Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
I accept that your guy is likely to win (a plurality at least), as things stand, but what amazes me is how intelligent pb lefties (they do exist, and I guess you are one of them) can seriously believe Miliband will be 1, significantly better than Cameron, or 2, significantly different.
He will face exactly the same realities of debt and deficit, and low productivity, and uncontrollable immigration (etc). His mindset makes him less likely to tackle any of these with any vigour. He will tax a bit more and spend a bit more, but not so much as to change any lives, just enough to slow down the economy and make Britain relatively poorer than it might have been, though perhaps slightly more equal (yet equality got worse under Blair and Brown).
All this is (as I see it) undeniable. So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband? You must see all this, yet still you do it. Is a poorer but slightly more equal society, riven by increasing immigration problems, worth it, just to see Tories beaten?
This truly mystifies me. If Miliband was promising a revolution, fair enough. But he's not.
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I am voting Labour because I don't want a Tory government. Many of us fundamentally disagree with the Tory notion that the smaller the state the better it is. There would, indeed, be little practical difference if EdM were to somehow win it, but the philosophical direction of travel would be very different. And over the longer term that is very different. And well worth paying a little extra cash for. We won't be like France: we control our own currency and do not have its ingrained entitlements.
0 -
Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.0 -
The green surge was a complete myth.kle4 said:
Labour's ability to hold onto the voters who would like a revolution, or are totally anti-austerity, despite this not being on the cards with a Miliband government, does trike me as one of the more crucial factors which could swing things, a lack of support bleeding to mirror that which the Tories have suffered.SeanT said:
. If Miliband was promising a revolution, fair enough. But he's not.Jonathan said:
Brits love an underdog and dislike Tories. Ed is in a sweet spot.SeanT said:DecrepitJohnL said:
But most of the spinning, word of mouth, and indeed snap polls spoke of a Cameron win. There must be something else going on, but what?SeanT said:
You have a point, but it doesn't work quite like that. This is mass psychology, not sports betting.isam said:It is simple, and explainable in numbers to anyone who understands betting
Cameron was expected to win by 24
He won by 5
Imagine a Rugby match with a 24pt favourite in the handicap market that wins 52-47
Many of those watching must have priced in expectations, subconsciously, and wondered if Miliband could do it, then still decided Nah, Cameron's better. Recall that the ICM poll of viewers was heavily Labour weighted, yet they still preferred Cameron? The number of prior undecideds was tiny, and does not explain this movement
I reckon kle gets it right. Miliband has gained from the spinning and word of mouth that has followed, as with the Cleggasm, but on a smaller scale.
I believe the public are being sold a pup, like the Scots almost buying YES, I firmly believe Miliband will be as inept and ineffectual as Hollande, but that didn't stop Hollande from winning.
Europeans are tired and ageing and want soft political comfort food, even as their rivals in Asia eat raw steak and grow big muscles.
We are a continent in brisk and inexorable relative decline; in some parts of Europe we are in absolute decline. Miliband is a political symptom of this, not a protagonist.
Had some hope with the Green surge that was, and in any case I like the idea of other parties getting more support, but isn't looking promising at present.0 -
If they do, that is very foolish and unfair of them, and prevents people on different sides of the nonsense political spectrum from properly understanding one another and having meaningful discussions and compromises.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.0 -
A cynical person might say 'tories stagger to 5 more years of coalition' does not sell many papers.
The press need drama, and they are going to create it, no matter what.0 -
No....nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?0 -
Mortimer
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.
Without a shadow of doubt.0 -
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
0 -
I think one of Richard Nabavis addresses from the Oval Office is required after this 4% lead for Labour
Where do i invest my money? How many of my assets should I dissolve?0 -
He might not. But Cameron certainly isn't, or at the least not by enough, and that's the more significant information.MikeL said:Calm down everyone.
Just last Sunday Survation had a Lab 4 point lead.
Yet up until two hours ago everyone thought the position was tied.
This is one poll. Sure, Miliband may be moving ahead. But he may well not be.
0 -
I hope Natalie Bennett would transfer 2% to Labour after the debate.kle4 said:
Labour's ability to hold onto the voters who would like a revolution, or are totally anti-austerity, despite this not being on the cards with a Miliband government, does trike me as one of the more crucial factors which could swing things, a lack of support bleeding to mirror that which the Tories have suffered.SeanT said:
. If Miliband was promising a revolution, fair enough. But he's not.Jonathan said:
Brits love an underdog and dislike Tories. Ed is in a sweet spot.SeanT said:DecrepitJohnL said:
But most of the spinning, word of mouth, and indeed snap polls spoke of a Cameron win. There must be something else going on, but what?SeanT said:
You have a point, but it doesn't work quite like that. This is mass psychology, not sports betting.isam said:It is simple, and explainable in numbers to anyone who understands betting
Cameron was expected to win by 24
He won by 5
Imagine a Rugby match with a 24pt favourite in the handicap market that wins 52-47
Many of those watching must have priced in expectations, subconsciously, and wondered if Miliband could do it, then still decided Nah, Cameron's better. Recall that the ICM poll of viewers was heavily Labour weighted, yet they still preferred Cameron? The number of prior undecideds was tiny, and does not explain this movement
I reckon kle gets it right. Miliband has gained from the spinning and word of mouth that has followed, as with the Cleggasm, but on a smaller scale.
I believe the public are being sold a pup, like the Scots almost buying YES, I firmly believe Miliband will be as inept and ineffectual as Hollande, but that didn't stop Hollande from winning.
Europeans are tired and ageing and want soft political comfort food, even as their rivals in Asia eat raw steak and grow big muscles.
We are a continent in brisk and inexorable relative decline; in some parts of Europe we are in absolute decline. Miliband is a political symptom of this, not a protagonist.
Had some hope with the Green surge that was, and in any case I like the idea of other parties getting more support, but isn't looking promising at present.0 -
Its all over then EMWNBPM!!Tykejohnno said:Who would make the best PM - 34% Cameron,19% miliband.
