politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this polling turns out to be accurate then it is great news

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1198540634635800578

Can interpret this many ways...

Yeah either this hack has no understanding of how MRP works or the No 10 spad doesn't. Either way, sad how many people in our public life are so thick.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

dellertronic said:

Black_Rook said:

rottenborough said:

Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593

Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.

Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.

Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.

His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’

Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth oate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.

I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.

Yes.

That’s why I was stunned.

Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.

It is a ble

Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.

I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.

As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.

I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.

It is actually worse than that, TtL. He combines extreme amorality with a self-centred conceit that singles him out as an extraordinarily dangerous and unprincipled individual of a tye that one would be unlikely to encounter in any walk of life.

I claim to be in something of an advantage over most people in making this assessment. A close relative was at Balliol with him. He wrote a perceptive and informaative article about Johnson several years ago. It remains one of the best pieces on the man I have ever read.

Allow me to send you the link.

Philip_Thompson said:

wooliedyed said:

Philip_Thompson said:

wooliedyed said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

Guardian reporting the Tories will get rid of FTPA.

Well, they've got my vote.

I understood that they cant simply repeal it, but need to replace it with something.

Repealing FTPA is going to be a right pain in the arse, as the previous status quo (the Royal Prerogative) is difficult to return to once it’s been legislated away.

It’s going to take a lot of expert constitutional thinking to work out how to fix the problem, I’d guess that a House of Lords Committee will be tasked with finding a solution.

Can you not just legislate to restore the Royal Prerogative or legislate to recreate it as it was?

Create a new 5 year Parliament Act saying that Parliament is dissolved 5 years after the last election, but giving the PM legal authority to request an early dissolution.

You cant legislate for royal prerogative I believe, no new prerogative powers. Obviously that protects against a psycho with a landslide majority passing enabling act type legislation

But there's no reason you can't recreate via legislation how the Prerogative was used in the past is there?

An early election previously was called if the PM of the day requested one. Put that in as legislation, job done.

Royal prerogative is not under legislation, it's by convention and once legislated away u cant reimpose it (the convention no longer exists in law or in practice)

Yes but can you not legislate to recreate how the prerogative was exercised. IE get rid of the votes in Parliament and simply say the PM can request an early election?

Streeter said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

dellertronic said:

Black_Rook said:

rottenborough said:

Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593

Apparently Led Government.

Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.

Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.

His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’

Ydoeuthr, I do life.

I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.

Yes.

That’s why I was stunned.

Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.

It is a ble

Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.

I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.

As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.

I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.

It is actually worse than that, TtL. He combines extreme amorality with a self-centred conceit that singles him out as an extraordinarily dangerous and unprincipled individual of a tye that one would be unlikely to encounter in any walk of life.

I claim to be in something of an advantage over most people in making this assessment. A close relative was at Balliol with him. He wrote a perceptive and informaative article about Johnson several years ago. It remains one of the best pieces on the man I have ever read.

Allow me to send you the link.

Please post it publicly.

Time_to_Leave said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

dellertronic said:

Black_Rook said:

rottenborough said:

Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593

Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.

Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.

Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.

His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’

Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johnson was sacked twice from senior post for lying, masqueraded as a pro-business pro-Europe candidate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.

I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.

Yes.

That’s why I was stunned.

Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.

It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.

Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.

I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.

As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.

I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.

Alistair said:

Curses, look like YouGov . has taken down/rstricted access to it's 2017 MRP model results

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/ no longer goes map, just gets redirected to 2019 election polling

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

Xtrain said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

dellertronic said:

Black_Rook said:

rottenborough said:

Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593

Apparently Luciana Berger goes down quite well with the electorate in Finchley and Golders Green, but she's not thought likely to win. Too many voters adopt the attitude that one less Tory MP equals a slightly increased chance of a Corbyn-led Government.

Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.

Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.

His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’

Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth of this tale or your friend's integrity, but is he unaware that Johal life.

I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.

Yes.

That’s why I was stunned.

Admittedly, most of your criticisms could actually be aimed at Corbyn as well. They are very similar people. Johnson is more devious, by virtue of being rather brighter, but that’s the only real difference.

