2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Guest Bilo]

There's a book from late last year called 'Fast Forward' in which the authors attempt to predict the impact of various near future technological advancements. They reckon 3d printing and robotics will more or less completely eradicate the need for human labour in the manufacturing process, and with that will go the advantage held by countries such as China who are reliant on low labour costs.

No idea if that will happen, seems to me that people have been predicting this robotic future for a long time, but combine some of that with increasing demands from Chinese citizens for higher wages and better working conditions and it could put an abrupt end to china's rise.

 

Higher wages and working conditions are relative I imagine - it'll take a very long time for them to be anywhere near Western levels, especially in a country that's far from democratic. I daresay that the growing middle class in China may be able to affect a bit of change though.

[Guest]

Darwinism/evolution has created the society why would it destroy it? Humanity will always find ways to survive.

 

Darwinism/evolution acts of the now without perception of the long term future. Not that it thinks/plans anyway. Many species have become extinct due to evolution - why should man be any different? 

[Jon the Hat]

I really think people are deliberately missing the point here.

 

I'm not saying that we can emulate the likes of China, India et al in terms of growth.

 

The point is that we're told that our economy is the fastest growing in terms of GDP in the world. This is a blatant lie. I note that in recent days it's been reworded by the Tories to fastest growing DEVELOPED economy in the world, but this is not what was said at the start of the campaign. This is clear evidence that they tried to sell us a great headline figure of being the fastest growing major economy, got found out and reworded it. It's an honesty issue, not an argument that failure to achieve near 8% growth is a hideous catastrophe.

 

It's not even the fastest in the EU - Poland and Ireland are ahead of us. Poland was just about the EU country not to be completely battered by the banking crisis. There's a good article here on how it has managed to achieve its success.

 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/future-development/posts/2015/02/11-poland-post-socialist-transition-piatkowski

 

With education such a significant factor in Polish success, will the teacher bashers now say that education doesn't create prosperity with a straight face?

 

 To be fair, Labour told us austerity would lead to double dip recession, and they were wrong.  They told us it would drive up unemployment, and they were wrong, they told us the private sector couldn't add enough jobs to make up for public sector cuts, they were wrong.  They told us they would freeze energy prices!  Well that would have been a good plan at last years levels wouldn't it?

 

Seriously, Osborne has rightly called out our economic recovery as a success, and all you can do it debate the metrics?  He actually said we are fasted growing in the G7 group of major economies, and he was right.  If you want to say the media got the message a little muddled then fine, you go ahead.

[Jon the Hat]

Higher wages and working conditions are relative I imagine - it'll take a very long time for them to be anywhere near Western levels, especially in a country that's far from democratic. I daresay that the growing middle class in China may be able to affect a bit of change though.

 

They don't have to be near Western levels to **** the Chinese economy, just close enough that Labour cost plus transport cost plus importation costs (duty etc) is higher than Western labour costs, and that will come much much sooner.

[Guest]

Money is everything.

Always has been and always will be.

 

Money is a reasonably recent invention.

[Guest]

I leave this thread for a couple of days and boy has it livened up.  

I leave it and it has deviated.

[Webbo]

Darwinism/evolution acts of the now without perception of the long term future. Not that it thinks/plans anyway. Many species have become extinct due to evolution - why should man be any different?

There are humans living in the arctic wastes and the hottest deserts and everything in between. In 100000 years time we'll still be here with the cockroaches.

[Webbo]

After the complete collapse of the Celtic Tiger, I don't think they had much choice. They had it far worse than us. 

 

The recovery is fuelled, again, by low inflation and oil prices as well as tax cuts.

 

Their deficit was almost 33% in 2010 - which puts our problems into perspective.

So you're saying austerity works and if we'd cut harder like they did in Ireland we'd be doing even better?

[Bettsj2]

Money is a reasonably recent invention.

Its always been there regardless of title.

[Guest Bilo]

So you're saying austerity works and if we'd cut harder like they did in Ireland we'd be doing even better?

 

Not in the least, Ireland's economic problems made our economy look stable. Austerity has only worked for Ireland because, frankly, their economy couldn't get any worse. Interestingly though, their seven year period of austerity is drawing to a close - even though their debt is 120% of their GDP. 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ireland-declares-an-end-to-austerity-with-2015-budget-1413298648

[leicsmac]

There are humans living in the arctic wastes and the hottest deserts and everything in between. In 100000 years time we'll still be here with the cockroaches.

 

The only reason we can adapt to living in conditions that aren't 0 to 25 degrees Celsius and 20% oxygenated is because we use technology to do it.

 

Take that away and the future is a much smaller living area for humans.

