I love your comments on this. Clearly, as a Labour supporter, it doesn't even occur to you that anyone might even ask whether the policy was a good one or one could actually be delivered: if it polls well, promise it, eh?
Has it never occurred to you that there might be a tiny bit of a problem with that in the unfortunate event that Labour gets to form the next government?
Oh right. Never mind that the public don't want more cuts, they just don't understand enough so they'll have to lump it and take spending cuts anyway.
Some of you PBTories crack me up with your selective approach to "listening to the people". When it comes to immigration or an EU referendum, it's a scandal for Labour to not listen to the voices of the people who say they're against them. Yet, when it's proven time and time again that people also don't want spending cuts, their opinions don't matter, paying off some random guy on a trading floor in Shanghai is the most important thing rather than providing good lives for British people.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
I love your comments on this. Clearly, as a Labour supporter, it doesn't even occur to you that anyone might even ask whether the policy was a good one or one could actually be delivered: if it polls well, promise it, eh?
Has it never occurred to you that there might be a tiny bit of a problem with that in the unfortunate event that Labour gets to form the next government?
Oh right. Never mind that the public don't want more cuts, they just don't understand enough so they'll have to lump it and take spending cuts anyway.
Some of you PBTories crack me up with your selective approach to "listening to the people". When it comes to immigration or an EU referendum, it's a scandal for Labour to not listen to the voices of the people who say they're against them. Yet, when it's proven time and time again that people also don't want spending cuts, their opinions don't matter, paying off some random guy on a trading floor in Shanghai is the most important thing rather than providing good lives for British people.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
I love your comments on this. Clearly, as a Labour supporter, it doesn't even occur to you that anyone might even ask whether the policy was a good one or one could actually be delivered: if it polls well, promise it, eh?
Has it never occurred to you that there might be a tiny bit of a problem with that in the unfortunate event that Labour gets to form the next government?
Oh right. Never mind that the public don't want more cuts, they just don't understand enough so they'll have to lump it and take spending cuts anyway.
Some of you PBTories crack me up with your selective approach to "listening to the people". When it comes to immigration or an EU referendum, it's a scandal for Labour to not listen to the voices of the people who say they're against them. Yet, when it's proven time and time again that people also don't want spending cuts, their opinions don't matter, paying off some random guy on a trading floor in Shanghai is the most important thing rather than providing good lives for British people.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
If the country want spending, give it to them. Then laugh at them when they all lose their jobs and go bust.
I love your comments on this. Clearly, as a Labour supporter, it doesn't even occur to you that anyone might even ask whether the policy was a good one or one could actually be delivered: if it polls well, promise it, eh?
Has it never occurred to you that there might be a tiny bit of a problem with that in the unfortunate event that Labour gets to form the next government?
Oh right. Never mind that the public don't want more cuts, they just don't understand enough so they'll have to lump it and take spending cuts anyway.
Some of you PBTories crack me up with your selective approach to "listening to the people". When it comes to immigration or an EU referendum, it's a scandal for Labour to not listen to the voices of the people who say they're against them. Yet, when it's proven time and time again that people also don't want spending cuts, their opinions don't matter, paying off some random guy on a trading floor in Shanghai is the most important thing rather than providing good lives for British people.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Like QE?
QE isn't indefinite - indeed there hasn't been any QE at all in the last (approx) two years.
Danny (appears to be) proposing printing more money on a perpetual basis.
Who are these idiots that don't want spending cuts then vote UKIP? It's like not wanting mass immigration and millions taking benefits off the state and voting Labour. Insane.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Again, I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "never mind what the people want, they just can't have it". What is democratic about that?
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Again, I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "never mind what the people want, they just can't have it". What is democratic about that?
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
And screw it. If not, someone's kids and grand kids can pick up the tab.
And p.s. Borrowing more increases the deficit by default (interest). So screw their quality of life, we will have to raise taxes to 'maintain the deficit'. At least the NHS can carry on being an ineffective pile of sh!t though
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Again, I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "never mind what the people want, they just can't have it". What is democratic about that?
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
And screw it. If not, someone's kids and grand kids can pick up the tab.
I think those kids and grandkids would rather have jobs and houses and decent living standards provided for them, if you asked them, rather than not getting anything and having to fend for themselves just to satisfy "the markets".
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Again, I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "never mind what the people want, they just can't have it". What is democratic about that?
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
And screw it. If not, someone's kids and grand kids can pick up the tab.
I think those kids and grandkids would rather have jobs and houses and decent living standards provided for them, if you asked them, rather than not getting anything and having to fend for themselves just to satisfy "the markets".
They might find it more rewarding to go out and provide their own, and not be paying off their grandparents benefits bill.
I asked you this a few weeks ago but maybe you didn't see the question so I'll ask again.
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Again, I have to say this sounds an awful lot like "never mind what the people want, they just can't have it". What is democratic about that?
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
Fair enough - I certainly agree that borrowing more is much more plausible than just printing it.