It is a blessed relief that I do not have to vote for either. If I did have to choose just between the two, honesty would be only one of many criteria I would apply. Were I to decide however on just that one factor, Corbyn would have to win, by some distance.

Frankly, I don't think that particular case needs arguing.

I find this narrative about the PM being a liar fascinating, precisely because It shows how we each live in our own realities.

As far as you are concerned he has deliberately mislead people in a systematic way, and this marks him out as uniquely dishonest. I see him as, at worst, like any other politician and, at best, more likely to say what he thinks.

I can’t recall a political character that led to two such different, honestly held, views of them.

I think Peter's problem isn't that Boris is a liar but that he's a leaver.
He seems perfectly accepting of all those remainer MPs that lied to get elected in 2017.

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

1) Yes, if they want to, the new Parliament can vote to implement the 2018 Boundary Commission report. Note the last Parliament never rejected it - it was never put to a vote.

2) Whether or not 1) happens, with no further legislation the Boundary Commission will issue its next report in September 2023 - with 600 seats, based on the February 2021 Electoral register. As with the 2018 report, Parliament would have to vote to implement the 2023 report.

3) In order to change 2) - ie to get the Boundary Commission to do something different (eg 650 seats) - new legislation is required.

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

1) Yes, if they want to, the new Parliament can vote to implement the 2018 Boundary Commission report. Note the last Parliament never rejected it - it was never put to a vote.

2) Whether or not 1) happens, with no further legislation the Boundary Commission will issue its next report in September 2023 - with 600 seats, based on the February 2021 Electoral register. As with the 2018 report, Parliament would have to vote to implement the 2023 report.

3) In order to change 2) - ie to get the Boundary Commission to do something different (eg 650 seats) - new legislation is required.

2) Is too late for the following election - and a majority Tory government would be mad to continue to prolong these ludicrously out of date boundaries.

So either 1) needs to be accepted or 3) is necessary.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

firstlight40 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1198540634635800578

Can interpret this many ways...

Yeah either this hack has no understanding of how MRP works or the No 10 spad doesn't. Either way, sad how many people in our public life are so thick.

Or sensibly dampening down expectations of a large win to ensure wavering remainer tories don't think they can vote lib-dem in protest

Must be possible to do that in a way that doesn't demonstrate that you have no idea how MRP is actually calculated.

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

roserees64 said:

Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.

If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.

Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010

No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?

Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.

Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.

The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.

And you’re going to run out of other people’s money paying for Brexit.

Evidence please

Evidence of what? We are still running a deficit and Brexit is going to result in less tax money and less growth. Simple. Other people’s money.

So, if your concerned about a deficit you clearly will reject Labour?

Still waiting for evidence

You’re more than happy to swallow the horse manure that comes out of Boris and friends’s mouths without any evidence. What’s different?

Nope - I don't like any party particularly.

I like my local Lib Dem candidate as he strikes me as a true public servant and I have said so repeatedly.

But the bottom line is the sewer dwelling marxists have to be kept out of power - literally everything else is secondary.

The tories are therefore the least worse choice

NickPalmer said:

Some anecdata to amuse you - usual warning about lack of science. I spent three hours in Portsmouth South (on my own, as the main groups were doing times that didn't work for me) and did a couple of hundred houses.

1. People are REALLY engaged. Very few "don't cares". Most Tory voters are rock hard ("BREXIT ALL THE WAY!" "Just get it done!"), Labour voters fizzing with enthusiasm ("Would you like a poster?" "YES! Can I have three? I've got a bay window!") and there's a big personal vote for Stephen Morgan.

2. The LibDem tide felt as though it was ebbing, even though this was Southsea, which is a LibDem-held ward: Labour posters outnumbered LD ones by 4:1. Several ex-LD voters told me they were switching to Labour, for a mixture of reasons - support Morgan, stop a hard Brexit, but oppose Revoke ("I sympathise but it's not democratic to just cancel the damn thing"). A lone Tory-Labour switcher said she thought Corbyn's approach was right, though "I've never voted Labour in my life" - she looked scared, like someone thinking of doing karoake night at a grime club.

