General Election, June 8th

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Who'd buy these bonds if the returns were so low or even negative?

Richard Murphy says:

May 16 2017 at 10:43 pm

People are, week in week out, now

And these would be compulsory purchases

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

 

Nobody will voluntarily invest money if they know they're going to lose money.

[Sharpe's Fox]

9 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Yeah that would be absolutely wonderful if that is how QE and bank bailouts were done. It would also be great if Richard Murphy had a bit more credibility in the relevant circles

Mate your a student arguing with a complete ****wit like me on a football forum. If his credibility is low yours is a skidmark on the underpants of Economics.

[Guest]

EDIT: not worth the argument

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nobody will voluntarily invest money if they know they're going to lose money.

Surely you realise what you are dealing with by now?

 

These people genuinely think they will be able to claim every penny from the tax rises they have dreamt up, any realism has long flown out the window, if you were asking these questions in public you would be beon booed to a bankdrop of "Jeremy" chants. It's gone bonkers.

 

They'll be telling us Corbyn will be selling sand to the Arabs by the weekend. 

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

Surely you realise what you are dealing with by now?

 

These people genuinely think they will be able to claim every penny from the tax rises they have dreamt up, any realism has long flown out the window, if you were asking these questions in public you would be beon booed to a bankdrop of "Jeremy" chants. It's gone bonkers.

 

They'll be telling us Corbyn will be selling sand to the Arabs by the weekend. 

To be honest I'm coming round to thinking that it's all a bit irrelevant:

I'm obviously voting Labour. My politics and therefore voting intention will, of course, have been affected by the media that I choose to consume.

You are clearly voting Tory. The same is true of you. 

Political parties and political commentary is so skewed towards specific agendas that it is nigh on impossible to find adequate discussion of financial or economic measures without it being biased in some way.

Our views on economics and monetary policy etc have therefore been shaped by biased commentary.

The last 2 significant downturns - 1992 and 2008 - have occurred under 2 different political parties. 

There is no clear way to define whether tax and spend or low tax is 'better'- it is purely subjective and open to interpretation with biased commentary having shaped our interpretations. 

I think that years of cuts upon a stagnant economy is complete and utter madness and have already said that I believe a crash will occur reasonably soon if things don't change. You, and others, contend that Labour's plans are 'bonkers' Although I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one, I'll again say that our views cannot both be tested (only one party will win) and opinion is just that and based upon our history of opinion formed through those same biased commentaries. 

Given the above, it's almost pointless arguing about economics. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

To be honest I'm coming round to thinking that it's all a bit irrelevant:

I'm obviously voting Labour. My politics and therefore voting intention will, of course, have been affected by the media that I choose to consume.

You are clearly voting Tory. The same is true of you. 

Political parties and political commentary is so skewed towards specific agendas that it is nigh on impossible to find adequate discussion of financial or economic measures without it being biased in some way.

Our views on economics and monetary policy etc have therefore been shaped by biased commentary.

The last 2 significant downturns - 1992 and 2008 - have occurred under 2 different political parties. 

There is no clear way to define whether tax and spend or low tax is 'better'- it is purely subjective and open to interpretation with biased commentary having shaped our interpretations. 

I think that years of cuts upon a stagnant economy is complete and utter madness and have already said that I believe a crash will occur reasonably soon if things don't change. You, and others, contend that Labour's plans are 'bonkers' Although I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one, I'll again say that our views cannot both be tested (only one party will win) and opinion is just that and based upon our history of opinion formed through those same biased commentaries. 

Given the above, it's almost pointless arguing about economics. 

Good post.  It gets to the point at election time that if a Labour or Tory politician or supporter said, 'Big Ben tells the time' the opposing side will scoff and dismiss the statement as pure lunacy.

[Stadt]

Theoretically what would happen if a load of independents were elected and there just weren't any near enough parties with enough hope of forming a majority? Another election?

