General Election 2015

[Chicken Run]

Are you trying to suggest ordinary people are better off?

Sorry for the delay, I consider myself ordinary, I earn less than 30k a year, don't own my own property and work in the retail sector, I am better off than I was 5 years ago, no doubt about it!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sorry for the delay, I consider myself ordinary, I earn less than 30k a year, don't own my own property and work in the retail sector, I am better off than I was 5 years ago, no doubt about it!

I'm pleased for you although you sound as though you could be earning an above average wage. What about the remaining 59,999,999 in the UK?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Next year watch out for a good budget to smooth things over in time for the next election.

I've been waiting 4 years for a good budget. One which doesn't just help his rich cronies.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Personally I sleep well at night knowing the top guys in government went to the best schools, best education for the most demanding and challenging jobs is good huh?? Perhaps they should ban anybody who works fro NASA from having studied ay Harvard or Yale, only fair, don't want to discriminate against those who don't have qualifications

Best education? Maybe Gideon's lowly 2:1 explains the shit nature of the nation's economy then?

 

[Soulman]

Sorry for the delay, I consider myself ordinary, I earn less than 30k a year, don't own my own property and work in the retail sector, I am better off than I was 5 years ago, no doubt about it!

Iv'e been in the construction industry since 1974, through two Tory and two Labour governments. I thought the Labour party would look after the working man.
Well i have been better off under the Tory rule, not that iv'e ever voted for them.
I can assure you that after the last Labour government where the mass influx drove down the wages in my industry whilst causing a massive recession, i will never vote Labour either.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting, correct me if I am wrong, I believe the debt is higher now because the banks had to be bailed out?

Politicians like to play on the difference between the deficit (the difference between incoming revenues and expenditure in ONE year) and debt (accumulated deficits). Both the debt and the deficit were actually fairly low -- and where most economists expect it to be -- during the New Labour years, until the crash of 2007/08. It then skyrocketed. In part this was because the banks had to be bailed out, but the economy crashed more rapidly than at just about any other point in UK history. Keynesian economics argues that in such a situation, the government needs to step in and spend in order to return the economy to health. This is what Brown/Darling did in the UK, and Brown actually managed to get the major economies to likewise provide a stimulus.
What happens in recessions is that governments have lower incoming revenues (decreased taxes), and increased expenditure (unemployment benefit, etc), so the deficit -- and, after a while, the debt -- will grow during such a period.

What Osborne has been brilliant at is persuading the electorate that the level of debt matters to a larger extent than they'd previously felt, whereas previously it was growth (which has been very low during the coalition government, in no small part because they slashed government spending so starkly) that the electorate were more concerned about.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well the Government increased the tax threshold to £10,000 this year, massive increase since they came into power, this helps working people, puts pounds in pockets, makes it worth getting off benefits and into work that little much easier. I don't think Labour increased it hardly at all which helped create the benefit culture. As for tax credits and all other Labour invented overly complicated scam benefits, if you want a decent standard of living and don't want to claim and rely on these 'benefits' then it's not that difficult to use a bit of imagination, get off ones arse and stand on ones two feet!

You're wrong to state that Labour didn't increase the tax threshold when in power. I'm also surprised that you didn't mention how raising the rate of VAT to 20% took pounds out of people's pockets (and this was done all at once, rather than the incremental increase of the tax threshold), as has the wage freeze for public sector workers.

 

[Husty]

Personally I sleep well at night knowing the top guys in government went to the best schools, best education for the most demanding and challenging jobs is good huh?? Perhaps they should ban anybody who works fro NASA from having studied ay Harvard or Yale, only fair, don't want to discriminate against those who don't have qualifications

Sorry but you're living in a dreamworld if you think politics requires you to have had a top class education. Comparing it to Nasa is laughable.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Best education? Maybe Gideon's lowly 2:1 explains the shit nature of the nation's economy then?

A degree of any grade doesn't mean intelligence or common sense as I've told many an interviewee who's attempted to be smug about their degree.

 

[beorhthelm]

Politicians like to play on the difference between the deficit (the difference between incoming revenues and expenditure in ONE year) and debt (accumulated deficits). Both the debt and the deficit were actually fairly low -- and where most economists expect it to be -- during the New Labour years, until the crash of 2007/08.

tosh. it looks like you are doing the same as you accuse the politicans of, confusing debt and deficit. debt as % of GDP is higher than it has been for 40 years, deficit is higher than ever since the war, in nominal and real terms. the direction is now down, but not as fast as would be hoped for, because we cant even start reducing debt until there's a net surplus of spending. Keynesian economics is all very well in theory, but the politicans in favour forget that you are still supposed to reduce expediture in the good years under his approach, not spend on as if nothing bad will ever happen to the economy. im reminded this week that half the problem with the stat of the economy in the 2007/08, globally and in UK, was loose monetry and fiscal policy to fend off a recession in 2000/01. often forgotten the US and EU went into minor recession in 2001. that stimulus was never taken out of the economy, fueling the problem 7 years later.

