Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
TBF: there is an active Keynesian view - espoused by @Socrates among others - that claims that cutting the deficit is best achieved through growing the economy. And that growing the economy requires increased government spending.
Not exactly. The idea was that, as I see our good Doctor Fox has mentioned, you make savings and run a surplus in good times so you can give the necessary boost to the economy when you are in recession through extra government spending. Simply spending more all the time is not he answer.
AV is the worst electoral system ever devised by man. Winning that referendum was a National necessity, Country before Party, as always.
It's not as good as multi-member single transferable vote, but I think it's a lot better than First Past the Post. A good electoral system should encourage you to vote for those most representing your own views, rather than encourage you to vote tactically for the least worst of the two leaders.
Except we vote for our local MP, not for the party leaders (unless you are (un?)lucky enough to live in their constituencies. That should be an important consideration, but sadly is not.
And I am against any system that gives more power to the parties.
My view exactly. Any system that tries to introduce 'fairness' for parties is simply handing them more power and we should be trying to find ways to decrease their power not increase it. I am all for trying to make the votes within constituencies fairer with transferable votes but not at the cost of giving more power to parties nor removing the constituency link.
You see, we can agree, ;-)
I'm trying to vote this time on a series of criteria. So far I have:
*) Local candidates' websites, and how (sadly, if) they mention local issues. So far, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green. *) The national parties websites accessibility. So far, Lib Dem, Green. *) The candidates' views on local issues. So far, Conservative, Lib Dem. *) My general feeling towards the national parties and personalities, which I am trying to ignore. Probably Conservative, Lib Dem.
So it looks like Sebastian Kindersley might be getting my vote. Even if he cannot spell... :-)
Not sure about the winner, but Cameron is getting an unrestrained shoeing. Milliband could be at risk too-Sturgeon looks keen to have at him, and Milliband seems a bit scared.
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
Keynes showed why.
Keynes said to run a surplus when the economy was growing so as to be able to run a deficit when the economy in recession.
Actually, that's not quite true.
Keynes identified that an economy could get stuck in an equilibrium below its potential output level, due to deficit in aggregate demand. His view was that the world economy in the 1930s - when people, scared of losing their jobs, chose to save rather than spend, and therefore prolonged the recession - was an example of that.
His solution was that at such a time, the government could soak up the demand for saving (by borrowing), and increase the level of aggregate demand. (His example was people digging and then filling in holes.) By doing this, you would be able to move the economy back towards its potential level.
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
TBF: there is an active Keynesian view - espoused by @Socrates among others - that claims that cutting the deficit is best achieved through growing the economy. And that growing the economy requires increased government spending.
Not exactly. The idea was that, as I see our good Doctor Fox has mentioned, you make savings and run a surplus in good times so you can give the necessary boost to the economy when you are in recession through extra government spending. Simply spending more all the time is not he answer.
Why does everyone always act like the choice is between either massive cuts, OR a massive increase in spending on top of what we've already got? What about just keeping levels of spending stable at current levels in real terms, which the bond markets are perfectly happy to accept?
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
Keynes showed why.
No he didn't. Keynes categorically never supported increasing all spending all the time.
Keynes backed countercyclical spending which we have. The country is currently growing at out long term growth rate so we are in the boom part of our cycle, we should be saving for the next recession. Instead we're running a major deficit during a boom - Keynes would never have suggested increasing spending now.
We don't have enough counter cyclical spending. Which is why all the zillions of jobs "created" on the Tory watch are flipping burgers.
AV is the worst electoral system ever devised by man. Winning that referendum was a National necessity, Country before Party, as always.
It's not as good as multi-member single transferable vote, but I think it's a lot better than First Past the Post. A good electoral system should encourage you to vote for those most representing your own views, rather than encourage you to vote tactically for the least worst of the two leaders.
Except we vote for our local MP, not for the party leaders (unless you are (un?)lucky enough to live in their constituencies. That should be an important consideration, but sadly is not.
And I am against any system that gives more power to the parties.
My view exactly. Any system that tries to introduce 'fairness' for parties is simply handing them more power and we should be trying to find ways to decrease their power not increase it. I am all for trying to make the votes within constituencies fairer with transferable votes but not at the cost of giving more power to parties nor removing the constituency link.
Somewhere on the way in order to do this you have to create constituencies. How fair to anyone are the constituency boundaries and the rules that create them. (Bearing in mind the basis is local govt which is a mess.)