0 -
Roughly the same for Callaghan - Thatcher pre May 1979 !Tykejohnno said:Who would make the best PM - 34% Cameron,19% miliband.
0 -
It's calmed me down ;-)bigjohnowls said:
Its all over then EMWNBPM!!Tykejohnno said:Who would make the best PM - 34% Cameron,19% miliband.
0 -
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
0 -
But you surely don't think even a majority of the 36% of people who vote Labour think the same, do you? Or perhaps the better question would be, you do realise that the voters who you're trying (and by all accounts, failing) to win over in marginals have voted Tory in at least 1, and possibly 2 of the last 2 elections.Roger said:Mortimer
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.
Without a shadow of doubt.
0 -
How have we done since the war?surbiton said:How many years since the war have we had a surplus budget ?
0 -
She does lack the mainstream general knowledge of how 'terrible' she is that Ed M has (or had?), so exceeding expectations does seem unlikely. That could be a decent prediction.surbiton said:
I hope Natalie Bennett would transfer 2% to Labour after the debate.kle4 said:
Labour's ability to hold onto the voters who would like a revolution, or are totally anti-austerity, despite this not being on the cards with a Miliband government, does trike me as one of the more crucial factors which could swing things, a lack of support bleeding to mirror that which the Tories have suffered.SeanT said:
. If Miliband was promising a revolution, fair enough. But he's not.Jonathan said:
Brits love an underdog and dislike Tories. Ed is in a sweet spot.SeanT said:DecrepitJohnL said:
But most of the spinning, word of mouth, and indeed snap polls spoke of a Cameron win. There must be something else going on, but what?SeanT said:
You have a point, but it doesn't work quite like that. This is mass psychology, not sports betting.isam said:It is simple, and explainable in numbers to anyone who understands betting
Cameron was expected to win by 24
He won by 5
Imagine a Rugby match with a 24pt favourite in the handicap market that wins 52-47
Many of those watching must have priced in expectations, subconsciously, and wondered if Miliband could do it, then still decided Nah, Cameron's better. Recall that the ICM poll of viewers was heavily Labour weighted, yet they still preferred Cameron? The number of prior undecideds was tiny, and does not explain this movement
I reckon kle gets it right. Miliband has gained from the spinning and word of mouth that has followed, as with the Cleggasm, but on a smaller scale.
I believe the public are being sold a pup, like the Scots almost buying YES, I firmly believe Miliband will be as inept and ineffectual as Hollande, but that didn't stop Hollande from winning.
Europeans are tired and ageing and want soft political comfort food, even as their rivals in Asia eat raw steak and grow big muscles.
We are a continent in brisk and inexorable relative decline; in some parts of Europe we are in absolute decline. Miliband is a political symptom of this, not a protagonist.
Had some hope with the Green surge that was, and in any case I like the idea of other parties getting more support, but isn't looking promising at present.
Night all.0 -
People are offering to lend governments money for basically zero percent interest, or in the case of Germany actually pay them to look after their money. In that situation it makes sense for governments to take them up on their generous offer if they can do something useful with the money, especially if it will generate a positive return, say by educating kids better so they'll be able to make more money when they're older or by building roads so people will be able to create wealth faster.Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?0 -
surbiton said:
I hope Natalie Bennett would transfer 2% to Labour after the debate.kle4 said:
Labour's ability to hold onto the voters who would like a revolution, or are totally anti-austerity, despite this not being on the cards with a Miliband government, does trike me as one of the more crucial factors which could swing things, a lack of support bleeding to mirror that which the Tories have suffered.SeanT said:
. If Miliband was promising a revolution, fair enough. But he's not.Jonathan said:
Brits love an underdog and dislike Tories. Ed is in a sweet spot.SeanT said:DecrepitJohnL said:
But most of the spinning, word of mouth, and indeed snap polls spoke of a Cameron win. There must be something else going on, but what?SeanT said:
You have a point, but it doesn't work quite like that. This is mass psychology, not sports betting.isam said:It is simple, and explainable in numbers to anyone who understands betting
Cameron was expected to win by 24
He won by 5
Imagine a Rugby match with a 24pt favourite in the handicap market that wins 52-47
Many of those watching must have priced in expectations, subconsciously, and wondered if Miliband could do it, then still decided Nah, Cameron's better. Recall that the ICM poll of viewers was heavily Labour weighted, yet they still preferred Cameron? The number of prior undecideds was tiny, and does not explain this movement
I reckon kle gets it right. Miliband has gained from the spinning and word of mouth that has followed, as with the Cleggasm, but on a smaller scale.
I believe the public are being sold a pup, like the Scots almost buying YES, I firmly believe Miliband will be as inept and ineffectual as Hollande, but that didn't stop Hollande from winning.
Europeans are tired and ageing and want soft political comfort food, even as their rivals in Asia eat raw steak and grow big muscles.
We are a continent in brisk and inexorable relative decline; in some parts of Europe we are in absolute decline. Miliband is a political symptom of this, not a protagonist.
Had some hope with the Green surge that was, and in any case I like the idea of other parties getting more support, but isn't looking promising at present.
I think the Greens could struggle to be relevant in the debates, their message will be diluted by the two nationalist leaders saying similar things. Sturgeon will also have more weight behind what she says as the SNP could be in a position to implement it.0 -
Really? You think so? You think the wonderful, bright MPs of all parties are in it for the huge salaries they get in the HofC. Even the laziest could likely walk into 100k+ a year jobs, and the majority would easily hold down 250k jobs.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
People go into politics because they believe in public service. Most conservatives think the public sector does a wonderful job, but that in many cases it is not as efficient as it could be.
0 -
We've got debt to GDP of about 90% now, against 70% in 1970. But once you unwind the effects of Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds TSB we're at about the same level. Given interest rates are below nominal GDP growth, and that a large portion of debt is owned by the bank of England, of argue we have no public debt issue whatsoever.Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think would happen if the British government decided not to repay the bank of England?