If you want to go down the borrowing route then it's a question of the practicalities - ie finding lenders and to what extent you would have to pay a higher rate of interest - plus the compounding effect of paying more interest in future on a greater level of total debt.
I wouldn't begin to pretend that I was qualified to judge whether this might be practical or not.
Re your democracy point - the public may support all kinds of things, eg hanging. But even if people vote for more borrowing it can only happen if it is feasible to obtain that borrowing.
New Labour 1997-2010 really was the vilest of governments. Positively malignant in almost every way.
The thing is Blair always seems so impressive. He was on the Today Programme a few days ago and sounded far more clued up about almost everything compared to the politicians currently running the country.
New Labour 1997-2010 really was the vilest of governments. Positively malignant in almost every way.
The thing is Blair always seems so impressive. He was on the Today Programme a few days ago and sounded far more clued up about almost everything compared to the politicians currently running the country.
Which is why he won 3 elections!
As I said a few days ago, people don't vote for any individual policies.
Whatever people may say now - at the time people looked at him and listened to him and they decided that he was by far the most credible person to be PM - so he won.
New Labour 1997-2010 really was the vilest of governments. Positively malignant in almost every way.
The thing is Blair always seems so impressive. He was on the Today Programme a few days ago and sounded far more clued up about almost everything compared to the politicians currently running the country.
And the blood on his hands is fully authentic, too.
If Scotland votes yes,mew should try an experiment in rUK. Split the N/Wales and the S/N Ireland. Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
New Labour 1997-2010 really was the vilest of governments. Positively malignant in almost every way.
The thing is Blair always seems so impressive. He was on the Today Programme a few days ago and sounded far more clued up about almost everything compared to the politicians currently running the country.
If Scotland votes yes,mew should try an experiment in rUK. Split the N/Wales and the S/N Ireland. Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
The Tories are equally illiterate. They think cheap labour leads to rich countries - which is self-evidently not true.
If Scotland votes yes,mew should try an experiment in rUK. Split the N/Wales and the S/N Ireland. Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
The Tories are equally illiterate. They think cheap labour leads to rich countries - which is self-evidently not true.
Yeah, but they are at least pleasant economic illiterates.
Dyed Woolie, Scotland is not going to vote Yes. It will comfortable vote No, and the 'Tories are toxic in Scotland' line will be further diluted at the next GE and Holyrood elections as a result.
If Scotland votes yes,mew should try an experiment in rUK. Split the N/Wales and the S/N Ireland. Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
If Scotland votes yes,mew should try an experiment in rUK. Split the N/Wales and the S/N Ireland. Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
The Tories are equally illiterate. They think cheap labour leads to rich countries - which is self-evidently not true.
Yeah, but they are at least pleasant economic illiterates.
Can't say I'd noticed the "pleasant" part but by the by. Here's the fatal flaw in the Cameroon's mass immigration political strategy in a nut shell.
"The owner-occupier category fell from 69 per cent to 64 per cent across England and Wales over the decade, while privately rented accommodation grew from 12 per cent to 18 per cent, with the remainder in social housing."
The Tories seemed to win most of the areas between roughly Bristol and London, Worcestershire, North Yorkshire, and the area between Oxford and Cambridge.
The result for Bedford in the Euros:
UKIP 11,470 Con 11,448 Lab 9,603 LD 3,266 Green 2,836 AIFE 690 CPA 474 Eng Dem 323 BNP 311 NO2EU 151
There's a little more to it than that, what with probability densities etc.
For example on a 1,000 sample (since I know it off the top of my head) you have a 95% certainty of it being within 3 points, but you also have a 50% chance of it being within 1 point. All the variations aren't equally likely.
And -3 from one party and +3 to another is a small subset of the variations with a corresponding limiting likelihood.
During the day I got an unsolicited phone call from some gormless wage-slave trying to sell something. Usually I just say things like "globule" or "vestibule" to such people until they get fed up and cut me off, but by chance I happened to have readily at hand the transcript of the "Black!" sketch from the latest episode of the Fast Show, so I was able to say to the person this:
"Black! Black in the mouth... Black! Like Inky the octopus that comes lolloping along... Mr Pinky hits his hammer. Hit! Hit! Hit! How far in the trunk, mummy? How far in the trunk? Glenda knows, Glenda knows! Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! Underarm... You're in my telescope..."
In between the words, I could hear the man saying "sorry?" and "hello?" a few times. I managed to finish almost all of the entire script before he cut me off.
It made me feel a whole lot better after being grumpy and annoyed for the last week after the voters of Croydon had not only the stupidity to vote Labour in their own areas, but also the impertinence to impose a Labour council on the rest of us.
Yes, John Major was one of the least intelligent, most boring Prime Ministers this country ever had - & he signed the Maastrict Treaty.........so what he says now is totally irrelevant! Surely all UKIP activists have to do in Newark is remind the electorate that the 'Right Dishonorable' David Mercer MP was caught taking CASH FOR QUESTIONS! Not such a tough gig. Labour won't win and should vote tactically for a UKIP win.
