General Election 2015

[Kevlar]

of course governments can "volunteer " to restrict their monetary sovereignty by borrowing
foreign money or joining currency unions but most are not that stupid

 

[Hampster Gull]

if you think governments have to "balance the books" you are in denial of reality.
government sector deficits are the norm
for the uk 9 years in 10 for over 400 years
the Labour Party had it's first majority government 70 years ago
government sector deficits are not about profligate labour
they are a consequence of sovereign monetary power.
private sector commerce has many positive attributes but in monetary terms it is a nil sum game
income received can never exceed spending.
if the worlds private sectors wants aggregate savings then they have to be
introduced from outside failing trade with aliens ( and then we could only net save alien currencies)
there is only one source the worlds central banks many like ours nationalized
but the monetary power of all off them rests on the state.
fiat money ,money by decree .
when theories fail to match reality it is important to reject them
and the historical reality is that governments do not generally "balance the books"
they add money to the private sector and for good reason.

The "good reason" you talk about is often war, often give aways or pandering to their supporters, often good social reasons.

Whislt income = debt it doesn't for a country. Their is international trade. some countries are richer than others, some run surpluse, eg germany, some run decificts, eg greece. Both examples are extremes

Continually running soverign deficits can only be done by 1. Defaulting on debt which leaves the lender worse off and ultimately the public 2. Inflating away the issue which leads the lender worse off and ultimately the public 3. Letting future generations pay by passing it on which means we can have a party or 4. Growing the economy strongly enough to pay it off at some point.everyone hopes for the latter, it'll be ok on the night, lets have ankther drink.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Older people will remember what 18 years of the Tories did to this country (1979-1997) and then realise the state of the country when Labour lost power in 2010 wasn't too bad after all.

Yes, the 80s and 90s were much worse than the 70s.......

 

[Silk]

From a Conservative blogger exposing the deficit myth:

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

Where did this come from?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50%[/I]

In 1997-2000 you had the meteoric rise of the internet and websites, the start of free trade in China and opening up of India, plus total renewal of IT equipment because of the Millennium Bug threat. Even Sami Hyypia could have got the economy to grow at that time.

 

[Silk]

In 1997-2000 you had the meteoric rise of the internet and websites, the start of free trade in China and opening up of India, plus total renewal of IT equipment because of the Millennium Bug threat. Even Sami Hyypia could have got the economy to grow at that time.

That's not the point though, is it?

 

[melias shoes]

Thanks for the education. Could you now explain to me what makes a party that elected as its leader former member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association and speech writer for Leon Brittan, Nick Clegg not right wing?

I'm no fan of Nick Clegg. He's an opportunist politician. He chose the Lib Dems purely to further his career. Probably saw himself as a big fish in a small pond . That way he could raise his profile. He's also very keen to stay in the EU not because he believes in it but because it will be another opportunity for him. A nice cosy job on the gravy train that is the EU.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Where did this come from?

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2007552

 

[Bold Seagull]

In 1997-2000 you had the meteoric rise of the internet and websites, the start of free trade in China and opening up of India, plus total renewal of IT equipment because of the Millennium Bug threat. Even Sami Hyypia could have got the economy to grow at that time.

But the answer wasn't whether Labour were responsible for the increase in GDP, it was whether they overspent as a percentage of that GDP. Those figures suggest they didn't overspend.

 

[beorhthelm]

But the answer wasn't whether Labour were responsible for the increase in GDP, it was whether they overspent as a percentage of that GDP. Those figures suggest they didn't overspend.

those figures are ignoring the direction of travel in both cases.

 

[Hampster Gull]

if you think governments have to "balance the books" you are in denial of reality.
government sector deficits are the norm
for the uk 9 years in 10 for over 400 years
the Labour Party had it's first majority government 70 years ago
government sector deficits are not about profligate labour
they are a consequence of sovereign monetary power.
private sector commerce has many positive attributes but in monetary terms it is a nil sum game
income received can never exceed spending.
if the worlds private sectors wants aggregate savings then they have to be
introduced from outside failing trade with aliens ( and then we could only net save alien currencies)
there is only one source the worlds central banks many like ours nationalized
but the monetary power of all off them rests on the state.
fiat money ,money by decree .
when theories fail to match reality it is important to reject them
and the historical reality is that governments do not generally "balance the books"
they add money to the private sector and for good reason.

you keepqouting 9 in 10 years. Can you let me know sauce. Thx

 

[Hampster Gull]

But the answer wasn't whether Labour were responsible for the increase in GDP, it was whether they overspent as a percentage of that GDP. Those figures suggest they didn't overspend.

The point is whether in the good times you run a surplus to offset the deficits in the bad times. as Pav correctly points out we were in a unique good time and labour f^c^ed it up

 

[Silk]

The point is whether in the good times you run a surplus to offset the deficits in the bad times. as Pav correctly points out we were in a unique good time and labour f^c^ed it up

No, they didn't. The banks fecked it up.

 

[gregbrighton]

David Cameron has failed your party. I reckon Conservatives would be better off voting UKIP.

 

[Hampster Gull]

No, they didn't. The banks fecked it up.

That betrays a lack of understanding of the role of governments in the regulation of the financial institutions.

 

[Hampster Gull]

David Cameron has failed your party. I reckon Conservatives would be better off voting UKIP.

He is not a great leader, not much better than red ed

 

[Silk]

That betrays a lack of understanding of the role of governments in the regulation of the financial institutions.

No it doesn't, you pompous arse.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Conservative government 79-97 there was a 5% decline in manufacturing under Labour it dropped from 18% to 10%.

Was that due to the fact by 1997 industry and manufacturing in this country was in its death throes ? Its a bit like saying the Conservatives did splendidly well in reducing unemployment figures without mentioning they achieved it by moving the long term unemployables from UB onto Incapacity Benefit

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I am very much a floating voter this election as I have flirted between the Lib Dems, Labour, and even the Tories a little. I have gone through the policies, and should vote Lib Dems but in Hove that's largely wasted. I think I actually would still have voted Lib Dems but for one policy that I can't stomach - and it's a Tory policy.

In short, the referendum on EU membership has swung me to vote Labour. I disagree with Labour raising the tax rate to 50% as I don't think it makes any difference to tax revenues. However, the thought of the wasted millions on a referendum riles me. More importantly, I think it'll become a nationalistic issue that will be divisive & unhelpful. It will also give Farage a platform to raise ethnic tensions. That concerns me hugely.

So I've come down on the side of Labour. That choice doesn't excite me, but I'll vote to stop the referendum & the nationalistic issues it will bring.

Surely by having a referendum, the people can decide? If we voted to stay 'in' then that's the issue done. Why you are voting for a party solely to stop people having a fair say on a legitimate question is baffling.

We had a referendum on the voting system - fair enough. It's not like we have referendums all the time!

Or do you not trust the people to return the right answer?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

411 pages about politics? lol what a bunch of morons