3. Two women spontaneously mentioned the Waspi promise as a reason to vote Labour ("I won't benefit myself but I sympathise with the ones who will"). More generally, lots of people mentioned non-Brexit issues - one said "the Tories and LibDems don't seem to have any other ideas, whereas you lot have too many, but that's a fault on the right side". Lots of interest in discussion, even though we were mostly on the doorstep in the dark (it's a myth that people won't open the door tp canvassers at night). Two ex-Labour were strongly anti-Corbyn and wrestling with what to do as they liked Morgan - one will back him, the other not, I think.

4. Usual weird encounters. One was clearly stoned and swayed on his feet as he tried to be polite. Another suavely declined interest in Labour, shut the door and then shouted to his partner "That was fucking Greenpeace!"

Overall impression: moving to Labour if that's typical, but a few streets in one ward is no kind of sample.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

roserees64 said:

Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.

If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.

Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010

No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?

Yes.

It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.

Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.

The Tories backed Labour's spending plans. Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.

logical_song said:

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Floater said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

roserees64 said:

Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.

If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.

Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010

No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?

Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.

Old argument. Nothing the Tories were advocating at the time would have made things any better.

The Tories weren't in government, Labour were. Labour overspent as they always do. Problem with Labour is they always run out of other people's money.

And you’re going to run out of other people’s money paying for Brexit.

Evidence please

SNIP.

So, if your concerned about a deficit you clearly will reject Labour?

Still waiting for evidence

You’re more than happy to swallow the horse manure that comes out of Boris and friends’s mouths without any evidence. What’s different?

Nope - I don't like any party particularly.

I like my local Lib Dem candidate as he strikes me as a true public servant and I have said so repeatedly.

But the bottom line is the sewer dwelling marxists have to be kept out of power - literally everything else is secondary.

The tories are therefore the least worse choice

Ken Clarke disagrees:
"“Both are awful prospects, but I think a no-deal Brexit could cause far more damage to our future economic success than Corbyn.”

It is another sign of strange times that Ken Clarke, who never gave any quarter in many decades of battling Labour, can think that his own party could inflict a worst fate on Britain than a Corbyn government."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/ken-clarke-interview-andrew-rawnsley-lost-tory-whip

Charles said:

Alistair said:

Curses, look like YouGov . has taken down/rstricted access to it's 2017 MRP model results

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/ no longer goes map, just gets redirected to 2019 election polling

Have you tried the Wayback Machine?

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

dellertronic said:

Black_Rook said:

rottenborough said:

Imagine if in, say, 1999, you had predicted that Campbell would be campaigning for the LibDems in a few years time:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1198613073608814593

Apparently Luciana BergerGovernment.

Exactly why I've moved from spoilt ballot to Con despite the fact that Mike Freer is a people's vote remainer tory.

Anecdotally, a very left wing friend of mine stunned me today by telling me he was voting Tory.

His reasoning was basically ‘Corbyn is a lying scumbag and anything is better than him.’

Ydoeuthr, I do not question the truth oate for Mayor of London, opposed Theresa May's Brexit Deal twice and swore that he would not support a border in the Irish Sea. This is before we get into his colorful personal life.

I burn no flames for Corbyn but he bears no comparison in the Lying Scumbag department.

Fenman said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Real cliff hanger, this one.

So, victory for Beijing then....

Floater said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

roserees64 said:

Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.

If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.

Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010

No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?

Yes.

It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.

Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.

The Tories backed Labour's spending plans. Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.

Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.

We had a recession under the prior Tory government.

The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.

1984 43.53
1985 43.4
1986 41.76
1987 39.14
1988 34.98
1989 29.26
1990 26.64

Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.

Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year.
2002 30.05
2003 31.26
2004 32.52
2005 35.6
2006 36.67
2007 37.25

After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.

Then they blame the tories for the rise in total debt whilst also screaming about austerity.

Go figure.

Philip_Thompson said:

Floater said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

roserees64 said:

Javid and Johnson today trumpeted the fiscal prudence of the Tories. How therefore do they explain how our national debt has now risen to £2.27 trillion and will continue to rise with a hard Brexit and a lack of new tax raising measures.

