Who Should You Vote For?

[Whites man]

 

 

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.

 

 

That is classic Keynesian economics, Gordon Brown just forgot about the saving part.

[Guest]

Socialist manifesto

Not really. Some of it is I guess. But we clearly can't let the market run the country. That myth has been blown away. We also can't live in a communist state. So what is the middle ground. That is what I want to find.

 

All three main political parties propose the same economic policy. Cuts to reduce the deficit and hope for growth to stop people going ape. I don't doubt that short term that is required. But longer term nobody is offering anything of value up. Just more of the same boom and bust we are now dogmatically locked into without actually admitting it.

[birch-chorley]

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?

The 2000's weren't all boom though we're they?

 

Recession hit many western economies between 2000 & 2003 (around the time the labour deficit started)

 

Indeed if labour had cut their cloth accordingly and avoided a deficit would we have joined the other western countries in a recession? That we will never know but it's far too easy to just say we should have been saving throughout the 2000's without acknowledging that that decrease in government spending wouldn't have had a huge impact on our economy.

[exiledwhite2]

The 2000's weren't all boom though we're they?

 

Recession hit many western economies between 2000 & 2003 (around the time the labour deficit started)

 

Indeed if labour had cut their cloth accordingly and avoided a deficit would we have joined the other western countries in a recession? That we will never know but it's far too easy to just say we should have been saving throughout the 2000's without acknowledging that that decrease in government spending wouldn't have had a huge impact on our economy.

 

You're splitting hairs now. There was a huge growth in receipts through the period of Labour.

 

If we didn't save then, when should we save? How are we going to pay back this £1.4 tn?

 

Tax and NI receipts :

 

1997-98 293.6

1998-99 313

1999-00 336.6

2000-01 358

2001-02 365.6

2002-03 372.6

2003-04 398.3

2004-05 426.5

2005-06 457.1

2006-07 487.8

2007-08 514.3

 

[MalcolmW]

I've got the Election result in terms of seats below.

All you have to do is advise the Queen who to invite to form a Government.

 

Conservative 292

Labour 245

SNP 50

UKIP 20

LibDem 17

DUP 9

PC  5

SF 4

SDLP 3

Green 2

Alliance 1

Independent 1

Speaker 1.

 

[exiledwhite2]

I've got the Election result in terms of seats below.

All you have to do is advise the Queen who to invite to form a Government.

 

Conservative 292

Labour 245

SNP 50

UKIP 20

LibDem 17

DUP 9

PC  5

SF 4

SDLP 3

Green 2

Alliance 1

Independent 1

Speaker 1.

 

What's the magic number Malcolm, 326?

 

There's no realistic coalition there able to hit that number.

 

What happens then? Especially with these fixed term parliaments.

[Danny G]

DUP are centre right, I wouldn't be surprised if you see them, UKIP and the Tories join forces.

[MalcolmW]

What's the magic number Malcolm, 326?

 

There's no realistic coalition there able to hit that number.

 

What happens then? Especially with these fixed term parliaments.

 

Fixed Term Parliament Act is an indication of the law of unintended consequences.

Previously the Prime Minister of the day had the advantage of calling an election at the time of his choice (but within 5 years). In order to reassure the LibDems that the rug would not be pulled from beneath them, Cameron was willing to guarantee a 5 year term. But his price for that was to make sure no future PM simply reverted to the previous set-up. To change this law requires a 2/3rds majority (which effectively means Conservative and Labour agreeing on the matter).

In the past those 2 major parties have also had the advantage of being the only ones able to raise funds quickly for a snap election, perpetuating the dominance of a 2 party system - until now.

For the last 5 years all parties have been able to plan for an election on 7 May 2015.

This means that they could plan funding to meet that target date, build up a group of suitable candidates with a known date in mind, and plan policy development to the same timetable.

Then Cameron showed a lack of nous by allowing Salmond to have his referendum in the 700th anniversary year of Bannockburn, which gave SNP considerable momentum.

Their (SNP) bully boy tactics have gone under reported, although there was an unhealthy show of intimidation around the referendum. Then today, at the SNP manifesto launch, even though Sturgeon had told the supporters attending to be nice to the journalists who were there to do a job, the mob howled down journalist asking searching questions.

 

The magic number is really 325 if you don't count the Speaker (although the Conservatives sneaky plan was to unseat Bercow after the election and apoint a fair Labour speaker, presumably Hoyle). But their attempt to introduce a new rule to elect a new speaker at the start of a parliament was frustrated on the final day of the last parliament.

SinnFein do not take their seats as they will not swear allegiance, so that reduces the magic number further (by 1 for each 2 seats SF hold).