Comments
You say nobody cares about the deficit. But if we don't reduce the deficit there are only two options - borrow more or just print the money.
If we can't find more lenders, and we don't want to raise interest rates, then we're down to just one option - print the money.
Now I agree with you - just printing more money and handing it out to people will certainly be superficially attractive to whoever is in receipt of that money.
But do you think that any responsible person in charge of running the country - whether socialist or capitalist, whether Lab, Con, LD or whatever Party - could really think that just printing money and handing it out to people - on a ongoing, continuous basis - is a sensible and sustainable way of running the country?
Danny (appears to be) proposing printing more money on a perpetual basis.
It's like not wanting mass immigration and millions taking benefits off the state and voting Labour.
Insane.
I don't believe printing more money would be necessary. I'd be fine with borrowing more, maintaining the deficit at approximately the same level as it is now (which is, as the Tories like to remind us, quite a bit lower than it was in 2010 which was perhaps too high), and not worrying about the "debt burden" increasing on paper. I don't believe we would have a problem with finding more lenders if the money was going towards giving people jobs, giving people decent wages, funding the NHS (thus keeping workers healthy), purely because all those things would mean we had a big, reliable, stable workforce who would be able to eventually pay lenders their money back.
And p.s. Borrowing more increases the deficit by default (interest). So screw their quality of life, we will have to raise taxes to 'maintain the deficit'.
At least the NHS can carry on being an ineffective pile of sh!t though
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ANP-summary-140527.pdf
o/
If you want to go down the borrowing route then it's a question of the practicalities - ie finding lenders and to what extent you would have to pay a higher rate of interest - plus the compounding effect of paying more interest in future on a greater level of total debt.
I wouldn't begin to pretend that I was qualified to judge whether this might be practical or not.
Re your democracy point - the public may support all kinds of things, eg hanging. But even if people vote for more borrowing it can only happen if it is feasible to obtain that borrowing.
As I said a few days ago, people don't vote for any individual policies.
Whatever people may say now - at the time people looked at him and listened to him and they decided that he was by far the most credible person to be PM - so he won.
Con 13,140
UKIP 10,220
Lab 9,855
LD 1,825
Oths 1,460
So to win UKIP would need to get a swing of about 1,500 voters from the Tories, or about 3,000 from Labour, or some combination of both.
Why talk about numbers rather than percentages? Sometimes it helps to give a clearer picture, however illogical.
(In 2010 the electorate was 71,650 and turnout 71.4%).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/d03.stm
Let the flat caps have their economically illiterate Labour government , and a nice hard line Tory government for the South and see how long it takes the North to get the begging bowls out.
Obviously we'd be funding hunts in rural Yorkshire on the QT in the meantime.
So 95% chance that Con lead is between 0% and 16%.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Newark-Poll-Sun-Tables.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10863346/Figures-show-surge-in-overcrowded-homes.html#source=refresh
"The owner-occupier category fell from 69 per cent to 64 per cent across England and Wales over the decade, while privately rented accommodation grew from 12 per cent to 18 per cent, with the remainder in social housing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Parliament_election_results,_2014_(England_by_council_areas).svg
The Tories seemed to win most of the areas between roughly Bristol and London, Worcestershire, North Yorkshire, and the area between Oxford and Cambridge.
The result for Bedford in the Euros:
UKIP 11,470
Con 11,448
Lab 9,603
LD 3,266
Green 2,836
AIFE 690
CPA 474
Eng Dem 323
BNP 311
NO2EU 151
http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/node/30370
For example on a 1,000 sample (since I know it off the top of my head) you have a 95% certainty of it being within 3 points, but you also have a 50% chance of it being within 1 point. All the variations aren't equally likely.
And -3 from one party and +3 to another is a small subset of the variations with a corresponding limiting likelihood.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/a-day-in-newark-the-tories-are-winning-the-ground-war-against-ukip/
Now both sides are appealing.
The carnival goes on...
"Black! Black in the mouth... Black! Like Inky the octopus that comes lolloping along... Mr Pinky hits his hammer. Hit! Hit! Hit! How far in the trunk, mummy? How far in the trunk? Glenda knows, Glenda knows! Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! Underarm... You're in my telescope..."
In between the words, I could hear the man saying "sorry?" and "hello?" a few times. I managed to finish almost all of the entire script before he cut me off.
It made me feel a whole lot better after being grumpy and annoyed for the last week after the voters of Croydon had not only the stupidity to vote Labour in their own areas, but also the impertinence to impose a Labour council on the rest of us.
Surely all UKIP activists have to do in Newark is remind the electorate that the 'Right Dishonorable' David Mercer MP was caught taking CASH FOR QUESTIONS! Not such a tough gig. Labour won't win and should vote tactically for a UKIP win.
The Met Office said an average March-May temperature of 8.97C (48.15F) would be beaten only by 2007 and 2011 in the records, which date back to 1910."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27635564