UK general election May 2015

[Jason]

With regard to the economically terrible 1950-70s. Heres a wikipedia graph which shows national debt falling steadily through 50s and 60s and more or less static in those awful 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png

A striking graph.

I suspect the key concept is the cost of the debt, not just the quantity of debt. I can't find figures, but I'm pretty sure the cost (say 10 year bond yields) went up substantially in the period.

 

[dandelion]

A striking graph.

I suspect the key concept is the cost of the debt, not just the quantity of debt. I can't find figures, but I'm pretty sure the cost (say 10 year bond yields) went up substantially in the period.

Wouldnt like to say how much was 10 year debt if a lot of it was war bonds probably very long term. Whatever the interest, it did keep getting repaid.


Todays joy: Cameron saying there was all the more reason to reelect him since he had not done as well as he claimed last week. Seems the worse he does, the more we should vote for him?

 

[billybollocks]

OMG whts become of me, its Friday night and I'm reading about politics and checking out graphs!!

Cool thread

 

[Jason]

OMG whts become of me, its Friday night and I'm reading about politics and checking out graphs!!

Cool thread

I've just read your post twice. I think it's Tuesday night. Of course it's possible that all the politics has addled my brain and I've missed three days.

But what ever day it is it's still early eve. Go paint the town red - and remember to vote blue.

 

[rbkwp]

Politicians busy elsewhere. no politicians, no wars.
playing under the shady tree'

wonder
if Ed inhaled. get my vote for sure, (colonials CAN vote/Cam said)
be speaking a truth
if asked/admitted
Boris for sure, even harder stuff i assume
(and some want him to lead the Cons ... 2020)

anyway

unlike Cam the man no way migrant Jose, would he even know,of such a dastardly thing..
huh/duh .. your turn Jason'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6No8QH-l28

 

[dandelion]

But what ever day it is it's still early eve. Go paint the town red - and remember to vote blue.

worried someone who stops and thinks might vote red?

 

[dandelion]

Interesting little piece on the radio interviewed some people eligible to vote who werent going to. Their complete lack of knowledge on politics did explain quite why political parties lie so blatantly. Their lies are only blatant if you have some background to compare them with. If you don't then you might in fact believe them!

Oh how absurd, the conservatives want a law saying they cannot increase tax for 5 years? Talk about the ultimate stunt! they want a law saying government is not allowed to govern! Would be a shame if we had a sudden war, or another bank crash, and suddenly needed lots of money. Well... in that case....maybe repeal the law...maybe have a new budget...remember that? the annual law passed to raise money which replaces the law made the year before? .. A stupid stunt designed to further confuse those electors?

 

[superbot]

Anyone know why the leader of Her Majesties opposition would lower himself to pay a visit to Russell Brand in the middle of an election campaign??
Are we really at that low ebb!?

 

[dandelion]

Anyone know why the leader of Her Majesties opposition would lower himself to pay a visit to Russell Brand in the middle of an election campaign??
Are we really at that low ebb!?

I would think because brand made a lot of sense. Fundamentally, why vote for any party when they are universally unrepresentative?

Am interested to see what they had to say, but I take it Milliband was seeking to make a case why it is worth voting. If you think persuading people to vote is 'really at that low ebb', then maybe you agree with him voting just isnt worth doing.

Michael Gove on the radio just now explaining why we should pay MPs to sit about passing a law saying they arent allowed to change their minds (but only on the subject of raising taxes) during the next parliament. The radio just played a clip of Osborn saying in parliament that the labour party was daft to be doing something similar when they were in power. Gove said that was completely different. Interviewer asked Gove what the penalty would be for breaking the law...and he didnt know.

So back to Brand, why oh why are these people worth electing to carry on this pantomime?

I dont agree with Brand about not voting at all, but most people in this country would be correct to conclude their vote is very unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. Its a choice between bad and worse. Brand is really saying the system has wholly failed, and the best way to express this is to boycott the proceedings entirely.

 

[superbot]

I would think because brand made a lot of sense. Fundamentally, why vote for any party when they are universally unrepresentative?

Am interested to see what they had to say, but I take it Milliband was seeking to make a case why it is worth voting. If you think persuading people to vote is 'really at that low ebb', then maybe you agree with him voting just isnt worth doing.

Michael Gove on the radio just now explaining why we should pay MPs to sit about passing a law saying they arent allowed to change their minds (but only on the subject of raising taxes) during the next parliament. The radio just played a clip of Osborn saying in parliament that the labour party was daft to be doing something similar when they were in power. Gove said that was completely different. Interviewer asked Gove what the penalty would be for breaking the law...and he didnt know.

So back to Brand, why oh why are these people worth electing to carry on this pantomime?