[Maggie Tate]

323 basically. I see the Tories and Libs doing better than is currently expected and they might even have enough to form a coalition without the DUP. If Labour come second and Miliband still goes into Downing St then perhaps expect another election within a year to result in Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

[exiledwhite2]

Interesting stuff 

 

Latest poll below (by election forecast, published in FT) - Con / Lib Dem / DUP still a good eight short of what they need. Labour / SNP short too.

 

Conservatives 281 -25

Labour 275 +17

SNP 43 +37

Liberal Democrats 26 -31

DUP 8 -1

Plaid Cymru 4 +1

SDLP 3

Ukip1 +1

Greens 1

Other 8

 

I too totally expected (and haven't ruled out yet) a late swing to the Tories but I think they've run a terrible campaign so far with transparent vote grabbing policies that people see straight through.

 

These marginals are key - how on earth the Tories are looking like losing so many of them is baffling, they could swing back Tory though - hope this link works:  http://elections.ft.com/uk/2015/projections/#marginals

[little whitt]

I'm voting for the Lemon Party.

was that not sat night

 

YOU TRAF  CWP

[stevieb]

Last day to register to vote if you haven't already.

[Casino]

malc, which 20 seats are ukip winning?

 

actually, exileds posts has em winning 1 which i'd reckon is nearer the mark

Edited April 20, 2015 by Casino

[mickbrown]

323 basically. I see the Tories and Libs doing better than is currently expected and they might even have enough to form a coalition without the DUP. If Labour come second and Miliband still goes into Downing St then perhaps expect another election within a year to result in Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

 

 

Fuck me, that just made me shudder.

[Traf]

was that not sat night

 

YOU TRAF  CWP

 

It was ace.

[MalcolmW]

malc, which 20 seats are ukip winning?

 

 

Mainly around the east coast from Grimsby to Kent.

[Spider]

I reckon Boris would win a landslide

[gonzo]

He'd probably start one off to be fair.

[Traf]

malc, which 20 seats are ukip winning?

 

actually, exileds posts has em winning 1 which i'd reckon is nearer the mark

 

I agree, 1 is most likely.

5 would be incredible for them tbh

 

They'll pick up 15 to 20% of the vote in places ie make a noise without winning anything.

 

Known as doing a Gerrard

[frank_spencer]

I reckon Boris would win a landslide

He's certainly more charismatic than any of the current party leaders.

 

His bumbling about at world events would be entertaining to say the least.

 

He could always challenge Putin to a game of whiff waff to sort out Ukraine

[Spider]

He's certainly more charismatic than any of the current party leaders.

 

His bumbling about at world events would be entertaining to say the least.

 

He could always challenge Putin to a game of whiff waff to sort out Ukraine

I'd fucking love to see him at a meeting with Putin and Merkel.

[Guest]

I reckon Boris would win a landslide

He might. But I think he'd be too mistake prone. People would also get sick of him quick. Depends who he is up against too, there isn't too much in the Labour Party to worry him at the minute....

[Spider]

To be honest, I annot for the life of me figure out why Labour picked Ed Milliband rather than his brother.

 

I think they'd piss this election with him instead.

 

As it stands, it looks like several months of senseless fucking about followed by another election.

 

When I'm King, there'll be none of this shit.

[birch-chorley]

To be honest, I annot for the life of me figure out why Labour picked Ed Milliband rather than his brother.

 

I think they'd piss this election with him instead.

 

As it stands, it looks like several months of senseless fucking about followed by another election.

 

When I'm King, there'll be none of this shit.

Iraq apparently

 

Load of old bollocks in reality

 

The unions wanted Ed as he leans further to the left - I think that's cost them the election

 

If It's looking neck and neck with Ed then his brother would have come much closer to an outright win

 

The Unions will have to swallow that mistake

 

I think all things said and done there will be a late swing and another Torie / Lib Dem coalition - that's probablu the best of a very bad bunch for me

[bgoefc]

Iraq apparently

 

Load of old bollocks in reality

 

The unions wanted Ed as he leans further to the left - I think that's cost them the election

 

If It's looking neck and neck with Ed then his brother would have come much closer to an outright win

 

The Unions will have to swallow that mistake

 

I think all things said and done there will be a late swing and another Torie / Lib Dem coalition - that's probablu the best of a very bad bunch for me

and therein lies the reason i will never vote labour again. They were the party i voted for in the first 4 elections  from 78 as  although I could see what the conservatives were doing, i could only see needless devastation of industry were none was needed as you can see in Germany and France who have more of a balance.

 

The unions are shit, belong in  the stone age and should not be political if the interest of their members are truly in their focus.