 

In any case, I can think of five or six possible extinction events that could off humanity in the next 100,000 years without even trying hard - significant asteroid strike, nuclear holocaust, viral outbreak, AI revolution, lapse back to glacial period etc. At least one of these is statistically likely to test us within that time frame.

 

I'm not a total cynic here - I want to see humanity survive, but if we're too blinded by petty differences when the time comes, we won't.

[Webbo]

Not in the least, Ireland's economic problems made our economy look stable. Austerity has only worked for Ireland because, frankly, their economy couldn't get any worse. Interestingly though, their seven year period of austerity is drawing to a close - even though their debt is 120% of their GDP. 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ireland-declares-an-end-to-austerity-with-2015-budget-1413298648

So Ireland isn't doing better than us then?

[Guest Bilo]

 To be fair, Labour told us austerity would lead to double dip recession, and they were wrong.  They told us it would drive up unemployment, and they were wrong, they told us the private sector couldn't add enough jobs to make up for public sector cuts, they were wrong.  They told us they would freeze energy prices!  Well that would have been a good plan at last years levels wouldn't it?

 

Seriously, Osborne has rightly called out our economic recovery as a success, and all you can do it debate the metrics?  He actually said we are fasted growing in the G7 group of major economies, and he was right.  If you want to say the media got the message a little muddled then fine, you go ahead.

 

Again though, unemployment may be down but the quality of jobs created is not high and will not be conducive to long term success. A low wage, low skilled economy is not the future. We need more apprenticeships and training for the young people of this country - which would bring down immigration as there'd be less of a need to bring in foreign workers. It's an awkward fact that the economic recovery has been brought about in no small part by one of the government's failures - that of immigration being three times higher than their promised target. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/the-migration-fuelling-george-osbornes-comeback-country

 

It's probably for the best that the Tories have been just as inept in controlling our borders as Blair's government were. 

[Webbo]

The only reason we can adapt to living in conditions that aren't 0 to 25 degrees Celsius and 20% oxygenated is because we use technology to do it.

 

Take that away and the future is a much smaller living area for humans.

 

In any case, I can think of five or six possible extinction events that could off humanity in the next 100,000 years without even trying hard - significant asteroid strike, nuclear holocaust, viral outbreak, AI revolution, lapse back to glacial period etc. At least one of these is statistically likely to test us within that time frame.

 

I'm not a total cynic here - I want to see humanity survive, but if we're too blinded by petty differences when the time comes, we won't.

Apart from the nuclear holocaust there's nothing we can do about any of those things so there's no point worrying about it. Anyway we survived the last ice age with far worse technology.

[Guest Bilo]

So Ireland isn't doing better than us then?

 

No.

 

It does serve to highlight that growth isn't necessarily the best indicator of a country's economic success though. We can all pick out figures to prove a point, but it's whether they bear scrutiny that's the point. 

 

What we've done is look at the claim that the British economy is the fastest growing major economy in Europe. If we agree that it is the fastest growing economy in the G7, we must then look at what this actually means. Growth is after all one indicator, among others, of economic success. 

 

It's not the only indicator though. We've looked at a smaller economy with a higher rate of growth and discovered that another indicator, that of national debt, is far higher and that growth is high primarily because the economy started at a far worse starting point. Therefore, presenting Ireland as an economic success story based on its growth is disingenuous.

 

Similarly, look beyond the headline figures at our own growth and you'll see flaws there. Rising employment figures mask a growing number of working people having to accept benefits to top up their wages, 700,000 people on zero hour contracts and a minimum wage that until recently hasn't kept pace with inflation. In real terms, many are worse off despite the headline figures. The fall in the deficit, itself a failure based on the Tories' own target of eliminating the deficit by 2015, masks a considerable rise in the national debt - with Osborne borrowing more in five years than Brown & Darling did in 13. 

 

Then there's the spin on the deficit that's already been discussed. 

 

Sure, there have been some successes. Cutting the deficit by a third is a significant success and any employment is better for the economy and the worker than unemployment, but we can't pretend that the last five years have been a story of roaring economic success.

[Benji]

In other news Blair has been adding his two pence worth today. Is this actually going to help? I'd have thought most people now were so turned off by Blair that Labour would say "you know what, just stay out of it". Particularly when Ed talks about how he thinks he's better for the job than his brother who was a Blair boy. I'd be staying clear of him.

[Webbo]

I don't think anyone's ever claimed the economy is perfect but strong growth is better than low growth, falling unemployment is better than rising unemployment. Despite all the pretence the economy is in a far better state than it was 5 years ago, austerity hasn't been anywhere near as bad as predicted. To pretend that we're in dire straits is a desperate lie.

