UK General Election 2015

[dakky]

"We also talked about the economy which everyone is blaming Labour for but it's just BS. The fact is we were part of a global recession due to the 2008 sub-prime disaster, and so much of our GDP at the time (20ish %) was from the financial sector. The regulation was cocked up by both tories and labour in their own ways I guess."

Labour weren't to blame for the credit crisis, but they ran a budget deficit 2002 to 2007 when we had a credit boom.  Tax receipts were rolling in but we still didn't balance the book.   Debt to GBP ratio came down but GDP was inflated massively by personal debt.  If Labour had been more responsible pre bust then we'd have been better positioned to respond.

You are correct that Labour was a victim of the banking crisis, but to absolve them of blame is too simplisitc.

I wouldn't even go that far, the banking crisis just shone a light on the underlying structural deficits within these countries.  The underlying issues have still not been fully resolved many years after the banking crisis has effectively finished.  Whilst contining to blame bankers gets lots of points with the voters, it has no place in the current situation.  The current issue is simply that we don't get enough in tax receipts to cover out outgoings for pensions, NHS and education etc.

Whilst the crisis and recession was Global, each individual country was also to blame and Labour should have been aiming for a much more balanced budget that late in an economic cycle. 

More from my bro,

"As I said, Labour were responsible for the economy and how hard we were hit (budget deficits being a big part of this) , but there is a lie, mostly on the right, that a country should be aiming to balance its books. The US flirted with this under Clinton and realised that a major economy SHOULD owe money, and can run a deficit. Labour may well have taken this too far, but the scale of the crisis (and therefore the negative effect on our economy) isn't something that the government can realistically be expected to have seen coming.

If Labour win the seats that they are forecast to win right now and were able to retain all the seats in Scotland that they currently have, they would be on course for a small majority. That's pretty remarkable at a time when we are in a theoretically massive economic growth period.

I doubt I'll be voting for Labour.
"

[TightEnd]

"We also talked about the economy which everyone is blaming Labour for but it's just BS. The fact is we were part of a global recession due to the 2008 sub-prime disaster, and so much of our GDP at the time (20ish %) was from the financial sector. The regulation was cocked up by both tories and labour in their own ways I guess."

Labour weren't to blame for the credit crisis, but they ran a budget deficit 2002 to 2007 when we had a credit boom.  Tax receipts were rolling in but we still didn't balance the book.   Debt to GBP ratio came down but GDP was inflated massively by personal debt.  If Labour had been more responsible pre bust then we'd have been better positioned to respond.

You are correct that Labour was a victim of the banking crisis, but to absolve them of blame is too simplisitc.

I wouldn't even go that far, the banking crisis just shone a light on the underlying structural deficits within these countries.  The underlying issues have still not been fully resolved many years after the banking crisis has effectively finished.  Whilst contining to blame bankers gets lots of points with the voters, it has no place in the current situation.  The current issue is simply that we don't get enough in tax receipts to cover out outgoings for pensions, NHS and education etc.

Whilst the crisis and recession was Global, each individual country was also to blame and Labour should have been aiming for a much more balanced budget that late in an economic cycle. 

More from my bro,

"As I said, Labour were responsible for the economy and how hard we were hit (budget deficits being a big part of this) , but there is a lie, mostly on the right, that a country should be aiming to balance its books. The US flirted with this under Clinton and realised that a major economy SHOULD owe money, and can run a deficit. Labour may well have taken this too far, but the scale of the crisis (and therefore the negative effect on our economy) isn't something that the government can realistically be expected to have seen coming.

If Labour win the seats that they are forecast to win right now and were able to retain all the seats in Scotland that they currently have, they would be on course for a small majority. That's pretty remarkable at a time when we are in a theoretically massive economic growth period.

I doubt I'll be voting for Labour.
"

yes  but throughout 2001-2009 Brown and his team..Darling and others included, pronounced on the end of boom and bust and as a consequence ran higher deficitis than they would normally have done during the good part of the economic cycle (when recepits should massively exceed spending)..by failing to have a buffer in the government coffers when the crash came (yes caused globally) this made the effect on our economy greater

this is why there is scepticism about how a left leaning potential government can pronounce on austerity and the deficit when the history of their government is that it over-spent, under-collected and left us exposed when the exogenous shock happened for reasons outside their control...except they were in the vanguard of deregulating the financial sector (as was the Fed in the US) in part creating the conditions where it was possible/difficult to control

no major party is advocating running a surplus, thats just not feasible of course 

[TightEnd]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

lol how can it just be introduced?

any new law has to go through both houses of parliament, and it would stand no chance of getting through the commons first

no government just introduces anything.

[AdamM]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

This

I tried to read and understand the different PR options, and it's pretty complicated stuff.
One to be left to experts in the field I think.

AV is not what we need, and FPTP isn't working any more.

Of all the things to be put to referendum, I think this is down the list.
I'm not a fan of referendums particularly anyway.
I'd much rather find a more effective system for electing and holding to account representatives, and let the representatives make the decisions.