0 -
Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Why not ? The government borrows some money to spend which includes capital spending.
The spending itself through a multiplier makes the economy bigger [ along with private consumption and investment ], thereby bringing in more tax.
That is how governments have operated for yonks.
Don't forget, the debt to GDP ratio in 1959 when Macmillan said "You have never had it so good" was 105%.
0 -
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.0 -
Yep. Such cases have always been dealt with 24 hours a day 7days a week. It is what the on-call surgical and anaesthetic teams do. Mortality is grim (about 35% at 30 days) but pretty similar in all developed countries. Mortality is much lower for planned repair (2.5%) and the UK is one of the very few countries that screens for these, meaning that they do not rupture in the first place. The programme was set up within the last few years by those baby eaters who hate the NHS.SMukesh said:
Maybe.maybe not.Glad your brother is OK.nigel4england said:
My eldest brother lives in France, two years ago he had a massive aortic aneurism on a Sunday afternoon early in the New Year. He received exemplary treatment by first the fire brigade, as they were closest and stabilized him, before the paramedics arrived. He was in a coma for six weeks in Nantes before finally coming round.foxinsoxuk said:
Not to me it isn't.Tykejohnno said:
Something today about 7 day NHS,just rubbish.GIN1138 said:
Has the Conservative campaign started yet? I hadn't noticed to be honest....Tykejohnno said:
On front page,Tory MP's demand more passion (Cameron),that's what I posted on here after the debate.Scott_P said:@thesundaytimes: Tomorrow's front page: Labour races into 4-point lead after Miliband's TV success http://t.co/yvV8EHvQmh
;-)
To provide 7 day working above emergency work requires a lot more staffing, and a lot more anti-social hours.
A lot of staff will not want to do that and will vote with their feet.
Mind you Labour are planning much the same.
A surgeon I know in this country told me that if he had the same trauma on a Sunday afternoon in this country he would have died.
So forgive me but I am with Cameron on this one.
There`s always a consultant vascular surgeon on-call from home who would have done his rounds in the morning.
He would be coming into the hospital for such a major operation.
Not sure where you live.But in counties surrounding London,the patient would have been helicoptered to a major hospital in London after initial stabilisation.
What Cameron was talking about was about planned care at weekends such as routine clinics.
0 -
I'm really not sure - but I imagine the CDS triggers would wipe out all insurance companies worldwide, for starters.rcs1000 said:
We've got debt to GDP of about 90% now, against 70% in 1970. But once you unwind the effects of Northern Rock, RBS and Lloyds TSB we're at about the same level. Given interest rates are below nominal GDP growth, and that a large portion of debt is owned by the bank of England, of argue we have no public debt issue whatsoever.Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Just as a matter of interest, what do you think would happen if the British government decided not to repay the bank of England?
0 -
Patrick O'Flynn ✔ @oflynnmep
Lab has no plan to control immigration and yet its members are in uproar at the mere suggestion that doing so would be good idea. So telling
0 -
86% of SNP voters say they aren't going to switch.Pulpstar said:
@Scotslass journo friend was mentioning some mind blowing internals of this poll - huge numbers of switchers.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?0 -
Divine wind
0 -
You do realise that borrowing to pay off debt interest (a significant portion of the current deficit) doesn't increase the tax take, right?surbiton said:
Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Why not ? The government borrows some money to spend which includes capital spending.
The spending itself through a multiplier makes the economy bigger [ along with private consumption and investment ], thereby bringing in more tax.
That is how governments have operated for yonks.
Don't forget, the debt to GDP ratio in 1959 when Macmillan said "You have never had it so good" was 105%.
0 -
Edmund, the very fact that people are willing to do this leaves me sleepless, some nights.edmundintokyo said:
People are offering to lend governments money for basically zero percent interest, or in the case of Germany actually pay them to look after their money. In that situation it makes sense for governments to take them up on their generous offer if they can do something useful with the money, especially if it will generate a positive return, say by educating kids better so they'll be able to make more money when they're older or by building roads so people will be able to create wealth faster.
Do people not realise that without sustainable inflation levels and consequent growth in yields, many unfunded pensions will never pay out promised amounts.
Education and roads are both good reasons to tax the population, and distribute that taxation. But we've done that for decades. Taxation is pretty high, and the underlying collective assets/incomes which are being taxed are higher than ever. Does the fact that this collection still fails to meet expenditure, or the expectations of a public who have cottoned on to the fact that mass democracy allows the voter to vote themselves largesse, not cause you concern?
There is a law of diminishing returns which says educating people more, or building more roads, is not worth more than not borrowing the money in the first place. I'd say we reached that in the mid-90s. (And, from my experience, very few roads have been built since then - and the quality of education has deteriorated too).
0 -
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
0 -
Agreed, I'd say that most Tories are in fact against the sentimentalising of the public sector, which is something that the left is very good at. Similarly, I think the right does occasionally over-cherish business.philiph said:
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
Both are a means to an end - but only one brings in more wealth to spend on public services. Hence, I am a Tory.
0 -
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.0 -
We currently pay about £75 billion in interest per year on the national debt (roughly 10 times the additional spending needed for the NHS) so most of the deficit is interest on previous debt rather than new debt.Mortimer said:
You do realise that borrowing to pay off debt interest (a significant portion of the current deficit) doesn't increase the tax take, right?surbiton said:
Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Why not ? The government borrows some money to spend which includes capital spending.
The spending itself through a multiplier makes the economy bigger [ along with private consumption and investment ], thereby bringing in more tax.
That is how governments have operated for yonks.
Don't forget, the debt to GDP ratio in 1959 when Macmillan said "You have never had it so good" was 105%.
Bond and Gilt investors do need somewhere to put their money, i suppose.
