UK General Election 2015

[TightEnd]

build your own coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32336071

plus explanations of the terms and processes

[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
 

 

But I thought that the majority (55% on an 85% turnout) voted that they didn't???

Not 100% sure I understand the question but I think we're talking about SNP non-independence supporters?

There are going to be a lot of people that voted No to independence voting for SNP MPs in May if the polls are correct.. It will be very interesting to see whether they do really make the 50ish seats that they are polling or whether there still exists a hangover from the referendum where there was a silent majority that voted No. Maybe there will be a similar situation come polling day when for all the momentum and patriotic feeling that the SNP is experiencing that is left over from the referendum translates into big gains and puts the SNP on the map as a major player in Westminster or whether a lot of the lifelong Labour voters will tick the same box that they always have.

[dakky]

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
 

 

But I thought that the majority (55% on an 85% turnout) voted that they didn't???

Not 100% sure I understand the question but I think we're talking about SNP non-independence supporters?

There are going to be a lot of people that voted No to independence voting for SNP MPs in May if the polls are correct.. It will be very interesting to see whether they do really make the 50ish seats that they are polling or whether there still exists a hangover from the referendum where there was a silent majority that voted No. Maybe there will be a similar situation come polling day when for all the momentum and patriotic feeling that the SNP is experiencing that is left over from the referendum translates into big gains and puts the SNP on the map as a major player in Westminster or whether a lot of the lifelong Labour voters will tick the same box that they always have.

Sorry I misread your first  bit about the majority not wanting independence and have edited it; couldn't ninja edit in time as on phone and went underground ;-)

[Doobs]

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?

I heard somebody* talking about deficit reduction the other day.  The basic premis of his argument was all we needed to do was increase growth by half a percent a year above the Government forecasts and we didn't need to make any cuts or tax increases at all.  It was talked about as if it was a given, but there really wasn't any acknowledgement of how difficult it would be for the Government to do anything that increases growth by 0.5% a year.  I don't want to get into the argument over which party will do more for growth here.

* can't recall if it was Balls or Milliband.  

[Doobs]

"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.
"

I think your brother needs to look up structural deficit.  It is that bit that remains even in times of high growth.  Nobody is disputing the need to borrow in bad times. 

I'd also add that I think most economists have clearly got this wrong.  As our population ages and there are less workers to support them, some of the old assumptions about safe deficits and economic growth allowing a certain level of debt will be shown to have been very optimistic.  The future generations may not think we were holding a sensible level of debt at all.

[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?

I heard somebody* talking about deficit reduction the other day.  The basic premis of his argument was all we needed to do was increase growth by half a percent a year above the Government forecasts and we didn't need to make any cuts or tax increases at all.  It was talked about as if it was a given, but there really wasn't any acknowledgement of how difficult it would be for the Government to do anything that increases growth by 0.5% a year.  I don't want to get into the argument over which party will do more for growth here.

* can't recall if it was Balls or Milliband. 

i wouldn't sit here and write a pro-tory anti-labour piece on growth either

but i think the point is that government spending sees a lot of bureacracy and waste and to increase GDP by 0.5% from the public sector is tough. growth from the private sector is required for the bulk of it

all that said all parties are in a bind because the essential message "there isn't much money, inflation is very low, deflation in other economies, its a long haul, we need to control spending" is not a vote winner

so you get absurd pretences like the tories promising to spend 2bn here and 8bn there, without detailed forecasts because they want to appeal to the marginal voter.

as we saw from that google stuff last night, people don't understand austerity and deficits.

[TightEnd]

here is a big picture view of it



you can see the economic cycle

the 2005-2010 period saw the deficit rise dramatically, to highs apart from WW2

the labour record pre-2005 was fine, but the "there is no more boom and bust" spending at the end of blair/start of brown was the key because it was the part that added onto the deficit caused by the crash to take the deficit to record highs

[AndrewT]

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

no mention of business/entrepreneurship at all?

No need, as Cameron wasn't there. It's traditionally one of the Tories' strong points, so Miliband would have had to respond when he starts with the 'Labour is bad for business' line.

Similarly, imagine if Farage wasn't there - would anyone bring up the subject of the EU?

[StuartHopkin]

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
 

 

But I thought that the majority (55% on an 85% turnout) voted that they didn't???

Not 100% sure I understand the question but I think we're talking about SNP non-independence supporters?

There are going to be a lot of people that voted No to independence voting for SNP MPs in May if the polls are correct.. It will be very interesting to see whether they do really make the 50ish seats that they are polling or whether there still exists a hangover from the referendum where there was a silent majority that voted No. Maybe there will be a similar situation come polling day when for all the momentum and patriotic feeling that the SNP is experiencing that is left over from the referendum translates into big gains and puts the SNP on the map as a major player in Westminster or whether a lot of the lifelong Labour voters will tick the same box that they always have.

My point  was meant to be that the majority of people who I seem to speak to don't realise that their actions are an indirect vote for a Labour/SNP coalition.

When you explain this to them, it isn't what they want at all.

[George2Loose]

Another reason why Cameron should be there. Unable to influence the agenda.

[George2Loose]

How likely is a labour/lib dem agreement? Surprised it's not been spoken about more

[TightEnd]

Another reason why Cameron should be there. Unable to influence the agenda.

I thought it was a big mistake. it plays badly to marginal voters

the assumption appears to have been that the more exposure milband gets the worse it will be for him, but i think this has backfired

whilst a tory diehard will tell me that miliband and a load of the minor parties looked like a bunfight, in practice Ed was

a) the only MP there
b) the only potential  PM there

and so you had the cringeworthy spectacle at the end of Sturgeon pleading for deals, and it was that that really stood out. He looked prime minsterial compared to the others.

hence, cameron own goal..becuase the whole tory campaign has centred around the fact that they  imply he's an idot

we he may be goofy, odd and the rest, but the voter at least thinks "he was there"

[George2Loose]

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
 

 

But I thought that the majority (55% on an 85% turnout) voted that they didn't???

Not 100% sure I understand the question but I think we're talking about SNP non-independence supporters?

There are going to be a lot of people that voted No to independence voting for SNP MPs in May if the polls are correct.. It will be very interesting to see whether they do really make the 50ish seats that they are polling or whether there still exists a hangover from the referendum where there was a silent majority that voted No. Maybe there will be a similar situation come polling day when for all the momentum and patriotic feeling that the SNP is experiencing that is left over from the referendum translates into big gains and puts the SNP on the map as a major player in Westminster or whether a lot of the lifelong Labour voters will tick the same box that they always have.

My point  was meant to be that the majority of people who I seem to speak to don't realise that their actions are an indirect vote for a Labour/SNP coalition.

When you explain this to them, it isn't what they want at all.

Another reason for PR. Much prefer the above to blukip

[George2Loose]

I agree with you tighty. For the first time yesterday I thought Milliband came across as capable, confident and prime-ministerial. Cameron is looking more and more haggard and under pressure by the day.

[TightEnd]

How likely is a labour/lib dem agreement? Surprised it's not been spoken about more

Lib Dems are currently expected to get 25-30 MPs down from 57 irrc

so put in your own expectation for labour 270? 280?

and add 30 say and you get nowhere near 323

lab+ld+sdlp+green?

280+30+6+1=317 still doesn't get there


so the election maths is very strongly lab-snp.

even if labour aren't the largest party, cameron won't be able to get a queens specch through with lib dems on 30 so then ed will get a turn to get to 323


nick clegg/lib dems were not even referred to in the debate last night