I dont agree with Brand about not voting at all, but most people in this country would be correct to conclude their vote is very unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. Its a choice between bad and worse. Brand is really saying the system has wholly failed, and the best way to express this is to boycott the proceedings entirely.

But Brand is just a twitter mouth rent-a-gob.He represents no one.I doubt if anyone takes any notice of him in much the same way people (hopefully) would not take notice of any of the celeb community A-Z.
Besides where's the dignity of Milliband visiting him,surely the other way round? ... Not good PR.

 

[798686]

I heard Nicola Sturgeon's interview with Andrew Marr the other day... she came across quite well.

I have 2 (quite large) problems with her though: 1/ She wants to destroy the UK. 2/ Her economic policies are naive, don't add up, and would be devastating.

Cameron made a good point, in that she's never likely to say 'Hmm, this coalition with Labour is working really well, maybe a Scotland within the UK, represented in Government by SNP, might work'. She's still basically all about Scotland leaving, and shafting rUK.

She also made quite clear any decisions she made in Government would be to the benefit of Scotland (and benefit the UK only so far as good decisions overall would be to Scotland's advantage). I'm not sure a party with interest so overwhelmingly concerned with one part of the country would be any use in a national government.

 

[Jason]

But Brand is just a twitter mouth rent-a-gob.He represents no one.I doubt if anyone takes any notice of him in much the same way people (hopefully) would not take notice of any of the celeb community A-Z.
Besides where's the dignity of Milliband visiting him,surely the other way round? ... Not good PR.

Miliband seems to be courting the anti-establishment vote. Brand has a past of heroin addiction and a personal morality that most find shocking, yet it is precisely these qualities that have made him an anti-establishment icon. He represents the sort of destructive values that would like to see a Miliband-SNP coalition of chaos because it might be fun to watch, and who cares about the avoidable human misery that it would cause.

The polls (for England and Wales) are presently showing about a third for Conservative, a third for Labour and a third for others. In almost all constituencies a vote for "others" is simply a wasted vote. In effect a third of people are planning to vote for sound economic policies which will lead to prosperity and maximise human happiness (ie vote Conservative) and two-thirds are planning to vote for Miliband-SNP to wreck our coalition, our economy and our country. It's as if we're a nation of heroin addicts. And this is precisely the Brand self-harm model. I think it probably does help Labour to hitch their image to his. Perhaps they should look at Brand as next Labour party leader.

 

[Jason]

She's still basically all about Scotland leaving, and shafting rUK.

Scotland leaving the Union would undoubtedly damage rUK. But it would be cataclysmic for Scotland and the people of Scotland. Sturgeon and Salmond know this. They are both pro-SNP and anti-Scot. SNP is the party that so hates Scotland that it wants to destroy it.

 

[rbkwp]

like awaiting Armageddon'

RT
reporting Boris bro to help Cam the Con in the finals week


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wO8toxinoc

 

[dandelion]

But Brand is just a twitter mouth rent-a-gob.He represents no one.

perhaps he represents the 30% who do not feel its worth voting and never do? Hard to say exactly how many people are really commited to either labour or conservative, but judging by their membership its only a couple of million. Less than 5% of the population?

I doubt if anyone takes any notice of him

It seems many people have taken note. One reason is no doubt because he is willing to stand up and articulate his views. cameron clearly is afraid to take him on, but Milliband was willing to make a case for voting. But then.... almost certainly Cameron feels he would have more votes cast against him than for him, if Brand supporters decide to turn out. It might be good for democracy, but bad for him.

Brand has a past of heroin addiction and a personal morality that most find shocking,

You really think so?Well, perhaps 'most' do. But I expect as many do not find his behaviour shocking as will vote conservatives in a weeks time.

like awaiting Armageddon'[/QUOTE] Ever read 'Good Omens' by Gaiman and Pratchett?Armageddon more likely to run exactly as predicted by Brand...no change whatever the result.

I have 2 (quite large) problems with her though: 1/ She wants to destroy the UK.

She knows she cannot. She also knows westminster cannot either allow or prevent Scottish independence. That is in the hands of the Scottish people, and it is them she has to convince. She has a difficult path, because SNP supporters will include many who do not want independence, but do want a party speaking for Scotland. The more she gains for Scotland, the more she weakens her case for independence. To have a big row with labour and thereby bring down a left inclined government over a trivial issue would likely go down badly at home so I would anticipate she will cooperate very well with labour. Her aim will be to demonstrate competence in government.

2/ Her economic policies are naive, don't add up, and would be devastating.

Someone today said much the same about Cameron and the conservatives. But they also pointed out that the Conservative manifesto was not written to be implemented. They stand virtually no chance of an outright win. So its intended to passify right wing voters, they do not expect to have to implement it. The great thing about the liberals for Cameron is they have been an excuse to do what he wanted rather than what his manifesto said.