Though during a period of sustained powerful growth the Keynsian thing to do is pay off debt; partially in preparation for the next downturn, but also to keep the boom from getting too peaky.0 -
Agreed.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Major parties never advocate tactical voting explicitly. It doesn't play to their long term interests.
I do, however, think that UKIP will come second in a swath of northern constituencies, in part due to collapse of LD vote. The 30% rump of the old LD vote which was NOTA will go to UKIP, much of it will go Lab, but this means there is a vacancy in 2nd place.
I, for one, rejoice at the idea that a part of the right will again be second in places where a Tory would never get a look in. If British politics were a cold-war era spy novel, Farage would be a very successful establishment mole.0 -
It wouldn't help the Conservatives at all. Labour are the opposition. UKIP are the enemy.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?0 -
Is it that much? Gosh that is going to make sleeping at night even harder but does seem a tad high.foxinsoxuk said:
We currently pay about £75 billion in interest per year on the national debt (roughly 10 times the additional spending needed for the NHS) so most of the deficit is interest on previous debt rather than new debt.Mortimer said:
You do realise that borrowing to pay off debt interest (a significant portion of the current deficit) doesn't increase the tax take, right?surbiton said:
Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?Mortimer said:
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is in no way absured. GDP has risen hugely since the 70s.rcs1000 said:Government debt-to-GDP levels are about the same as they were in the 1970s.
The idea that governments are uniquely indebted now is absurd.
Not only that, but almost everywhere we are going to see big reductions in government debt levels as nationalised banks are privatised, and assets held by "bad banks" are sold off.
Take Ireland: they nationalised almost their entire banking sector during the financial crisis, and created the National Asset Management Agency to acquire bad loans. The result of this is that government debt increased massively. As those loans are unwound and as the banks are returned to the private sector, government debt-to-GDP will come down dramatically.
If you'd have said the idea that governments are uniquely indebted as a ratio of their GDP, then you'd be right.
Our ability (and I'm taking we to be the developed world who are plugged in to financial system) to weather downturns would be drastically increased if government debt was brought down.
And what is the practical reason not do to this? Why should the government borrow money to fund normal expenditure?
Why not ? The government borrows some money to spend which includes capital spending.
The spending itself through a multiplier makes the economy bigger [ along with private consumption and investment ], thereby bringing in more tax.
That is how governments have operated for yonks.
Don't forget, the debt to GDP ratio in 1959 when Macmillan said "You have never had it so good" was 105%.
Bond and Gilt investors do need somewhere to put their money, i suppose.
Though during a period of sustained powerful growth the Keynsian thing to do is pay off debt; partially in preparation for the next downturn, but also to keep the boom from getting too peaky.
I'm not being coy Surbiton/Roger, I am generally interested to hear how you justify that not getting the national debt down means we have to waste money paying interest? I.E. not paying down the debt means fewer teachers, nurses etc
0 -
True. Although the hatred for the Tories in a lot of northern constituencies will prevent them making any inroads for many years. Allowing UKIP to break Labour's hold may be advantageous. I can't wait to see where the bulk of 2nd place finishes are for them.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
0 -
Conservatives sentimentalise defence and foreign policy.Mortimer said:
Agreed, I'd say that most Tories are in fact against the sentimentalising of the public sector, which is something that the left is very good at. Similarly, I think the right does occasionally over-cherish business.philiph said:
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
Both are a means to an end - but only one brings in more wealth to spend on public services. Hence, I am a Tory.0 -
A few Labour leads may cause a few UKIP/Tory waverers to go blue. It may also cause some red LDs to think again.antifrank said:
It wouldn't help the Conservatives at all. Labour are the opposition. UKIP are the enemy.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
A close race does tend to focus minds. Not a bad thing st all.
0 -
There seem to be a lot of assumptions that things will just go back to the way they were... The close run thing in Heywood & Middleton was just a blip etc.. It wouldn't take much at all IMO for Ukip to win 5-6 labour seats oop North and the odds are decent in someMortimer said:
Agreed.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Major parties never advocate tactical voting explicitly. It doesn't play to their long term interests.
I do, however, think that UKIP will come second in a swath of northern constituencies, in part due to collapse of LD vote. The 30% rump of the old LD vote which was NOTA will go to UKIP, much of it will go Lab, but this means there is a vacancy in 2nd place.
I, for one, rejoice at the idea that a part of the right will again be second in places where a Tory would never get a look in. If British politics were a cold-war era spy novel, Farage would be a very successful establishment mole.0 -
Yes, that is an interesting one. Defence can at least be justified as capital spending if the providers are UK based industries.antifrank said:
Conservatives sentimentalise defence and foreign policy.Mortimer said:
Agreed, I'd say that most Tories are in fact against the sentimentalising of the public sector, which is something that the left is very good at. Similarly, I think the right does occasionally over-cherish business.philiph said:
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
Both are a means to an end - but only one brings in more wealth to spend on public services. Hence, I am a Tory.
Foreign policy is based on punching above our weight, and to be honest can be little afforded nowadays. I do feel that a future Tory party will have to finally accept that we're not a first rate power, and should be taking the French approach of vigorously defending our own interests and keeping out of those which do not.
I suspect the temptation to not do this, once in power, is because of the feeling that one can actually make a difference. I truly believe Cameron thought Libya was a good idea, because by making an order he could directly intervene to save the lives of people in Benghazi. The problem is the consequences of meddling in foreign policy are rarely as black and white. What begins as decisive, limited and successful, can quickly become uncertain, unlimited and often ends in failure...
0 -
Must be why every Conservative government in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Heath's) has cut defence sending. Even the Blessed Margaret started off with some fairly swinging cuts, which arguably caused the Falklands War.antifrank said:
Conservatives sentimentalise defence and foreign policy.Mortimer said:
Agreed, I'd say that most Tories are in fact against the sentimentalising of the public sector, which is something that the left is very good at. Similarly, I think the right does occasionally over-cherish business.philiph said:
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
Both are a means to an end - but only one brings in more wealth to spend on public services. Hence, I am a Tory.