I agree with you (please don't fall off a chair :-) ). I think there should be a complete overhaul of the boundaries as was proposed at the beginning of this Parliament or even more so. But it should be done with a weather eye to the principle of individual constituency representatives rather than party 'fairness'.
What's "representative" about a constituency MP, when at the past two elections (and probably this one), the majority of voters didn't get one they voted for?
In every single constituency a plurality of voters got an MP they voted for.
Plus local representatives represent all constituents for their casework not just party supporters. I know people who've had casework dealt with by an MP of a party the oppose but we're greatful still that their issue was dealt with. If you break the constituency link then who deals with that casework?
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
Keynes showed why.
No he didn't. Keynes categorically never supported increasing all spending all the time.
Keynes backed countercyclical spending which we have. The country is currently growing at out long term growth rate so we are in the boom part of our cycle, we should be saving for the next recession. Instead we're running a major deficit during a boom - Keynes would never have suggested increasing spending now.
We don't have enough counter cyclical spending. Which is why all the zillions of jobs "created" on the Tory watch are flipping burgers.
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
TBF: there is an active Keynesian view - espoused by @Socrates among others - that claims that cutting the deficit is best achieved through growing the economy. And that growing the economy requires increased government spending.
Which is bullshit in advanced economies. We all know that increased spending won't work in countries with a low capacity for growth like Britain and France. Western European economies in general are too stale, we didn't have the renewal of business and employment that we needed at the end of the last business cycle to benefit from higher investment spending by the government. Japan has had monetary and fiscal stimulus for years to no avail, we are in a very similar economic position, just with manufacturing replaced by the City. Worse still the government, current and next, is actively harming the one industry that still has a very high growth potential with stupid taxes like the balance sheet tax and stamp duty on shares. We are losing out on big IPOs to New York because of it.
AV is the worst electoral system ever devised by man. Winning that referendum was a National necessity, Country before Party, as always.
It's not as good as multi-member single transferable vote, but I think it's a lot better than First Past the Post. A good electoral system should encourage you to vote for those most representing your own views, rather than encourage you to vote tactically for the least worst of the two leaders.
Except we vote for our local MP, not for the party leaders (unless you are (un?)lucky enough to live in their constituencies. That should be an important consideration, but sadly is not.
And I am against any system that gives more power to the parties.
My view exactly. Any system that tries to introduce 'fairness' for parties is simply handing them more power and we should be trying to find ways to decrease their power not increase it. I am all for trying to make the votes within constituencies fairer with transferable votes but not at the cost of giving more power to parties nor removing the constituency link.
Somewhere on the way in order to do this you have to create constituencies. How fair to anyone are the constituency boundaries and the rules that create them. (Bearing in mind the basis is local govt which is a mess.)
I agree with you (please don't fall off a chair :-) ). I think there should be a complete overhaul of the boundaries as was proposed at the beginning of this Parliament or even more so. But it should be done with a weather eye to the principle of individual constituency representatives rather than party 'fairness'.
What's "representative" about a constituency MP, when at the past two elections (and probably this one), the majority of voters didn't get one they voted for?
An MP is there to represent the views and the best interests of all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them. Besides, you ignore the other part of what I said which is that we should reform the way in which MPs are elected within the constituency with a transferable vote system so they are not elected by the minority.
The party system today is a huge contributor to the disillusionment felt by many voters and the impression - which I would contend is correct - that MPs are working first and foremost for their parties and themselves rather than for their constituents. Reduce the party control and you would go a long way to restoring faith in the system.
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
Keynes showed why.
No he didn't. Keynes categorically never supported increasing all spending all the time.
Keynes backed countercyclical spending which we have. The country is currently growing at out long term growth rate so we are in the boom part of our cycle, we should be saving for the next recession. Instead we're running a major deficit during a boom - Keynes would never have suggested increasing spending now.
We don't have enough counter cyclical spending. Which is why all the zillions of jobs "created" on the Tory watch are flipping burgers.
Except they weren't and are now growing at our long term growth rate.
But go make up whatever BS you want if it makes you feel happy. Just don't put it down to serious economists who'd be appalled at expanding spending during a boom.
Not sure about the winner, but Cameron is getting an unrestrained shoeing. Milliband could be at risk too-Sturgeon looks keen to have at him, and Milliband seems a bit scared.
Farage gets a bad reception for having the gall to say our housing shortage is exacerbated by immigration levels.