In my constituency a dog shit with a blue rosette would get in

[AdamM]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

lol how can it just be introduced?

any new law has to go through both houses of parliament, and it would stand no chance of getting through the commons first

no government just introduces anything.

ie not by referendum?

[TightEnd]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

lol how can it just be introduced?

any new law has to go through both houses of parliament, and it would stand no chance of getting through the commons first

no government just introduces anything.

ie not by referendum?

the choices if you wanted to get a form of PR through are

a) change the law, which requires a commons vote
b) put it to a referendum (and holding the referendum needs to be voted by the commons anyway i think)

there isn't a third option....


anyway, be careful what we wish for, on current vote percentages in poll of polls with PR you'd get around 140 of the 650 MPs either UKIP or Green

both would likely be part of any coalition....the Greens have economic policies that would fail GCSE and the UKIP would take our inclusive society back decades

be careful what you wish for!

[Jon MW]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

This

I tried to read and understand the different PR options, and it's pretty complicated stuff.
One to be left to experts in the field I think.

AV is not what we need, and FPTP isn't working any more.

Of all the things to be put to referendum, I think this is down the list.
I'm not a fan of referendums particularly anyway.
I'd much rather find a more effective system for electing and holding to account representatives, and let the representatives make the decisions.

In my constituency a dog shit with a blue rosette would get in

If a party gets 20% of the votes they get 20% of the MP's - that bit's simple enough, and that's the bit that PR is sold on.

But who do the MP's represent? If the vote for a party is spread all over the country is it fair that they get an MP in a constituency where another party is more popular?

Or you just have a list of MP's and if you have 30 MP's to pick - you just pick the top 30.

But then how do you complain to your MP? How do you vote your MP out of office?

The different systems are basically a way to work out the bit's in the middle - and as with all voting systems there isn't a simple answer.

All election systems have pro's and con's - at the moment FPTP isn't living up to it's promise and if it becomes clear that this is a long term change then it should be changed. But working out the 'best' thing to change it to is a long way from just - it should just be introduced.

[DMorgan]

I would love to see what the vote would be if the form said

[  ] Carry on as we are

[  ] Allow the Scottish party, who don't want to be part of the UK, to have a large influence over the next 4 years

I don't really get this line of argument. Ok so the SNP don't want to be part of the UK but the majority of Scottish people do so thats the situation for the foreseeable. Are we expecting the SNP to turn into a marauding band of Luddites once they're at Westminster; causing as much disruption and ruckus as they can until they get another referendum?

Yes they'd like to move the goalposts and govern Scotland independently but now that they can't they're not a million miles away from Labour. In fact I'd say that their ideologies are far more closely aligned than those of the Tories and Lib Dems so its not as if they couldn't find plenty of common ground. Their MPs will be shouting loud for Scotland and her interests, but isn't that what every MP is (at least supposed to be) doing for his or her constituency no matter where they are in the UK?

If I remember correctly there was some concern among Tory supporters that a Tory-Lib coalition would allow the Lib Dems to hinder a lot of the Tory plans but that didn't really materialise, much in the same way that I don't think that a Lab-SNP coalition is going to lead to much of a difference in terms of how the country is run to that of an outright Labour majority. Pretty much everything that the Tories say about the SNP in England is just electioneering. Its a complete freeroll for them because their core vote is never going to feel alienated by a bit of Scotland-bashing and it may well work to discredit Labour in the eyes of swing voters.

The SNP would be a more junior partner in any coalition than the Lib Dems are currently. The SNP are looking at ~50 seats while the Lib Dems have 62 in the current coalition.

The idea that a Labour government could only pass legislation by writing cheques to Scotland for SNP support in the Commons rings pretty hollow imo.  
 

 

[DungBeetle]

"We also talked about the economy which everyone is blaming Labour for but it's just BS. The fact is we were part of a global recession due to the 2008 sub-prime disaster, and so much of our GDP at the time (20ish %) was from the financial sector. The regulation was cocked up by both tories and labour in their own ways I guess."

Labour weren't to blame for the credit crisis, but they ran a budget deficit 2002 to 2007 when we had a credit boom.  Tax receipts were rolling in but we still didn't balance the book.   Debt to GBP ratio came down but GDP was inflated massively by personal debt.  If Labour had been more responsible pre bust then we'd have been better positioned to respond.

You are correct that Labour was a victim of the banking crisis, but to absolve them of blame is too simplisitc.

I wouldn't even go that far, the banking crisis just shone a light on the underlying structural deficits within these countries.  The underlying issues have still not been fully resolved many years after the banking crisis has effectively finished.  Whilst contining to blame bankers gets lots of points with the voters, it has no place in the current situation.  The current issue is simply that we don't get enough in tax receipts to cover out outgoings for pensions, NHS and education etc.

Whilst the crisis and recession was Global, each individual country was also to blame and Labour should have been aiming for a much more balanced budget that late in an economic cycle. 