Why anyone thinks the Conservatives are "sound" on defence is quite beyond me.0 -
Does anyone know if the word count of posts on PB varies over the day? Early morning and late evenings are my favourite times, mostly because there are far fewer short snipes and jibes, more reasoned debate and a degree of understanding between people who fundamentally disagree with each other that politeness hurts nobody.0
-
That's my point, the WWC in those areas will never vote Tory but may vote UKIP, if enough Tories voted tactically then UKIP may nick a few. That would suit the Tories down to the ground as who are UKIP likely to align with, certainly not Labour.MP_SE said:
True. Although the hatred for the Tories in a lot of northern constituencies will prevent them making any inroads for many years. Allowing UKIP to break Labour's hold may be advantageous. I can't wait to see where the bulk of 2nd place finishes are for them.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.0 -
Hmm Ed Miliband is really really going to have to be on top of his game in the 7 way. Watching Sturgeon's conference speech at the moment.0
-
0
-
It would just take the Tories to vote tactically, which is the point I have been trying (badly, obviously) to make,isam said:
There seem to be a lot of assumptions that things will just go back to the way they were... The close run thing in Heywood & Middleton was just a blip etc.. It wouldn't take much at all IMO for Ukip to win 5-6 labour seats oop North and the odds are decent in someMortimer said:
Agreed.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Major parties never advocate tactical voting explicitly. It doesn't play to their long term interests.
I do, however, think that UKIP will come second in a swath of northern constituencies, in part due to collapse of LD vote. The 30% rump of the old LD vote which was NOTA will go to UKIP, much of it will go Lab, but this means there is a vacancy in 2nd place.
I, for one, rejoice at the idea that a part of the right will again be second in places where a Tory would never get a look in. If British politics were a cold-war era spy novel, Farage would be a very successful establishment mole.
.0 -
Probably not in UKIP's long term interests that they win 20 seats in this election. Given the attrition rate of elected UKIP officials, it would probably lead to a backlash before the party was able to further professionalise or shore up activist bases in enough constituencies to be a future threat.nigel4england said:
That's my point, the WWC in those areas will never vote Tory but may vote UKIP, if enough Tories voted tactically then UKIP may nick a few. That would suit the Tories down to the ground as who are UKIP likely to align with, certainly not Labour.MP_SE said:
True. Although the hatred for the Tories in a lot of northern constituencies will prevent them making any inroads for many years. Allowing UKIP to break Labour's hold may be advantageous. I can't wait to see where the bulk of 2nd place finishes are for them.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
0 -
Yeah I agree that some will vote for Ukip to keep out labour, I just don't think the Tory party will encourage it... But I wouldn't really know tbhnigel4england said:
It would just take the Tories to vote tactically, which is the point I have been trying (badly, obviously) to make,isam said:
There seem to be a lot of assumptions that things will just go back to the way they were... The close run thing in Heywood & Middleton was just a blip etc.. It wouldn't take much at all IMO for Ukip to win 5-6 labour seats oop North and the odds are decent in someMortimer said:
Agreed.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Major parties never advocate tactical voting explicitly. It doesn't play to their long term interests.
I do, however, think that UKIP will come second in a swath of northern constituencies, in part due to collapse of LD vote. The 30% rump of the old LD vote which was NOTA will go to UKIP, much of it will go Lab, but this means there is a vacancy in 2nd place.
I, for one, rejoice at the idea that a part of the right will again be second in places where a Tory would never get a look in. If British politics were a cold-war era spy novel, Farage would be a very successful establishment mole.
.0 -
Are we due any more polls today or tomorrow?0
-
Conservatives never vote tactically, ever.isam said:
Yeah I agree that some will vote for Ukip to keep out labour, I just don't think the Tory party will encourage it... But I wouldn't really know tbhnigel4england said:
It would just take the Tories to vote tactically, which is the point I have been trying (badly, obviously) to make,isam said:
There seem to be a lot of assumptions that things will just go back to the way they were... The close run thing in Heywood & Middleton was just a blip etc.. It wouldn't take much at all IMO for Ukip to win 5-6 labour seats oop North and the odds are decent in someMortimer said:
Agreed.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Major parties never advocate tactical voting explicitly. It doesn't play to their long term interests.
I do, however, think that UKIP will come second in a swath of northern constituencies, in part due to collapse of LD vote. The 30% rump of the old LD vote which was NOTA will go to UKIP, much of it will go Lab, but this means there is a vacancy in 2nd place.
I, for one, rejoice at the idea that a part of the right will again be second in places where a Tory would never get a look in. If British politics were a cold-war era spy novel, Farage would be a very successful establishment mole.
.0 -
@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3028/economics/interest-payments-on-uk-debt/
That is based upon existing government plans (ie "austerity") obviously the figure will go up if a furure government deviates from the spending plans.
Personally I would rather spend those tens of billions on hospitals schools, free university places and warships or even on tax cuts rather than on interest. What sensible person wouldn't?
Ed Miliband plans to contact Wonga, then to skip town leaving the poor bloody British public to settle his bill0 -
Indeed. Petrifying is an understatement.....foxinsoxuk said:@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3028/economics/interest-payments-on-uk-debt/
That is based upon existing government plans (ie "austerity") obviously the figure will go up if a furure government deviates from the spending plans.
Personally I would rather spend those tens of billions on hospitals schools, free university places and warships or even on tax cuts rather than on interest. What sensible person wouldn't?
