In fact even with the benefit of hindsight if the gold wasn't sold at that low point and instead was sold at the highest price it's been since then (nearly 10 years later) the difference in income would be £6b

Now granted for me and you its a healthy sum but in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't have scratched the surface in the proceeding credit crunch.

How much did the Tories lose on the recent Rotal Mail deal £1.5b - it's all small potatoes.

If we are talking about losing out over time, imagine how much money would have been raised if we had sold BT, Bristish Gas, BP etc etc in the mid 2000's rather than early 90's - now that would have been a huge increase in revenue (I'm all for privatisation mind)

I think that the previous torie government should have taken that privatisation windfall and invested it a huge gold reserve in the early 90's rather than passing over the poultry reserve that they did do.

There are one or two public services where cuts are hitting hard in millions of pounds. Six billion is far from chicken feed!