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Good post.  It gets to the point at election time that if a Labour or Tory politician or supporter said, 'Big Ben tells the time' the opposing side will scoff and dismiss the statement as pure lunacy.

Big Ben is the bell, it makes the noise. 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Wookie said:

Theoretically what would happen if a load of independents were elected and there just weren't any near enough parties with enough hope of forming a majority? Another election?

Anarchy 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Big Ben is the bell, it makes the noise. 

I thought of saying this but then, if the bell rings, it is telling people the time. It just isn't a very accurate way of judging when 20 to 2 might be!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Wookie said:

Theoretically what would happen if a load of independents were elected and there just weren't any near enough parties with enough hope of forming a majority? Another election?

If every single seat was an independent? That would be interesting. The problem would actually be that there'd be no prime minister in a scenario with no parties.

If there is a party bigger than the other, but without a majority and no coalition is formed, then it's leader will still be asked by the Queen to form a government I believe. It could be a good thing as it would require consensual politics as the government would have to fight for anything to get through the house. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Mate your a student arguing with a complete ****wit like me on a football forum. If his credibility is low yours is a skidmark on the underpants of Economics.

 

I mean I'll talk to and debate anything with anyone so it's make no difference to me. We have our opinions and that is fair enough for all, I don't care. If I see something I think is wrong then I'll pull it up, I'm not saying I'm right but I at least realise I have a better grounding in some things and I hope some might think about things a little more. To me this is all procrastination anyway

 

Do I care for my credibility? No. Will I ever be credible? No. Would I call you a ****wit? No. Does this place infuriate me more than it should? Most certainly.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I thought of saying this but then, if the bell rings, it is telling people the time. It just isn't a very accurate way of judging when 20 to 2 might be!

Yeah I know, I just wanted to prove his point.

Actually I heard that the bell is more accurate than the clock, unless you are far away 

[Stadt]

Just now, toddybad said:

would require consensual politics as the government would have to fight for anything to get through the house. 

Nothing would ever get passed surely? It'd be like PR but even worse when it comes to agreements

[Guest]

Just now, Wookie said:

Nothing would ever get passed surely? It'd be like PR but even worse when it comes to agreements

Almost every other democratic country has PR and makes it work. In Europe coalitions have long been routine forms of government and they've worked. Never understood how there can be ANY reasonable argument against PR. It just means that parties have to find common ground which actually means they're finding the ground between different sections of society. I'd imagine that it probably could have really useful results if done in the right spirit - wisdom of crowds and all that.

 

 

[Stadt]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Almost every other democratic country has PR and makes it work. In Europe coalitions have long been routine forms of government and they've worked. Never understood how there can be ANY reasonable argument against PR. It just means that parties have to find common ground which actually means they're finding the ground between different sections of society. I'd imagine that it probably could have really useful results if done in the right spirit - wisdom of crowds and all that.

 

 

I'm not against PR but the hypothetical scenario would be chaos between so many parties and candidates, that's why there's usually a necessary % required before can contribute to a coalition 

[ajthefox]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

 

Lib Dems target young voters.

 

Well it's a nice thought Mr Farron (Rent to own sounds interesting at the very least) but I don't think all those young adults who were promised no tuition fees by Mr Clegg (and voted for you for that reason) are going to forget that because you're re-instating 18-21 housing benefits, handing out bus passes and giving kids free meals.

[Webbo]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Almost every other democratic country has PR and makes it work. In Europe coalitions have long been routine forms of government and they've worked. Never understood how there can be ANY reasonable argument against PR. It just means that parties have to find common ground which actually means they're finding the ground between different sections of society. I'd imagine that it probably could have really useful results if done in the right spirit - wisdom of crowds and all that.

 

 

Holland has been trying to form a govt for 2 months. Trying to get the conservatives and Greens and 2 other parties to find common ground is almost impossible.

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Almost every other democratic country has PR and makes it work. In Europe coalitions have long been routine forms of government and they've worked. Never understood how there can be ANY reasonable argument against PR. It just means that parties have to find common ground which actually means they're finding the ground between different sections of society. I'd imagine that it probably could have really useful results if done in the right spirit - wisdom of crowds and all that.