Ed Miliband plans to contact Wonga, then to skip town leaving the poor bloody British public to settle his bill
0 -
The Sunday Mail does a positive editorial on Nicola Sturgeon. It comes with an amusing cartoon.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/sunday-mail-opinion-former-first-54195650 -
The thing about the typical northern Red Kipper is that they're very anti-immigration/anti-Europe/anti-politicalcorrectness, but they're also often VERY pro-public services / public spending.nigel4england said:
That's my point, the WWC in those areas will never vote Tory but may vote UKIP, if enough Tories voted tactically then UKIP may nick a few. That would suit the Tories down to the ground as who are UKIP likely to align with, certainly not Labour.MP_SE said:
True. Although the hatred for the Tories in a lot of northern constituencies will prevent them making any inroads for many years. Allowing UKIP to break Labour's hold may be advantageous. I can't wait to see where the bulk of 2nd place finishes are for them.isam said:
Wouldn't really make sense for the conservatives to advise tactical votes for Ukip though, as labour could just do the same in seats where it's Ukip vs Tory of which there are moreMP_SE said:
Heywood and Middleton suggests there is a possibility of UKIP winning northern seats. Noone saw that result coming.Pong said:
Nope.nigel4england said:Ok bear with me on this, I love politics and make a second income backing horses, but I have never been a political bettor until now.
Anyhow, is it plausible that with Cameron getting a kicking that the Tories may now start to encourage tactical voting, particularly in the North where UKIP are the main challengers to Labour in some seats.
It will help the Tories immensely if UKIP nick a few seats up North, any possibility of this happening?
Rotherham, Rother Valley, Heywood and Middleton, Great Grimsby and Dudley North are all possibilities.
Anecdote alert, but I know someone who was previously thinking about UKIP is now having second thoughts because she's picked up on this talk of Farage wanting to privatise the NHS.0 -
Another typical yougov overreaction poll, as occurred with 2 weeks to go in indyref, and Opinium still has the Tories ahead tonight. Of course nowhere near 9m watched Thursday's C4/Sky debate anyway and of the 3m who did polls on the night had Cameron ahead. Typically incumbents lose the first debate, if you can call the non-head to head that, so nothing to see hear, just ask PM Clegg and Presidents Kerry and Romney!!
0 -
@FoxInSox
"That is based upon existing government plans (ie "austerity") obviously the figure will go up if a furure government deviates from the spending plans."
The forecast is based on a lot of positive assumptions. It won't take much to go wrong over the next few years for the UK to be in the situation of borrowing to pay the interest on existing debt. There is no happy ending to that scenario.0 -
Are all these desperate "Ed is gonna win" people the same people who described 51%/49% as a "rogue poll" even though the "rogue poll" was backed by private polling and this Sunday Times poll is not totally different to any other Yougov poll?
4% swing is 2mn voters. Only 2.5mn watched.
Saul Goodman, it just makes it easier for the SNP.0 -
I've been saying for a couple of days how much the debate reports have filtered through to apolitical people. Because so much of the Tory strategy was based on EIC, it only takes some indirect "Ed was actually not bad" reports to undermine the strategy.SeanT said:
I think your EICIPM forecast is good. For the moment I stand by my (long held) belief that it will be a Miliband plurality, not majority (thanks to Scotland), but, with a poll like this, who knows.bigjohnowls said:TBF I think this bounce potentially short lived and 2 parties neck and neck in % terms.
Still good for my EICIPM forecast
The problem for Tories is that I can't see a gamechanger from here. What will it be? The next two debates are specifically designed (by the Tories!) to have no effect. Unless Miliband collapses in the Oppo debate, pincered by Farage and Sturgeon?
And I've been counting down the possible "events" for a year now. They've all been and gone. I can see the Tories pulling back to level pegging. But a Tory lead of 5% or so, which they probably need to get back into government, is starting to look fanciful.
0 -
SeanT Also continues to go on about Asia, when what he really means is East Asia, the Middle East is dominated by a resurgent Islam which is about as far from laissez faire, libertarianism as you can possibly get. Of course China still has most of its industries owned by the state and Japan spends 42% of GDP while European Switzerland, for example, spends only 33.8% of GDP0
-
@NickPalmer Does Ed have a strategy to deal with wee Nicola in the debates ?0
-
Just watched her speech, reaching out to "No" voters, very very different approach to Murphy trying to terrify the voters into sticking with Labour.Dair said:Are all these desperate "Ed is gonna win" people the same people who described 51%/49% as a "rogue poll" even though the "rogue poll" was backed by private polling and this Sunday Times poll is not totally different to any other Yougov poll?
4% swing is 2mn voters. Only 2.5mn watched.
Saul Goodman, it just makes it easier for the SNP.0 -
I see the Smithson dictum "It is unwise to ascribe poll movements to single events" needs amending "except when it is bad news for Cameron".0
-
Thatcher didn't cause the Falklands War. But she made created much more casualties than were even remotely needed.HurstLlama said:
Must be why every Conservative government in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Heath's) has cut defence sending. Even the Blessed Margaret started off with some fairly swinging cuts, which arguably caused the Falklands War.antifrank said:
Conservatives sentimentalise defence and foreign policy.Mortimer said:
Agreed, I'd say that most Tories are in fact against the sentimentalising of the public sector, which is something that the left is very good at. Similarly, I think the right does occasionally over-cherish business.philiph said:
I find tories more pragmatic than ideological. The ideology seems to be come from the left more than the right in my experience.SMukesh said:
I don`t actually but they are anti public-service by ideology.surbiton said:Mortimer said:
Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish? I just don't understand that point of view.surbiton said:
"So what drives the intelligent lefty to vote for Miliband?"
Fairness, compassion and not just thinking of No.1. Many "lefties" as you call them, would actually be personally worse off under Labour but we still vote for and want a Labour government.
I'm a dyed in the wool card carrying anti-lefty; but not because I think they want to screw hard working rich people for everything they have, or because they want to make benefits millionaires.
I simply think their approach to economics is misguided (i.e. making the pie smaller could even things out relatively, but makes everyone poorer) and that their attempts to ameliorate the effects of poverty are pretty patronising.
"Do you honestly believe that Tories are unfair, uncompassionate and entirely selfish?"
Yes I do, so does most people.