I think he's doing better tonight. He mentioned immigration but then said that it isn't enough to simply reduce immigration and gave some examples of how to encourage house building (though I'm sceptical about any such claims).
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
TBF: there is an active Keynesian view - espoused by @Socrates among others - that claims that cutting the deficit is best achieved through growing the economy. And that growing the economy requires increased government spending.
Not exactly. The idea was that, as I see our good Doctor Fox has mentioned, you make savings and run a surplus in good times so you can give the necessary boost to the economy when you are in recession through extra government spending. Simply spending more all the time is not he answer.
Why does everyone always act like the choice is between either massive cuts, OR a massive increase in spending on top of what we've already got? What about just keeping levels of spending stable at current levels in real terms, which the bond markets are perfectly happy to accept?
Well personally because I don't want spending to remain at current levels and don't believe it is sustainable in the long term.
I'm not terribly convinced by her. By offering to work with everyone she's given away the notion that PC are special. And she's a bit too limp and nice - she such doesn't sound serious enough.
Farage gets a bad reception for having the gall to say our housing shortage is exacerbated by immigration levels.
I think he's doing better tonight. He mentioned immigration but then said that it isn't enough to simply reduce immigration and gave some examples of how to encourage house building (though I'm sceptical about any such claims).
Thank Suzanne Evans, who has written a manifesto that is relatively sane and sensible.
Everyone but Nigel wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending. Okay then. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly it is a joke, how can people take politicians seriously when one minute they say they want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt burden, but then in the very next sentence talk about increasing spending. Surely I can't be the only one to notice this.
Keynes showed why.
No he didn't. Keynes categorically never supported increasing all spending all the time.
Keynes backed countercyclical spending which we have. The country is currently growing at out long term growth rate so we are in the boom part of our cycle, we should be saving for the next recession. Instead we're running a major deficit during a boom - Keynes would never have suggested increasing spending now.
We don't have enough counter cyclical spending. Which is why all the zillions of jobs "created" on the Tory watch are flipping burgers.
Except they weren't and are now growing at our long term growth rate.
But go make up whatever BS you want if it makes you feel happy. Just don't put it down to serious economists who'd be appalled at expanding spending during a boom.
Three years wasted then a small spike of growth driven mostly by migrantion and consumer spending while wages stagnate and fall.
Massive complacency and self delusion explaining why the Tories are on the edge of being booted from office.
Farage gets a bad reception for having the gall to say our housing shortage is exacerbated by immigration levels.
I think he's doing better tonight. He mentioned immigration but then said that it isn't enough to simply reduce immigration and gave some examples of how to encourage house building (though I'm sceptical about any such claims).
Single mothers and couples divorcing does not get a mention then? Or people living longer?
Not exactly. The idea was that, as I see our good Doctor Fox has mentioned, you make savings and run a surplus in good times so you can give the necessary boost to the economy when you are in recession through extra government spending. Simply spending more all the time is not he answer.
I guess the point I was making, which came out in a more pointed way than I meant, was that the UK economy is running below potential - according to most metrics - and therefore the best way (according to anti-austerity types, plus Socrates) is to continue to run a substantial deficit in hope that the economy will rebound more quickly.
Although I am an Austrian at heart, this is not entirely a stupid idea. In our economy - and many others - the biggest driver of the deficit is not the amount you spend on HS2, but the level of unemployment. If unemployment rises, then you have fewer people working (lower tax take) and you end up paying out more in benefits (higher spending). If you can get the economy moving again, then the deficit is more likely to come down quickly (in the near-term) than if you aggressively cut government spending.
To put it another way, the government deficit is usually anti-cyclical. If you inject substantial austerity, it become pro-cyclical, amplifying moves in the underlying economy. One of the reasons things got so bad in Spain in the Eurozone crisis is because the government dramatically cut spending, which caused higher unemployment, and lower tax receipts...
However, and this is where my inner Austrian takes over, this is not sustainable in the long run. In every recession you end up adding to the government spending, and it is usually hard, hard, hard to cut when times are good and the economy is expanding.
I am reminded of Callaghan's brilliant observation "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step. Higher inflation followed by higher unemployment. We have just escaped from the highest rate of inflation this country has known; we have not yet escaped from the consequences: high unemployment."
Like he ever had them to begin with. My mate - admittedly a right ring Tory - had literally just texted me to moan about the audience. He said they are clapping in all the wrong places.