 

 

I'm not convinced you would get much change under PR.  Do you imagine that the conservative or Labour parties would remain as they are under PR?  I think you would see the different elements of those parties split, and knowing that they could get influence by being the swing party in a coalition, much like backbenchers have influence now, and why Theresa called an election so she isnt beholden to back benchers who don't like her very much.  All you get is more fringes like UKIP, Greens etc with 10-15 mps instead or 1 or two.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

To be honest I'm coming round to thinking that it's all a bit irrelevant:

I'm obviously voting Labour. My politics and therefore voting intention will, of course, have been affected by the media that I choose to consume.

You are clearly voting Tory. The same is true of you. 

Political parties and political commentary is so skewed towards specific agendas that it is nigh on impossible to find adequate discussion of financial or economic measures without it being biased in some way.

Our views on economics and monetary policy etc have therefore been shaped by biased commentary.

The last 2 significant downturns - 1992 and 2008 - have occurred under 2 different political parties. 

There is no clear way to define whether tax and spend or low tax is 'better'- it is purely subjective and open to interpretation with biased commentary having shaped our interpretations. 

I think that years of cuts upon a stagnant economy is complete and utter madness and have already said that I believe a crash will occur reasonably soon if things don't change. You, and others, contend that Labour's plans are 'bonkers' Although I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one, I'll again say that our views cannot both be tested (only one party will win) and opinion is just that and based upon our history of opinion formed through those same biased commentaries. 

Given the above, it's almost pointless arguing about economics. 

I am not voting Tory on economics believe me, Gideon should have been cutting far more from things like foreign aid and welfare to achieve what he said he was going to do, getting the deficit down to zero.

 

The interest we now pay on our national debt makes me feel sick, I think it was about 60 billion last year, whoever wins the next election will be throwing around 300billion pounds down the drain because of the profligacy of previous governments, when you think that could pay for the whole 250million infrastruture Labour has promised it's appalling.

 

As King GTF puts far better than me, I don't see anything progressive in landing the taxpayer with a huge bill so the richest can profit from them over the next years by selling off more bonds/gilt edged securities. To do it for things as trivial as the National Grid just seems absolutely barmy.

 

I'm voting Conservative for one reason, they are the only party I now see as competent and we need a competent government to lead us through what could be the most important negotiation the country has ever undertaken.

[Buce]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

They'll be telling us Corbyn will be selling sand to the Arabs by the weekend. 

 

An ethical improvement on the bombs we sell currently, at least. 

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

The interest we now pay on our national debt makes me feel sick, I think it was about 60 billion last year, whoever wins the next election will be throwing around 300billion pounds down the drain because of the profligacy of previous governments, when you think that could pay for the whole 250million infrastruture Labour has promised it's appalling.

 

Seems as if it's not quite as high as you suggest, but certainly very high by recent standards (was much higher after WW2, but not since, I don't think): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

 

"As of Q1 2015, UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income). Approximately a third of this debt is owned by the British government due to the Bank of England's quantitative easing programme, so approximately 1/3 of the cost of servicing the debt is paid by the government to itself, reducing the annual servicing cost to approx £30 billion (approx 2% of GDP, approx 5% of UK government tax income)".

 

Unless you achieve higher tax revenues through growth, eliminating the budget deficit quickly means slashing public services or increasing taxes. In turn, that runs the risk of reducing growth and exacerbating the deficit and debt problems. It's going to be a long time, if ever, before we're able to start paying off the accumulated debt, even further down the line from the deficit. Of course, there are better ways of spending 5% of tax income than on debt interest. However, while interest rates remain low this is not a major problem - and other major nations have a similar debt problem (US) or a much bigger one (Japan, Italy). Ironically, Brexit could make the debt issue more urgent if UK credit ratings fall and interest rates rise - at the same time as it worsens the deficit (even someone optimistic about Brexit in the long-term would surely expect us to have to pay a good few billion to the EU, and to experience at least a short-term downturn in trade, growth and tax revenues).