Both are a means to an end - but only one brings in more wealth to spend on public services. Hence, I am a Tory.
Why anyone thinks the Conservatives are "sound" on defence is quite beyond me.
Thatcher could have cancelled the scrapping of Arc Royal and kept a long range radar in the British Fleet. She didn't and we went into that war with no long range radar which cost pretty much ALL the casualties of the war.0 -
It's what several on here have been observing:
Nicola Sturgeon’s speech in Glasgow highlights the similarities between the SNP and Ukip
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/nicola-sturgeons-speech-in-glasgow-highlights-the-similarities-between-the-snp-and-ukip/0 -
The Sunday Times Scotland poll is British Election Study analysis based on YouGov findings
The BES data, based on a sample of 1,300 Scottish voters, puts the SNP on 44%, Labour on 27%, Conservatives on 15%, Liberal Democrats on 5%, with Ukip on 4% and the Greens on 3%. On this basis, assuming a uniform swing, Labour’s tally of Scottish seats could fall from 41 to 10, with the SNP rising from six to 47, the Lib Dems falling from 11 to one and the Tories retaining their only Scottish seat.
.....Fieldwork from March 6 to 130 -
2'5 million watched the debat. A 4% shift is 2mn. That didn't happen. You're clutching at straws, just accept your government funded NGO job, pension is probably worth 10 times the Westminster rate.NickPalmer said:
I've been saying for a couple of days how much the debate reports have filtered through to apolitical people. Because so much of the Tory strategy was based on EIC, it only takes some indirect "Ed was actually not bad" reports to undermine the strategy.SeanT said:
I think your EICIPM forecast is good. For the moment I stand by my (long held) belief that it will be a Miliband plurality, not majority (thanks to Scotland), but, with a poll like this, who knows.bigjohnowls said:TBF I think this bounce potentially short lived and 2 parties neck and neck in % terms.
Still good for my EICIPM forecast
The problem for Tories is that I can't see a gamechanger from here. What will it be? The next two debates are specifically designed (by the Tories!) to have no effect. Unless Miliband collapses in the Oppo debate, pincered by Farage and Sturgeon?
And I've been counting down the possible "events" for a year now. They've all been and gone. I can see the Tories pulling back to level pegging. But a Tory lead of 5% or so, which they probably need to get back into government, is starting to look fanciful.0 -
His strategy is to let her destroy Call Me Dave. The question is can Ed protect himself against Natalie and Leanne and still survive the slaughter from Nicola on the 16th.Pulpstar said:@NickPalmer Does Ed have a strategy to deal with wee Nicola in the debates ?
0 -
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.foxinsoxuk said:@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:0 -
Yeah, I know. She wants the 55%. It;s a very different strategy to the 35% of Labour and Tories and the 5% strategy of the Lib Ends.Pulpstar said:
Just watched her speech, reaching out to "No" voters, very very different approach to Murphy trying to terrify the voters into sticking with Labour.Dair said:Are all these desperate "Ed is gonna win" people the same people who described 51%/49% as a "rogue poll" even though the "rogue poll" was backed by private polling and this Sunday Times poll is not totally different to any other Yougov poll?
4% swing is 2mn voters. Only 2.5mn watched.
Saul Goodman, it just makes it easier for the SNP.0 -
-
16 days out of date. That's just... pathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times Scotland poll is British Election Study analysis based on YouGov findings
The BES data, based on a sample of 1,300 Scottish voters, puts the SNP on 44%, Labour on 27%, Conservatives on 15%, Liberal Democrats on 5%, with Ukip on 4% and the Greens on 3%. On this basis, assuming a uniform swing, Labour’s tally of Scottish seats could fall from 41 to 10, with the SNP rising from six to 47, the Lib Dems falling from 11 to one and the Tories retaining their only Scottish seat.
.....Fieldwork from March 6 to 130 -
35% won't cut it for the Tories, so I'm sure they are aiming higher. Not the same for LAB though.Dair said:
Yeah, I know. She wants the 55%. It;s a very different strategy to the 35% of Labour and Tories and the 5% strategy of the Lib Ends.Pulpstar said:
Just watched her speech, reaching out to "No" voters, very very different approach to Murphy trying to terrify the voters into sticking with Labour.Dair said:Are all these desperate "Ed is gonna win" people the same people who described 51%/49% as a "rogue poll" even though the "rogue poll" was backed by private polling and this Sunday Times poll is not totally different to any other Yougov poll?
4% swing is 2mn voters. Only 2.5mn watched.
Saul Goodman, it just makes it easier for the SNP.0 -
-
Jesus. The last 5% of Liberals are only 33% guaranteed to turn out? ORKNEY AND ZETLAND is SNP. Still 5s to get on that.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
You sound worried dearie.CarlottaVance said:It's what several on here have been observing:
Nicola Sturgeon’s speech in Glasgow highlights the similarities between the SNP and Ukip
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/nicola-sturgeons-speech-in-glasgow-highlights-the-similarities-between-the-snp-and-ukip/
0 -
In those 16 days that have passed, Scots have witnessed Haudit and Daudit in the non debate,Dair said:
16 days out of date. That's just... pathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times Scotland poll is British Election Study analysis based on YouGov findings
The BES data, based on a sample of 1,300 Scottish voters, puts the SNP on 44%, Labour on 27%, Conservatives on 15%, Liberal Democrats on 5%, with Ukip on 4% and the Greens on 3%. On this basis, assuming a uniform swing, Labour’s tally of Scottish seats could fall from 41 to 10, with the SNP rising from six to 47, the Lib Dems falling from 11 to one and the Tories retaining their only Scottish seat.
.....Fieldwork from March 6 to 13
plus the SNP conference.
