Who Should You Vote For?

[MalcolmW]

Does Farage read WWays? He's picked up the Gandhi quote I put in 4 weeks ago.

[birch-chorley]

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

In terms of banging on about it 15 years after it happened and making out like things would have been a great deal different had it not been sold it is peanuts

 

It's a bollocks argument

 

Bang on about the Royal Mail sell off that happened recently if your looking for a good moan

[little whitt]

its looking like that little jock women

 

will be dep PM

[no balls]

its looking like that little jock women

 

will be dep PM

We would be better having Jimmy Krankie in bed with Red Ed

[MalcolmW]

its looking like that little jock women

 

will be dep PM

 

No. It suits SNP to support a Labour government but not to join it (apart, perhaps for nominating the Secretary for Scotland).

 

Then at whatever point they want, they can oppose - say on retaining Trident base in situ for several years - any and  every subsequent vote on everything, rendering the government useless. Labour and Conservatives would then have to get together to establish a 2/3rds majority to overrule the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

[Zulu]

Stormy weather.

[RoadRunnerFan]

We would be better having Jimmy Krankie in bed with Red Ed

 

Blatant sexism, you're no better than th'Muslamic Rayguns on that score.

[exiledwhite2]

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.

It's what spending is against revenues that counts. It was higher, surprise surprise. Labour stuck to Tory spending plans in their first term and we ran a surplus. But they presided over an economic boom and still managed to run a deficit, by the end.

[exiledwhite2]

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

 

Running a surplus will inevitably lead to a deficit?

 

How will we ever pay off this £1.4 trillion or so debt then?!

[no balls]

Blatant sexism, you're no better than th'Muslamic Rayguns on that score.

How so? Jimmy Krankie is a schoolboy

[RoadRunnerFan]

How so? Jimmy Krankie is a schoolboy

 

Fair point.

 

Why should a woman have to take on the persona of an adolescent male in order to get a sniff of power an a 21st Century democracy?

 

Absolutely disgraceful.

 

<wrings hands -knits yoghurt - wets bed>

[birch-chorley]

Running a surplus will inevitably lead to a deficit?

 

How will we ever pay off this £1.4 trillion or so debt then?!

No

 

Government spending has a positive effect on the economy / GDP -take it away and it has a negative effect on the economy. Otherwise all governments wouldn't spend a single penny and run up a huge surplus whilst sitting back and watching the economy boom.

 

If the last labour government would have spent less then the growth / GDP would have been less. How much of an effect it would have had we will never know.

 

As that chart demonstrates though, the labour deficit of the mid 2000's ( following on from the post 9/11 recession) was similar in size to that of the last conservative governments (John Major's) in the mid 90's (following on from the 1991 recession)

[Guest]

No

Government spending has a positive effect on the economy / GDP -take it away and it has a negative effect on the economy. Otherwise all governments wouldn't spend a single penny and run up a huge surplus whilst sitting back and watching the economy boom.

If the last labour government would have spent less then the growth / GDP would have been less. How much of an effect it would have had we will never know.

As that chart demonstrates though, the labour deficit of the mid 2000's ( following on from the post 9/11 recession) was similar in size to that of the last conservative governments (John Major's) in the mid 90's (following on from the 1991 recession)

 

Then we should carrying on printing money to spend, spend, spend?

[Guest]

Then we should carrying on printing money to spend, spend, spend?

 

Over £60bn is being spent each year on interest on the debt; how much better use could we have for that?

[Smiffs]

No

 

Government spending has a positive effect on the economy / GDP -take it away and it has a negative effect on the economy. Otherwise all governments wouldn't spend a single penny and run up a huge surplus whilst sitting back and watching the economy boom.

 

If the last labour government would have spent less then the growth / GDP would have been less. How much of an effect it would have had we will never know.

 

As that chart demonstrates though, the labour deficit of the mid 2000's ( following on from the post 9/11 recession) was similar in size to that of the last conservative governments (John Major's) in the mid 90's (following on from the 1991 recession)

The numbers show labour spunked far too much money up the wall during the boom than anyone else did, in a boom.

 

They were the housewife spending fuckloads on the husbands credit card, enjoying the ride but didn't know what to do when he lost his job so went and spent some fucking more.

 

It's as simple and easy as that.

[little whitt]

The numbers show labour spunked far too much money up the wall during the boom than anyone else did, in a boom.

 

They were the housewife spending fuckloads on the husbands credit card, enjoying the ride but didn't know what to do when he lost his job so went and spent some fucking more.AND WENT TO BRIGHTHOUSE to pay £3pw for life

 

It's as simple and easy as that.

[exiledwhite2]

Otherwise all governments wouldn't spend a single penny and run up a huge surplus whilst sitting back and watching the economy boom.

 

 

As that chart demonstrates though, the labour deficit of the mid 2000's ( following on from the post 9/11 recession) was similar in size to that of the last conservative governments (John Major's) in the mid 90's (following on from the 1991 recession)

 

Governments should spend money to provide essential services. Not to play economic games with.

 

And it is nonsensical to compare the ratio of debt in the post-recession 90s with the boom of the noughties. You're missing a very simple point here. In the good times you should pay down your debts. We didn't. So when the bad times hit and the tax take fell (Gordon Brown hadn't cured boom and bust after all) we found ourselves drowning in debt. Still are.