I don't think EdM is winning against Ms Sturgeon, at all. Ms Greenies has cornered him as well. I can see her picking up the lefty votes floating about.
Yes - this is bad for Ed in terms of leakage to SNP and Greens.
Like he ever had them to begin with. My mate - admittedly a right ring Tory - had literally just texted me to moan about the audience. He said they are clapping in all the wrong places.
What this debate shows is how badly we need PR. Lots of different ideas that simply don't get any opportunity to flower under our redundant mess of fptp
In every single constituency a plurality of voters got an MP they voted for.
Plus local representatives represent all constituents for their casework not just party supporters. I know people who've had casework dealt with by an MP of a party the oppose but we're greatful still that their issue was dealt with. If you break the constituency link then who deals with that casework?
Quite, and a plurality is non necessarily a majority. So my statement is fact.
I'm not suggesting completely-breaking the constituency link. It's not as if there's no alternative to single-member seats, the mere imaginative creations of the Boundary Commissioners. In Northern Ireland, something like 90% of voters elect someone to the Assembly.
Nigel committing suicide on air by attacking the audience.
Double bluff
Looking like the villain isn't a bad strategy against a load of spendaholic lefties
Exactly, there are four people all saying the same thing and one telling the truth. To be honest he is making them look stupid, no-one will admit the housing shortage is made worse by immigration?
Fuck the audience there everyone at home will agree with him, it is impossible not to.
Not exactly. The idea was that, as I see our good Doctor Fox has mentioned, you make savings and run a surplus in good times so you can give the necessary boost to the economy when you are in recession through extra government spending. Simply spending more all the time is not he answer.
I guess the point I was making, which came out in a more pointed way than I meant, was that the UK economy is running below potential - according to most metrics - and therefore the best way (according to anti-austerity types, plus Socrates) is to continue to run a substantial deficit in hope that the economy will rebound more quickly.
Although I am an Austrian at heart, this is not entirely a stupid idea. In our economy - and many others - the biggest driver of the deficit is not the amount you spend on HS2, but the level of unemployment. If unemployment rises, then you have fewer people working (lower tax take) and you end up paying out more in benefits (higher spending). If you can get the economy moving again, then the deficit is more likely to come down quickly (in the near-term) than if you aggressively cut government spending.
To put it another way, the government deficit is usually anti-cyclical. If you inject substantial austerity, it become pro-cyclical, amplifying moves in the underlying economy. One of the reasons things got so bad in Spain in the Eurozone crisis is because the government dramatically cut spending, which caused higher unemployment, and lower tax receipts...
However, and this is where my inner Austrian takes over, this is not sustainable in the long run. In every recession you end up adding to the government spending, and it is usually hard, hard, hard to cut when times are good and the economy is expanding.
I am reminded of Callaghan's brilliant observation "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step. Higher inflation followed by higher unemployment. We have just escaped from the highest rate of inflation this country has known; we have not yet escaped from the consequences: high unemployment."
Wouldn't the issue then be that we would increase economic capacity when there is already excess capacity, leading to stagflation. Japan basically did exactly that with huge spending just after the Asian bubble and it just stored up problems for the future which are now proving almost impossible to shake off. Why increase economic capacity when productivity is already through the floor and we have so much excess capacity anyway?
Think Farage has realised his duty to the country is to implode Ukip to improve the Tories' chances! Absolutely ridiculous to criticise the audience, totally counter-productive. Miliband cruising through this. He is not impressive in the slightest but he is succeeding in his aim to look like the credible, moderate centrist in comparison to the others. I can't see the greens or plaid taking votes off Labour as a result.
Suspect Cameron probably the happiest at the moment.
Immigration is in the top issues of concern of the voters. So how come this "balanced audience" that the BBC boast came from an independent research company are clearly comfortable with the levels of immigration? Poor old Nigel is one private sector chap against 4 public sector people. The real ratio of workers is the other way around. This is Socialists United vs one old capitalist.
Justifiably slagged the lefty audience. He's talking to his core and the people at home, and dooesn't care about getting a warm fuzzy reception in the hall.
Like he ever had them to begin with. My mate - admittedly a right ring Tory - had literally just texted me to moan about the audience. He said they are clapping in all the wrong places.
You can't tie the audience hands behind their back and tape their mouths up .... much as you might like too.
'Exactly, there are four people all saying the same thing and one telling the truth. To be honest he is making them look stupid, no-one will admit the housing shortage is made worse by immigration?'