If the Tories win this election it could be the last one they will win.

Easy, Labour left them with an eye-watering deficit in 2010

No, the GFC left us with a massive defecit. Or do you think it was Labour's fault?

Yes.

It is Labour's fault it was overspending before the recession hit. Recessions happen - there was no reason to be running a major deficit after nearly two decades of uninterrupted growth. A recession was long overdue, under Keynesian economics which Labour was supposed to understand they should have been running a budget surplus but instead they were running a maxed out deficit.

Had the country had a small surplus going into the GFC then we could have absorbed the shock. We didn't.

The Tories backed Labour's spending plans. Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.

Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.

We had a recession under the prior Tory government.

The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.

1984 43.53
1985 43.4
1986 41.76
1987 39.14
1988 34.98
1989 29.26
1990 26.64

Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.

Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year.
2002 30.05
2003 31.26
2004 32.52
2005 35.6
2006 36.67
2007 37.25

After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.

Then they blame the tories for the rise in total debt whilst also screaming about austerity.

Go figure.

Indeed. The innumeracy of some people is quite scary.

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

Are you saying that at that time you had a detailed understanding of tripartite regulation, the inter-bank lending system, the mortgage market and the credit default swap issue, and realised it was all going wrong and needed more regulation?

Because if so, I am afraid I don’t believe you. Even most experienced bankers didn’t get these things (therein lay much of the problem).

I don't believe I told you what my age was. I said I was relatively young but I don't reveal personal details on the Internet, so let's have no more discussion about that thank you.

I supported more regulation which people like Vince Cable - to his credit - supported and warned of the crash before it happened. I don't claim to have a deep knowledge of regulation, just that in my short experience unfettered capitalism always leads to disaster.

You said you were a university student in 2017. I am assuming that was undergraduate but let’s assume you did postgrad work (as several posters here have). You might therefore have been 25 in June 2017. That would put your DOB sometime in the early 1990s - around 1992 at the earliest. So you would have been at best 15 when the crisis hit.

Of course, you might be a mature student. But you have also repeatedly said you are a ‘young’ person in your mid-twenties.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say you are young and can speak for your demographic, and then that you were wise to highly complex economic events when you would have barely left primary school. That merely makes you look silly.

You can say you now support greater regulation and with hindsight NewLabour were wrong. That’s no problem. After all, those of us around at the time mostly missed the key weaknesses as well so we can hardly criticise you for using hindsight. I was doing a Masters in politics and economics and I missed most of the warning signs (my very confident prediction was of a London house price crash, which shows what I knew). But don’t try To have it both ways.

Flashy5 said:

Lol

https://twitter.com/sunscotnational/status/1198576246281494529?s=21

Black_Rook said:

Just back from the gym. How many extra tens of billions of public spending have Labour announced in the last couple of hours

On topic, if the Tories do get a majority next month then how do we all think Johnson might approach Indyref2? Presumably Sturgeon's demand for a vote next year will be turned down flat, but what do we reckon the response will be to another pro-independence majority in the next Scottish Parliament election?

The Scottish Tories are obviously heavily invested in holding the Union together, but I'm just wondering how bothered the English ones (and Johnson himself) actually are. If Scotland votes to go then Labour's main potential coalition partner is removed and the Conservative majority at Westminster increases by about 50.

roserees64 said:

As we all know the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was caused by deregulation in the global financial industry.

That allowed banks to experiment in hedge fund trading with derivatives. To finance this trading banks demanded more dodgy mortgages to support the sale of these derivatives.

In reality you could say it started in 2007 in the US with the subprime mortgage market fiasco.

We should not really be calling it the Labour Financial Crash as Labour just happened to be in power when global events took a turn for the worse. Had the Tories been in power we would be calling it The Tory Crash. The portents for another catastrophe are brewing away in the background and a hard Brexit will make things worse.

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

glw said:

rcs1000 said:

A good economist can tell you where you will see problems, but very few can tell you when.

I don't believe that any economist can tell you when if you are talking about a long term problem. It's hard enough to forecast things in the near term.