 

If you don't secure your finances in the economic good times, when exactly do you?

[mickbrown]

I think the point folk are trying to make is that as much as the Tories would like to convince you otherwise, we'd be in the same sort of shape we are now if they had been in power through the 90s

[Guest]

Governments should spend money to provide essential services. Not to play economic games with.

 

And it is nonsensical to compare the ratio of debt in the post-recession 90s with the boom of the noughties. You're missing a very simple point here. In the good times you should pay down your debts. We didn't. So when the bad times hit and the tax take fell (Gordon Brown hadn't cured boom and bust after all) we found ourselves drowning in debt. Still are.

 

If you don't secure your finances in the economic good times, when exactly do you?

You're missing that this wasn't a usual recession that one can see approaching like a slow moving train. It was sudden. As said in 2007 Osborne said that Labour's spending plans were sound as the economic growth would just outstrip them. Osborne matched their spending plans with his own.

 

You'd have it so that governments kept constantly in surplus just in case. Which would have serious economic impact and sometimes prevent growth. Growth creates jobs and general economic wellbeing.

 

Our economy is dominated by a boom and bust market trading pieces of paper. I'm not sure there is a way out of that so we will see the approach carried on whoever is in charge. People think the Conservatives are different but they absolutely aren't. Tinkering around the edges or a different emphasis on a key speech is all that is different. We will continue the boom and bust cycle because we have been inherently locked into it since 1979. The notion that the market alone will sustain us has been well and truly dispelled. So now we need something else. But aren't prepared to jump off the wheel.

Edited April 20, 2015 by bwfcfan5

[MalcolmW]

If you think it's been crap so far, just watch the launch of the Sinn Fein manifesto.

[Guest]

You're missing that this wasn't a usual recession that one can see approaching like a slow moving train. It was sudden. As said in 2007 Osborne said that Labour's spending plans were sound as the economic growth would just outstrip them. Osborne matched their spending plans with his own.

You'd have it so that governments kept constantly in surplus just in case. Which would have serious economic impact and sometimes prevent growth. Growth creates jobs and general economic wellbeing.

Our economy is dominated by a boom and bust market trading pieces of paper. I'm not sure there is a way out of that so we will see the approach carried on whoever is in charge. People think the Conservatives are different but they absolutely aren't. Tinkering around the edges or a different emphasis on a key speech is all that is different. We will continue the boom and bust cycle because we have been inherently locked into it since 1979. The notion that the market alone will sustain us has been well and truly dispelled. So now we need something else. But aren't prepared to jump off the wheel.

 

Socialist manifesto

[exiledwhite2]

You're missing that this wasn't a usual recession that one can see approaching like a slow moving train. It was sudden. As said in 2007 Osborne said that Labour's spending plans were sound as the economic growth would just outstrip them. Osborne matched their spending plans with his own.

 

You'd have it so that governments kept constantly in surplus just in case. Which would have serious economic impact and sometimes prevent growth. Growth creates jobs and general economic wellbeing.

 

Our economy is dominated by a boom and bust market trading pieces of paper. I'm not sure there is a way out of that so we will see the approach carried on whoever is in charge. People think the Conservatives are different but they absolutely aren't. Tinkering around the edges or a different emphasis on a key speech is all that is different. We will continue the boom and bust cycle because we have been inherently locked into it since 1979. The notion that the market alone will sustain us has been well and truly dispelled. So now we need something else. But aren't prepared to jump off the wheel.

 

Recessions are generally not planned for, though 2008 was of course quite sudden with the collapse of Lehman, but there were signals well before that.

 

I haven't said anywhere that a government should run a permanent surplus. If they are doing that, they could reduce tax, and promote growth that way huh?

 

Or as Gordon Brown himself said he would do, they could spend on a counter-cyclical basis i.e. save money in the good times, invest it in capital projects etc in the bad times.

 

It can't be much simpler. If you spend to promote growth, then when that growth and additional revenue arrives you should pay off the debt from the spending. You can't just spend and borrow more forever, you do realise this don't you?

[Guest]

Recessions are generally not planned for, though 2008 was of course quite sudden with the collapse of Lehman, but there were signals well before that.

 

I haven't said anywhere that a government should run a permanent surplus. If they are doing that, they could reduce tax, and promote growth that way huh?

 

Or as Gordon Brown himself said he would do, they could spend on a counter-cyclical basis i.e. save money in the good times, invest it in capital projects etc in the bad times.

 

It can't be much simpler. If you spend to promote growth, then when that growth and additional revenue arrives you should pay off the debt from the spending. You can't just spend and borrow more forever, you do realise this don't you?

That's a rhetorical question, I expect?

[exiledwhite2]

That's a rhetorical question, I expect?

 

I'm genuinely unsure whether some people realise the Govt has to repay it's debts.

 

I'd love the two lads in this thread who seem dead set against a surplus to explain how we will ever clear the £1.4tn or so that we owe.

 

Or how it can be sensible to be spending more on debt interest than we spend on education, or defence  (will be more than both combined soon if we're not careful).

[DazBob]

I'm voting for the Lemon Party.