General Election 2015

[Titanic]

I don't have any great love towards the current administration, but this misses the point - sensibly-run countries do not go into a recession after a major period of economic success as much in debt as we were. You mend the roof when the sun shines.

Of course the debt ramps up during a recession - that's how you get out of it! You just need to make sure you don't start in a terrible place, which is what happened to us. And the reason? That the Labour government thought it had "put an end to boom and bust" and hence could keep spending through raising debt rather than taxes. Incidentally, another reason for the ramp-up is that much of New Labour debt was kept off the books at the time (Network Rail, PFI etc) and has now had to be recognised.

This. In Spades.

 

[Stato]

what these diagrams also show is an upward trend of debt from the beginning of the 00's, without a war or recession to cause it.

I think you may have misread. This link shows the national debt between 1980 and 2015:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1980_2015UKb_14c1li011tcn_G0t

This shows it as a percentage of GDP for the same era:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1980_2015UKp_14c1li011tcn_G0t

Both show that there is a massive increase in 2008. The accompanying commentary states: "After World War II the National Debt was exponentially reduced, year by year, geting down as low as 25 percent of GDP in 1992. Thereafter it fluctuated in the 30s and 40s until the financial crisis of 2008."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

sorry ..is this the binfest thread...??

Sadly yes. All I was trying to do last summer when I started this thread was spread a little bit of joy amongst my fellow NSCers.

 

[Stato]

I don't have any great love towards the current administration, but this misses the point - sensibly-run countries do not go into a recession after a major period of economic success as much in debt as we were. You mend the roof when the sun shines.

Of course the debt ramps up during a recession - that's how you get out of it! You just need to make sure you don't start in a terrible place, which is what happened to us. And the reason? That the Labour government thought it had "put an end to boom and bust" and hence could keep spending through raising debt rather than taxes. Incidentally, another reason for the ramp-up is that much of New Labour debt was kept off the books at the time (Network Rail, PFI etc) and has now had to be recognised.

Which sensibly-run countries did this? Ever?

I do agree with your criticism of PFI, but this was a scheme introduced under John Major's government and ramped up during the New Labour years. It was seen as a way of investing in capital projects without large tax demands. All of the three major parties were supportive of it because 1) the public sector needed large capital investment as the Thatcher and Major governments had not 'mended the roof when the sun was shining' and 2) because since Thatcher's election victories all British political parties have subscribed to the lie that you can make major investment through making economies and clever management and rather than raising taxes.

 

[Soulman]

It's not a complete fabrication at all, but I should clarify what I mean: I mean they went down the path of implementing their programme of cuts until they realised it was denting any chance of a recovery, and then they recoiled. The net result is that overall cuts are about half what were first planned. It is to Osborne's credit that he realised he was going to create a major problem if he continued to cut, but nevertheless I wish the overall reduced level of cuts had been planned from the outset.

And I fully agree with your NHS squealing. I am tired of the bloated and poorly managed NHS being exempt from reform scrutiny. I sighed when I heard Labour's feeble NHS squealing last week, every bit as much as I sigh when I hear the Tories whinge about overspending. Because in my view, this issue of debt has been MASSIVELY overplayed. I see no problem with debt as long as a) it is repayable, and our government credit rating would suggest that it clearly is; and b) you have tangible assets to show for your debt, in much the same way that a mortgage leaves you a house. So, yes, we have a national debt, but we also have improved schools, hospitals, and a transport network to show for that spending. It hasn't been blown on fast cars and palaces.






I'm not quite sure why you'd be so sure that a competent centre-left government could never run the country - it certainly works in many parts of the Western world, and Labour managed very successfully for half their time in power I'd say.

I am not sure that a competent centre left party could not run the country, actually never said that. Labour though in my lifetime have shown THEY are not competent.

 

[Soulman]

There would be more money for treatment and services if the NHS hadn't been hocked to an average of £115m a year per trust. Now remind me who lumbered the NHS with that debt ?

Yep, worked on few, RSCH being one, and at least 3 schools that the building firms own and rent back pencils and all on a 30 year extortionate lease.

 

[Stato]

Newsnight's team from UEA has been analysing voting intention on a constituency level basis. First results were on yesterday's programme. If memory serves they suggested:

Labour 286 seats with 32% of national vote
Tories 280 with 33%
SNP 33
Lib Dems 26
UKIP 2
Greens 1
Others (Plaid Cymru, Irish Parties and Indpendents) 22

This could mean that Cameron's upsetting of the LDs over House of Lords reform and PR which cost him the constituency boundary changes could cost him the election. This would be the first time since Churchill beat Atlee in the early 1950s that a party could win the most seats without getting the largest share of the vote. Cue Westminster Binfest.

As Newsnight have pushed this as revolutionary new analysis, it will be interesting to see how accurate they end up.

 

[Triggaaar]

there haven't been any cuts. interesting how a idea can take hold if it said enough. NHS budget was ring fenced at the beginning (along with Overseas Development aid) and has seen real-terms increases to keep up with inflation.

That doesn't make sense. Real-term increases are increases above inflation, not increases to keep up with it. There have been cuts (in real terms) to some NHS staff salaries. If the overall budget has increased in real terms, why, when we are trying to cut spending?