[Guest Bilo]

In other news Blair has been adding his two pence worth today. Is this actually going to help? I'd have thought most people now were so turned off by Blair that Labour would say "you know what, just stay out of it". Particularly when Ed talks about how he thinks he's better for the job than his brother who was a Blair boy. I'd be staying clear of him.

 

There've been a few Labour candidates turn down donations from him. He's pretty much Labour's Thatcher these days in terms of how he divides opinion within the party. 

[Guest Bilo]

I don't think anyone's ever claimed the economy is perfect but strong growth is better than low growth, falling unemployment is better than rising unemployment. Despite all the pretence the economy is in a far better state than it was 5 years ago, austerity hasn't been anywhere near as bad as predicted. To pretend that we're in dire straits is a desperate lie.

 

We're not in dire straits, and I haven't said that. If we're recovering, and we're recovering faster than the rest of the G7, that's an indication that something is working. I'm simply pointing out that it's not black and white and that there is middle ground between the last five years being an economic miracle and us being on the verge of being another Greece. If it were a school report, it'd read 'good progress, but could do better.' 

 

The best thing that happened to us was not being in the Euro in my view, and Brown deserves credit for keeping us out of it. The other three European nations in the G7 - France, Germany and Italy, have all been adversely affected by the Greek economic disaster which we have largely been shielded from.

[Buce]

There've been a few Labour candidates turn down donations from him. He's pretty much Labour's Thatcher these days in terms of how he divides opinion within the party.

Three out of 100. Fairly insignificant, really.

[Benji]

Similarly, look beyond the headline figures at our own growth and you'll see flaws there. Rising employment figures mask a growing number of working people having to accept benefits to top up their wages, 700,000 people on zero hour contracts and a minimum wage that until recently hasn't kept pace with inflation. In real terms, many are worse off despite the headline figures. The fall in the deficit, itself a failure based on the Tories' own target of eliminating the deficit by 2015, masks a considerable rise in the national debt - with Osborne borrowing more in five years than Brown & Darling did in 13.

It's very unreasonable to judge a Government on national debt figures if it inherits a deficit a few times greater than the average deficit from over the past half a century. Until net debt becomes a net surplus, national debt is a meaningless yardstick as it is pretty fundamental to say national debt will continue to rise. By all means judge the Coalition on its successes or failures of deficit reduction (i.e. economic growth encouraging receipts surpassing public sector savings), but this whole borrowing more in five years etc. is desperate at best.

If Labour end up in power and in five years time the deficit is still floating between 40bn and 60bn Labour will have likely borrowed more during its office than this Coalition - simple Maths - a bigger national debt so greater borrowing while a deficit exists. Presumably if this did happen people would be quick to point out that Labour inherited a deficit?

[Benji]

There've been a few Labour candidates turn down donations from him. He's pretty much Labour's Thatcher these days in terms of how he divides opinion within the party.

 

 

Three out of 100. Fairly insignificant, really.

I'd have thought regardless of his reputation within the party, the guys behind Ed's campaign would be smart enough to recognise that the voting public (i.e. the people that actually matter), still have a very bad taste in their mouths following Iraq etc. Don't get me wrong Blair was an incredibly good campaigner and I'm sure in many ways a good politician, but Joe public will remember one thing about his Government.

[Guest Bilo]

Three out of 100. Fairly insignificant, really.

 

You'd be surprised by the number of arguments he causes at grassroots level.

 

There are some who point to his first term, where much was achieved with an enormous majority and the Tory opposition was rendered toothless. Then there are some who want nothing to do with him because of the Bush friendship and the War on Terror, not to mention some of his more Daily Mail reader enticing policies. 

 

He remains a divisive figure - but I can see why the donations would be tempting. The Tories will always outspend Labour in an election campaign, and this could be key in marginals.

[Babylon]

 

 

I'd have thought regardless of his reputation within the party, the guys behind Ed's campaign would be smart enough to recognise that the voting public (i.e. the people that actually matter), still have a very bad taste in their mouths following Iraq etc. Don't get me wrong Blair was an incredibly good campaigner and I'm sure in many ways a good politician, but Joe public will remember one thing about his Government.

When you think Tony Blair will get you a few votes you know you're up against it. If Milliband wasn't such a useless personality it would probably we a walk in the park this election.

[Guest Bilo]

 

 

I'd have thought regardless of his reputation within the party, the guys behind Ed's campaign would be smart enough to recognise that the voting public (i.e. the people that actually matter), still have a very bad taste in their mouths following Iraq etc. Don't get me wrong Blair was an incredibly good campaigner and I'm sure in many ways a good politician, but Joe public will remember one thing about his Government.

 

The fact he comfortably won an election after Iraq was testament to what a good campaigner he was. He only lost one election in his entire political career (in a safe Tory seat during Michael Foot's disastrous campaign) in a political career spanning over 25 years.