Economics has a poor record at forecasting, but it is good at analysing what has happened. If we (in the broadest sense) realised that economics is best used as an analytical tool for reasoning about the past and guiding our decision making in the future, rather than expecting economists to tell us what will happen and when, we would probably make better choices. We ought to take economic rules of thumb more seriously, and forecasts less seriously.

p.s. And never trust anyone who says "this time it's different", they are almost always wrong.

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Cyclefree said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Floater said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I as a young person have received no reason for me to vote Tory, thanks Johnson

LOL - they could have given you a ferrari and you would still say no.

We all know who you prefer

I think under Cameron they at least tried to be moderate and propose some policies like gay marriage, etc. but they're not even trying anymore.

In a way I kind of respect them for that - but it does make my decision very easy.

Having said that, I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, so my vote is fairly useless. Think I will have to vote Lib Dem tactically.

What is the current equivalent of gay marriage? What policy could they offer?

Scrapping the 6% interest rate on tuition fees + help with apprenticeships and vocational training would be my choices.

Have a simple graduate tax that kicks in at the basic rate. 2% or whatever the actuaries estimate it needs to be to cover the costs. And.. The clincher... Allow all graduates with existing the debt the option of switching from their scheme to this for life graduate tax scheme.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ozymandias said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

He didn’t. As far as he was concerned what he voted against wasn’t Brexit.

He literally said the current deal is something no PM could ever accept.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1198687870028001280?s=20

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Reducing to 600 quietly dropped.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights.

and...

We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Page 48

https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative 2019 Manifesto.pdf

I thought the legislation says 600 and is in force. The Commission keeps preparing reports on this basis and parliament ignoring them.

No new legislation needed - just a motion accepting the report

Can the new Parliament accept the prior Commission's report?

And will the Commission produce a new report that might supersede that before the next election?

1) Yes, if they want to, the new Parliament can vote to implement the 2018 Boundary Commission report. Note the last Parliament never rejected it - it was never put to a vote.

2) Whether or not 1) happens, with no further legislation the Boundary Commission will issue its next report in September 2023 - with 600 seats, based on the February 2021 Electoral register. As with the 2018 report, Parliament would have to vote to implement the 2023 report.

3) In order to change 2) - ie to get the Boundary Commission to do something different (eg 650 seats) - new legislation is required.

2) Is too late for the following election - and a majority Tory government would be mad to continue to prolong these ludicrously out of date boundaries.

So either 1) needs to be accepted or 3) is necessary.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ozymandias said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

He didn’t. As far as he was concerned what he voted against wasn’t Brexit.

He literally said the current deal is something no PM could ever accept.

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

Zero.

He voted against May's deal, but he never voted for an extension. Contrary to the myth some like to spread here we didn't remain because May's deal was rejected - we remained because we extended.

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ozymandias said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

He didn’t. As far as he was concerned what he voted against wasn’t Brexit.

He literally said the current deal is something no PM could ever accept.

No he did not.

Fysics_Teacher said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

Probably not Nicola Sturgeon then...

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1198665771808935936?s=20

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

viewcode said:

StuartDickson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

... lose some seats outwith the Central Belt...

I have said it before and I will say it again: "outwith" is one of the greatest gifts of Scotland to the English language. It is a really handy word.

A pleasure.

Outwith "furth", it is the greatest.

Or brawest.

I always get a wee frisson when they use bra in the Scandi dramas.

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Boris complains about dither and delay. How many times did he vote against Brexit?

Zero.

He voted against May's deal, but he never voted for an extension. Contrary to the myth some like to spread here we didn't remain because May's deal was rejected - we remained because we extended.

Tory revisionism at its finest.

Are you saying by not voting for the WA he didn’t delay? Are you saying when he changed his mind and then voted for Mays deal he hadn’t dithered?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1198675980556132353?s=20

5% swing Lab -> Cons

Wut? The Tory vote is down amongst that age group

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1198675980556132353?s=20

5% swing Lab -> Cons

Wut? The Tory vote is down amongst that age group