 

[melias shoes]

I would like your opinon to be correct however, Labour have got this country in debt ever since i can remember, which would be the 70's. Personally i still kick myself for voting for them in 1997, they can not run a country imo.

They wouldn't know how to run a bath.

 

[DTES]

Labour 286 seats with 32% of national vote
Tories 280 with 33%
SNP 33
Lib Dems 26
UKIP 2
Greens 1
Others (Plaid Cymru, Irish Parties and Indpendents) 22

Bloody hell, that would be an absolute mess. "National Unity Government" (which would never happen) aside, no two parties can form a majority and even then both Lab & Con would have a go at claiming they deserve to try and create one. Whatever Government was created would surely collapse within the year and result in another election...

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Bloody hell, that would be an absolute mess. "National Unity Government" (which would never happen) aside, no two parties can form a majority and even then both Lab & Con would have a go at claiming they deserve to try and create one. Whatever Government was created would surely collapse within the year and result in another election...

If you take the current rolling average of all the opinion polls Labour will have a 26 seat majority.

 

[melias shoes]

I'm not quite sure why you'd be so sure that a competent centre-left government could never run the country - it certainly works in many parts of the Western world, and Labour managed very successfully for half their time in power I'd say.

Yes they did for HALF their time in power. Well roughly anyway. Because that's when they had money to spend. Money that was in the coffers. Money that had been saved by the previous administration. They make it look good by spending . Spending a bit more and then some more. Then when the money runs out which is usually half way through the tenancy they leave the mess to be sorted by the next government ie the tories. It's what Labour do and always have done.

 

[DTES]

If you take the current rolling average of all the opinion polls Labour will have a 26 seat majority.

Indeed - but if those figures come from polling in individual seats they may be more reliable. The further complication is the SNP - them only standing in Scotland presumably makes the whole game of applying National swings to individual seats even more complicated...

 

[Soulman]

Yes they did for HALF their time in power. Well roughly anyway. Because that's when they had money to spend. Money that was in the coffers. Money that had been saved by the previous administration. They make it look good by spending . Spending a bit more and then some more. Then when the money runs out which is usually half way through the tenancy they leave the mess to be sorted by the next government ie the tories. It's what Labour do and always have done.

Yep, after witnessing this over the years and terms they have been in, i would say pretty spot on imo.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Not the old "constituency boundaries" chestnut again!!!!

Why not, a Labour/SNP seat in Glasgow with 35k turnout counts the same as Hove 50k turnout Tory won?

 

[Vegas Seagull]

It was stated that the projection was factoring in the likely increase in the Tory vote share between now and then. It was also noted that the Tories would get the largest share of the vote but slightly less seats, which does raise questions about the inherent fairness of the constituency boundaries.

The analysis looks inaccurate & lazy to me. A significant lack of 'full time workers' in the respondees with far too much factoring/weighting in of how those were 'expected' (guess) to vote.

 

[jimhigham]

Possibly but it's amazing how good pollsters can be. At the end of 2010 election all of the news networks broadcasted a joint exit poll at 10 p.m. If I remember rightly they projected that the Tories would have 306 seats, which turned out to be exactly right (or one or two out at most, I can't remember precisely). Remarkably accurate before an actual vote had been counted.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's tragic that we are still having this debate - Labour or Tories - when we all surely know by now that it'll make no difference to us who gets in.

Most of us think it does make a difference, although obviously nothing like the total reform you would like to see.

We should instead be discussing why there are only two realistic democratic options, who are largely a bunch of corrupt liars and hypocrites and servants of the rich.

The reason that they lie is because when they admit their mistakes their opponents constantly repeat their apologies/back-tracking etc, making them look stupid and causing them to lose votes - whereas if they lie, they just argue with each other and their opponents don't get the sound-bites they want. The main thing most politicians want, is to gain power. If admitting all their mistakes and making honest predictions gained more votes that denying their mistakes and lying, they'd be truthful. But it doesn't. It seems voters can't handle the truth.

You have explained that you think there will be much better ways of running the country/world, but no party has been able to present an alternative that the public believe in. Maybe it will happen, but it obviously hasn't yet.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's why it's time to end "party politics" or representative democracy. It's quite obviously an archaic system (circa. Roman Republic) that has somehow stood the test of time. It's insanity how people are forced into "democratically" voting for a 'team' to make all their political decisions for them - especially considering the 'big two' are so powerful and only truly serve the corporations and wealthy elites.

We are living in the modern age now... with the technology and knowledge at our disposal it is absolute lunacy that we are sticking with this ridiculous popularity contest as our supposed democratic rights.

Given that that is your opinion, what are you going to do about it? Telling us that it's a broken system isn't achieving anything, and regardless of whether you're correct or not, there's not yet an alternative for us, so the rest of us will debate the choices we do have.

 

[somerset]

Direct democracy is one alternative - this is where we vote on issues that affect us personally, locally, nationally and even perhaps globally. Rather than those tossers making all the decisions for us.

Don't underestimate social media, either.

So we have a national vote at least once a week,..... very practical, just how much do you think that lot will cost eh?