Four lefties having a 'progressive' a pissing contest versus common sense.
Comments
Ed and Nicola knocking lumps out of each other is exactly what CCHQ wanted
I'm trying to vote this time on a series of criteria. So far I have:
*) Local candidates' websites, and how (sadly, if) they mention local issues. So far, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green.
*) The national parties websites accessibility. So far, Lib Dem, Green.
*) The candidates' views on local issues. So far, Conservative, Lib Dem.
*) My general feeling towards the national parties and personalities, which I am trying to ignore. Probably Conservative, Lib Dem.
So it looks like Sebastian Kindersley might be getting my vote. Even if he cannot spell... :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32283728
And yes, these criteria are utterly arbitrary.
Keynes identified that an economy could get stuck in an equilibrium below its potential output level, due to deficit in aggregate demand. His view was that the world economy in the 1930s - when people, scared of losing their jobs, chose to save rather than spend, and therefore prolonged the recession - was an example of that.
His solution was that at such a time, the government could soak up the demand for saving (by borrowing), and increase the level of aggregate demand. (His example was people digging and then filling in holes.) By doing this, you would be able to move the economy back towards its potential level.
No one standing out.
Plus local representatives represent all constituents for their casework not just party supporters. I know people who've had casework dealt with by an MP of a party the oppose but we're greatful still that their issue was dealt with. If you break the constituency link then who deals with that casework?
The party system today is a huge contributor to the disillusionment felt by many voters and the impression - which I would contend is correct - that MPs are working first and foremost for their parties and themselves rather than for their constituents. Reduce the party control and you would go a long way to restoring faith in the system.
But go make up whatever BS you want if it makes you feel happy. Just don't put it down to serious economists who'd be appalled at expanding spending during a boom.
Ummm
OMW What is Farage doing!?!
Massive complacency and self delusion explaining why the Tories are on the edge of being booted from office.
Looking like the villain isn't a bad strategy against a load of spendaholic lefties
Although I am an Austrian at heart, this is not entirely a stupid idea. In our economy - and many others - the biggest driver of the deficit is not the amount you spend on HS2, but the level of unemployment. If unemployment rises, then you have fewer people working (lower tax take) and you end up paying out more in benefits (higher spending). If you can get the economy moving again, then the deficit is more likely to come down quickly (in the near-term) than if you aggressively cut government spending.
To put it another way, the government deficit is usually anti-cyclical. If you inject substantial austerity, it become pro-cyclical, amplifying moves in the underlying economy. One of the reasons things got so bad in Spain in the Eurozone crisis is because the government dramatically cut spending, which caused higher unemployment, and lower tax receipts...
However, and this is where my inner Austrian takes over, this is not sustainable in the long run. In every recession you end up adding to the government spending, and it is usually hard, hard, hard to cut when times are good and the economy is expanding.
I am reminded of Callaghan's brilliant observation "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and that in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step. Higher inflation followed by higher unemployment. We have just escaped from the highest rate of inflation this country has known; we have not yet escaped from the consequences: high unemployment."
OMG un-bel-ievable. What an utter plonker.
Bet accordingly!
Sturgeon's parents are not standing for election.
The day ukip came to an end.
Farage tanking saves the Tories.
'Nah, I think he is doing fine. He is making sense, the standard stacked BBC audience just doesn't like it.'
As he said the real audience is at home watching on TV.
Bold.....
I'm not suggesting completely-breaking the constituency link. It's not as if there's no alternative to single-member seats, the mere imaginative creations of the Boundary Commissioners. In Northern Ireland, something like 90% of voters elect someone to the Assembly.
Fuck the audience there everyone at home will agree with him, it is impossible not to.
Suspect Cameron probably the happiest at the moment.
So how come this "balanced audience" that the BBC boast came from an independent research company are clearly comfortable with the levels of immigration?
Poor old Nigel is one private sector chap against 4 public sector people. The real ratio of workers is the other way around. This is Socialists United vs one old capitalist.
Eh?
His fall live on bbc1 couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke.
With Dave missing could Farage come out on top due to the left vote being split 4 ways?
'Exactly, there are four people all saying the same thing and one telling the truth. To be honest he is making them look stupid, no-one will admit the housing shortage is made worse by immigration?'
Four lefties having a 'progressive' a pissing contest versus common sense.
1.36 combined is free money