 

[Machiavelli]

tosh. it looks like you are doing the same as you accuse the politicans of, confusing debt and deficit. debt as % of GDP is higher than it has been for 40 years, deficit is higher than ever since the war, in nominal and real terms. the direction is now down, but not as fast as would be hoped for, because we cant even start reducing debt until there's a net surplus of spending. Keynesian economics is all very well in theory, but the politicans in favour forget that you are still supposed to reduce expediture in the good years under his approach, not spend on as if nothing bad will ever happen to the economy. im reminded this week that half the problem with the stat of the economy in the 2007/08, globally and in UK, was loose monetry and fiscal policy to fend off a recession in 2000/01. often forgotten the US and EU went into minor recession in 2001. that stimulus was never taken out of the economy, fueling the problem 7 years later.

1. why is most post tosh? It's not remotely clear from your response.
2. where have I confused debt and deficit.
3. debt may well be high now compared to the last forty years, but it's incredibly low compared to the last hundred years (see http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-cont...nt-1900-12.png, which I've posted already), and even compared to the period since the founding of the Bank of England. The reason why it's high is because of the depth of the recession.
4. Keynesian economics may well be fine in theory in your view, but it was the theory that was put into practice between 1945 and c1979, and it worked extremely well: growth was high, there weren't that many recessions, those that occurred were extremely shallow, and working people thrived during that period as inequality narrowed remarkably.
5. I was referring to the UK economy, and it didn't go into recession during 2001.

 

[beorhthelm]

1. why is most post tosh? It's not remotely clear from your response.
2. where have I confused debt and deficit.

because your claim that "debt and deficit are fairly low" can only be said if you are looking at debt from a historical point, it simply isnt true of the deficit in any way. and neither of them arent where economist expected. the point you miss about Keynesian economics is you arent supposed to spend contstantly, all the time, only when the economy has a shock and needs temporary input. we had non-stop input from 2000 onwards, in the UK and globally.

 

[jakarta]

Hilarious view of the dismal performance of the UK economy post-war - I remember it very well indeed, this country was thoroughly f*cked by 1979. Three day week, power cuts, mountains of rubbish in the streets, Hugh Scanlon and his like in and out of Downing Street telling the Government what to do - you'll never guess which way I voted.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

labour died along with the coal mines

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I've been waiting 4 years for a good budget. One which doesn't just help his rich cronies.

You really have this 'CLASS' envy politics don't you...wonder what your view would've been if you had had the education of a university learning...

 

[London Irish]

Latest poll: Populus/shows Labour in the lead with 36.7 per cent, the Conservatives four points behind on 32.6 per cent, the Liberal Democrats on 8.6 per cent and the UKIP on 12.8 per cent

More interestingly is the number of Tory MPs announcing they are not standing at the next general election, they know what's coming.

The big "gamechanger" event that could change the above stats is actually negative for the Tories - if the UKIP poll numbers surge in the event of by-election wins. UKIP take votes away disproportionately away from the Tories, which is why no Labour front bencher has really attacked UKIP for well over a year now.

 

[Soulman]

Gawd no, surely people will not vote Labour back in.

 

[drew]

You really have this 'CLASS' envy politics don't you...wonder what your view would've been if you had had the education of a university learning...

Not sure 'class' comes into it any more. It's more about the very wealthy, whether that is inherited wealth or earned who have influence over conservative policy. You only have to look at the royal mail sell off to see who benefited the most. The Right can't complain about the influence of the unions on Labour and ignore the influence of the very ealthy on the Tories.

 

[User removed 4]

Latest poll: Populus/shows Labour in the lead with 36.7 per cent, the Conservatives four points behind on 32.6 per cent, the Liberal Democrats on 8.6 per cent and the UKIP on 12.8 per cent

More interestingly is the number of Tory MPs announcing they are not standing at the next general election, they know what's coming.

The big "gamechanger" event that could change the above stats is actually negative for the Tories - if the UKIP poll numbers surge in the event of by-election wins. UKIP take votes away disproportionately away from the Tories, which is why no Labour front bencher has really attacked UKIP for well over a year now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incomi...otes-as-tories-research-suggests-9523847.html

 

[Deleted member 22389]

http://www.independent.co.uk/incomi...otes-as-tories-research-suggests-9523847.html

If Labour do manage to get back in, UKIP will start taking votes off them too. Lots of Labour voters like myself who now hate every aspect of Labour.