0 -
The Westminster parties really are bolloxedEh_ehm_a_eh said:
In those 16 days that have passed, Scots have witnessed Haudit and Daudit in the non debate,Dair said:
16 days out of date. That's just... pathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times Scotland poll is British Election Study analysis based on YouGov findings
The BES data, based on a sample of 1,300 Scottish voters, puts the SNP on 44%, Labour on 27%, Conservatives on 15%, Liberal Democrats on 5%, with Ukip on 4% and the Greens on 3%. On this basis, assuming a uniform swing, Labour’s tally of Scottish seats could fall from 41 to 10, with the SNP rising from six to 47, the Lib Dems falling from 11 to one and the Tories retaining their only Scottish seat.
.....Fieldwork from March 6 to 13
plus the SNP conference.0 -
-
Were you at the game, caller?old_labour said:0 -
Eh?Dair said:
Were you at the game, caller?old_labour said:0 -
Google.old_labour said:Eh?
Dair said:
Were you at the game, caller?old_labour said:
Or a better idea you could explain why you posted that link with no commentary and what you think it means.0 -
TV debate: Seven leaders, just four questions
The leaders will be given just one minute to answer each of the four questions uninterrupted on the main Election issues.
The rest of the two-hour show will consist of 17-minute debates on each of the four topics, when the leaders can challenge each other.0 -
What are the four questions?FrancisUrquhart said:TV debate: Seven leaders, just four questions
0 -
Sounds tricky for Cameron and Miliband.FrancisUrquhart said:TV debate: Seven leaders, just four questions
The leaders will be given just one minute to answer each of the four questions uninterrupted on the main Election issues.
The rest of the two-hour show will consist of 17-minute debates on each of the four topics, when the leaders can challenge each other.0 -
It was linked to an article I posted earlier where the Sunday Mail, unusually had a positive editorial about Nicola Sturgeon. Here it is http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/sunday-mail-opinion-former-first-5419565
With the second link, I was trying to figure out, unsuccessfully, how to insert an image into a post. I find it better to experiment when the site is quiet.Dair said:
Google.old_labour said:Eh?
Dair said:
Were you at the game, caller?old_labour said:
Or a better idea you could explain why you posted that link with no commentary and what you think it means.0 -
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.Dair said:
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.foxinsoxuk said:@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.0 -
There is nothing gibberish about it.ryangauldforge said:
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.Dair said:
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.foxinsoxuk said:@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.
Scotland has paid £222bn into hte UK exchequer over what it has received back since 1980. That's anpit £2.5bn per year or about £500 per year for every man woman and child in Scotland.
It has entirely been spent on London.
That is a broken, wasted system where Scotland is expected to subsidise England and especially London and is expected to continue to do so. Instead of an additional £5k per annum to spent on Scottish public services, Scotland has paid every penny to fund such nonsense classified as "UK Expenditure" as the Olympics, HS1, HS2, London Sewers, Crossrail, Crossrail2, Channel Tunnel, renewal of London Underground, the M25, and numerous other London expenditure.
If you live in London you will absolutely love this. It;s money you never paid prividing services you might need. If you live in Scotland you want to keep Scottish money in Scotland.
And expect reparations.0 -
Love the lies you tell.ryangauldforge said:
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.Dair said:
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.foxinsoxuk said:@Mortimer
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.
In every year between 1980 and 2012 Scotland paid more into the UK than it got out. Since 2013 it has moronically been told it paid less. But all of that was paying for London debt. Scotland is not only solvent but it is a permenantly solvent country.
Keep lying, keep making it up. You're still going to lose. You've already lost. 55 out of 59 on May 7th will tell you what Scotland thinks of your lies.0 -
I'm not sure about the fourth one but the first three are:CarlottaVance said:
What are the four questions?FrancisUrquhart said:TV debate: Seven leaders, just four questions
1) How many walkers have you killed?
2) How many people have you killed?
3) Why?0 -
I love how nationalists always think basic facts and figures are up for "debate". For ease of reference, here's a nice summary of the last 16 years worth of GERS reports from the LSE's website: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-gers-fiscal-report-indicates-that-scotlands-finances-are-in-dire-shape/Dair said:
Love the lies you tell.
In every year between 1980 and 2012 Scotland paid more into the UK than it got out. Since 2013 it has moronically been told it paid less. But all of that was paying for London debt. Scotland is not only solvent but it is a permenantly solvent country.
Keep lying, keep making it up. You're still going to lose. You've already lost. 55 out of 59 on May 7th will tell you what Scotland thinks of your lies.
And I'm posting that for your own education, not because we're engaging in a debate - sticking your head in the sand and pretending everyone who knows how to read a spreadsheet is "lying" isn't an argument.
0 -
So made up numbers are suddenly the cause of the Brit Nats.ryangauldforge said:
I love how nationalists always think basic facts and figures are up for "debate". For ease of reference, here's a nice summary of the last 16 years worth of GERS reports from the LSE's website: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-gers-fiscal-report-indicates-that-scotlands-finances-are-in-dire-shape/Dair said:
Love the lies you tell.
In every year between 1980 and 2012 Scotland paid more into the UK than it got out. Since 2013 it has moronically been told it paid less. But all of that was paying for London debt. Scotland is not only solvent but it is a permenantly solvent country.
Keep lying, keep making it up. You're still going to lose. You've already lost. 55 out of 59 on May 7th will tell you what Scotland thinks of your lies.
And I'm posting that for your own education, not because we're engaging in a debate - sticking your head in the sand and pretending everyone who knows how to read a spreadsheet is "lying" isn't an argument.
Lol.
You lost.
You took money from Scotland for 30 years and suddenly decided that a couple of years where Scotland was break even you would declare "Scotland needs England".
No-one believes this. You've already lost. Your subsidy is going away and you will have to stand on your own two feet. I feel sorry for you, England is a bankrupt country and would have died in the 70s without Scottish money.
But please, feel free, in fact tell us how useless Scotland is. Make us go away. We want you to want that. Make it happen instead of spending millions on propaganda.
We'll survive.
You won't.0 -
Incredible bowling by Starc. England are going to find this bowling attack unplayable this summer.0