More from my bro,

"As I said, Labour were responsible for the economy and how hard we were hit (budget deficits being a big part of this) , but there is a lie, mostly on the right, that a country should be aiming to balance its books. The US flirted with this under Clinton and realised that a major economy SHOULD owe money, and can run a deficit. Labour may well have taken this too far, but the scale of the crisis (and therefore the negative effect on our economy) isn't something that the government can realistically be expected to have seen coming.

If Labour win the seats that they are forecast to win right now and were able to retain all the seats in Scotland that they currently have, they would be on course for a small majority. That's pretty remarkable at a time when we are in a theoretically massive economic growth period.

I doubt I'll be voting for Labour.
"

As for balancing books, it's correct debt is fine if it remains a manageable percentage of GDP (and that looking at it as a percentage at similar points of the economic cycle).   It's just investment for future growth.   Running deficits in booms though is reckless.  When you get to the next bust, your percentage of GDP will in all likelihood have risen.   Our debt was about 43% of GDP just before the crash.  It's over 90% now.  We're in deep trouble imo whoever wins this election.

Labour did well up to about 2001 and then for some reason Brown turned the spending taps on full blast.  There was no need - we were booming in any case due to the willingness of the banks to lend £30k to everyone to buy a car and a holiday. and consumers gobbling up the credit.  If Government can't run a balanced book at that point, it never will.

[DungBeetle]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

lol how can it just be introduced?

any new law has to go through both houses of parliament, and it would stand no chance of getting through the commons first

no government just introduces anything.

ie not by referendum?

the choices if you wanted to get a form of PR through are

a) change the law, which requires a commons vote
b) put it to a referendum (and holding the referendum needs to be voted by the commons anyway i think)

there isn't a third option....


anyway, be careful what we wish for, on current vote percentages in poll of polls with PR you'd get around 140 of the 650 MPs either UKIP or Green

both would likely be part of any coalition....the Greens have economic policies that would fail GCSE and the UKIP would take our inclusive society back decades

be careful what you wish for!

I agree.  But surely Greens/UKIP SHOULD have a bundle of MPs.  The electorate thinks so, even if both their policies might be disasterous.

[dakky]

Edit. Misread on my phone. Wish you could delete posts :-P

[TightEnd]

the SNP did deals at Holyrood with the Tories from 2007-2011

i wouldn't suggest that their ideology would outweigh any pragmatism post may7th!

for example, you would think that labour trident SNP no trident might be a sticking point, but in practice we're not giving it up so the SNP will give that argument up

i think the thing that rankles the english voter (marginal and tory) is that scotland already gets a disporoportionate share of the pie under the barnett formula and one of the bribes to get the no vote through in the independence referendum through was devo-max more money for scotland

under a lab minority government that is "supply and confidence" going vote by vote and relying on the snp, you'd have to say that the snp holds the power (where is miliband without them, can't get a queens specch through, second election)......and will extract a lot more concessions

i think that articulates the fear.

[TightEnd]

I'm not being patronising but it should just be introduced- not via referendum and I believe the AV voting system is pretty terrible form of PR

lol how can it just be introduced?

any new law has to go through both houses of parliament, and it would stand no chance of getting through the commons first

no government just introduces anything.

ie not by referendum?

the choices if you wanted to get a form of PR through are

a) change the law, which requires a commons vote
b) put it to a referendum (and holding the referendum needs to be voted by the commons anyway i think)

there isn't a third option....


anyway, be careful what we wish for, on current vote percentages in poll of polls with PR you'd get around 140 of the 650 MPs either UKIP or Green

both would likely be part of any coalition....the Greens have economic policies that would fail GCSE and the UKIP would take our inclusive society back decades

be careful what you wish for!

I agree.  But surely Greens/UKIP SHOULD have a bundle of MPs.  The electorate thinks so, even if both their policies might be disasterous.

i don't disagree, but the likelihood is that the reality post PR is much more chaotic, less stable than the current situation

as i say though 550 lab and con MPs are not going to be turkeys not only votijng for christmas but inserting their own saxo stuffing and putting themselves into the oven, so its moot

[AndrewT]

this is well worth a read

i spotted a tweet last night which said

"Wealth creation didn’t rate a mention in TV debate"

which, when i watched was certainly true. lots of talk of spending, though!

and this is the article that followed

http://www.capx.co/wealth-creation-didnt-rate-a-mention-in-tv-election-debate-horror-show/

"Won't somebody please think of the wealth creators"

[TightEnd]

this is well worth a read

i spotted a tweet last night which said

"Wealth creation didn’t rate a mention in TV debate"

which, when i watched was certainly true. lots of talk of spending, though!

and this is the article that followed

http://www.capx.co/wealth-creation-didnt-rate-a-mention-in-tv-election-debate-horror-show/

"Won't somebody please think of the wealth creators"

didn't you think it was a striking part of the debate?

no mention of business/entrepreneurship at all?