 

That's why, much as I loathe Tory priorities generally, I think they're being responsible in refusing to rule out increases in income tax and N.I. contributions, and in quietly seeking to ditch the "triple lock" guarantee on rising pensions. Similarly, it's why Labour is wrong to promise to keep the "triple lock" and to abolish student tuition fees. I prefer their programme of Keynesian expansion overall, and higher public spending can improve a deficit if it is done the right way. But in tough times you still have to prioritise - and tuition fees and higher pensions shouldn't be a priority, even if it might be popular with particular sections of the electorate. 

[Alf Bentley]

Larry Elliott's economic assessment of Labour's manifesto: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-tax-and-spend-public-back-jeremy-corbyn

Nothing wildly original, but a good summary.

 

So, the pledges on extra current expenditure are fully costed, in theory, even if the extra tax income expected looks very optimistic (pretty much standard for manifestos, regardless of the party).

 

Labour is then effectively saying that the extra spending on infrastructure will be added to the deficit. Believers in Tory austerity economics will disapprove, but there is an arguable case for that policy - infrastructure spending boosting growth, incomes, spending and tax revenues in the short-term, and improving growth and productivity in the long-term. That case is stronger now than in 2010, after 7 years of Tory austerity economics failing to eliminate the deficit (as promised) and causing serious social problems. I'm still not convinced that the electorate will be ready to vote for such bold policies, though. I reckon that the national mood is still "we've got to tighten our belts".

 

As others have pointed out, Elliott highlights the funding of nationalisation plans as the bit that is not explained. In reality, as Sarah Champion's comment suggests, I'd imagine that these policies can be filed under "aspirations that won't happen". In the highly unlikely event that Labour end up in power, I imagine the mandarins at the Treasury would have a word in McDonnell's ear, pointing out that the cost of nationalisating energy, water and Royal Mail would destroy his budget and other spending plans, and probably the national economy. I assume that such plans would be well and truly on the back-burner....apart from Rail: that could be re-nationalised cost-free as franchises expire, so could be a cheap but juicy bone to throw to the Left.

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Wookie said:

I'm not against PR but the hypothetical scenario would be chaos between so many parties and candidates, that's why there's usually a necessary % required before can contribute to a coalition 

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Holland has been trying to form a govt for 2 months. Trying to get the conservatives and Greens and 2 other parties to find common ground is almost impossible.

 

We can all find examples of PR working badly or well. Holland may have problems at the moment, but has generally operated pretty effectively. Likewise, Germany has PR and doesn't do too badly.

 

A lot depends on the system. I support PR but would oppose a pure national list system that allows extremist parties with 1% support to exert undue influence. I've just learned that Israel, which operated such a system now has a 3.5% threshold, an improvement. Germany has a complicated mixed system: some MPs elected by first-past-the-post, but most via PR using regional lists but with a 5% minimum threshold to stop parties with little support gaining too much influence.

 

I like the idea of a system similar to the one we had for European elections: Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies. You'd use PR to elect, say, 8 MPs for Leicester & Leicestershire. That way, you might need about 12.5% support (possibly via second choices) to get one MP, 25% to get two MPs (though the counting is more complicated than that). That would keep some local constituency connection for MPs, but would allow political views across the country to be expressed more democratically.

 

There have always been a lot of Labour voters in the South outside London, and a lot of Tories in the North, yet the electoral system has polarised the nation into "Tory South" and "Labour North" (though maybe not this time!).

 

The representation of the smaller parties after the 2015 election was particularly outrageous:

- UKIP: 3.9m votes, 1 MP

- SNP: 1.4m votes, 56 MPs

- Greens: 1.2m votes, 1 MP

(Because UKIP & Green votes were spread nationwide, whereas SNP votes were all in Scotland....meaning they took 56 out of 59 seats, with less than 50% of the Scottish vote!)