She also made quite clear any decisions she made in Government would be to the benefit of Scotland (and benefit the UK only so far as good decisions overall would be to Scotland's advantage). I'm not sure a party with interest so overwhelmingly concerned with one part of the country would be any use in a national government.

An interesting perspective, but in what ways do Scotland's aims differ from the Uk as a whole?

 

[superbot]

Maybe Nick Clegg is going to pay a midnight visit to Lauren Harries ??

 

[dandelion]

An interesting program on the rail system in the UK made some points which are relevant though not necessarily new. Network rail has a debt of 30bn anticipated to rise to 100bn. Uk privatised rail system is 40% less efficient than any european railways. It is noticeably less efficient than its northern Irish counterpart, which is still state run. Subsidies have doubled since privatisation. The program quoted an example that it took Virgin Trains 2 years to get agreement to split one of their trains and send the two halves to separate destinations on the quiet end of the run. The division into track maintenance, train providers and train operators has split responsibility between different groups so no one is in charge. Arguably the government ought to be since it is putting in 1/3 the running costs, yet it simply says it has appointed contractors and its up to them. Complete bollox up, and interestingly Thatcher refused to allow privatisation to happen. (It was Major)

Trends for the UK economy are that growth is shrinking. The US is doing even worse, which suggests that matters in the Uk will follow that trend. Europe is hardly doing well. Russia is in chaos. China...etc. Whoever wins this election can anticipate a risk of recession again in a years time. This begs the question of what the government will do about it, if it has promised not to raise taxes. It seriously begs the question of whether the conservatives record would lead anyone to want them back.

Comment partly on this by Robert Peston. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498460 He made a point I found amusing. Id conservatives believe an act of parliament is needed to force them to keep to their manifesto commitments on taxation, surely this means they cannot be trusted at all on anything without this backing!

The big flaw in conservative policy is a refusal to tax the rich. It seems increasingly clear they intend slashing tax credits.

 

[798686]

She knows she cannot. She also knows westminster cannot either allow or prevent Scottish independence. That is in the hands of the Scottish people, and it is them she has to convince. She has a difficult path, because SNP supporters will include many who do not want independence, but do want a party speaking for Scotland. The more she gains for Scotland, the more she weakens her case for independence. To have a big row with labour and thereby bring down a left inclined government over a trivial issue would likely go down badly at home so I would anticipate she will cooperate very well with labour. Her aim will be to demonstrate competence in government.

An interesting perspective, but in what ways do Scotland's aims differ from the Uk as a whole?

Interesting points Dand.

Re: the last sentence - they probably don't, significantly. But having someone in government who grants your wishes only when they coincide with Scotland's is a bit of a gamble. Some of the EU's interests are similar to Britain's, but I doubt they'd appoint Jase to the Commission in order to find out...

 

[Jason]

The big flaw in conservative policy is a refusal to tax the rich. It seems increasingly clear they intend slashing tax credits.

The day comes when children are old enough to be told that Father Christmas doesn't exist. Labour and their supporters need to be told there is no Father Christmas.

1) It is not possible to tax the rich. It is possible to encourage them to pay some tax on what is in effect a voluntary basis, but that's it.
2) It is possible to tax the poor.
3) It is possible to tax the middle, but may be stupid to do so. The middle are in effect the people creating wealth.

Tax will always hit the poorest hardest, and the biggest burden of tax will always be on the poorest. The correct approach is therefore to reduce all tax. The tax needs to be reduced at all levels. The most important is probably the top to encourage some voluntary payment of tax. However the only way to help the poorest is to cut tax, all tax.

 

[dandelion]

having someone in government who grants your wishes only when they coincide with Scotland's is a bit of a gamble. Some of the EU's interests are similar to Britain's, but I doubt they'd appoint Jase to the Commission in order to find out...

the Uk appoints a commisioner, so thats not so impossible.

I asked where you reckon scots and english aims diverge, because your question is a huge red herring if those interests never do diverge. Obviously they do diverge to some extent, because if scotland gets more money, someone else gets less. But that is hardly news. in the 300 odd conservative MPs there are already 300 parties vying to get some benefit for their own region. Our local conservative MP claims credit for a new road.

The big claim against SNP where their policy differs from the conservatives is with regard to tax and spend. Both parties would argue their policy is in the best interests of the Uk as a whole. SNP do not believe there should be one policy for Scotland and a different one for england. Contrariwise, SNP and Labour both agree that the conservatives have the balance wrong. This attack on the SNP by conservatives is therefore really a dressed up version of the attack on Labour, really on the principle behind their choice of tax/spend and what sectors of society benefit or lose.

It is also a racist attack, whipping up fears that England is being ruled from abroad, which is exactly the argument against the EU. Pure nonsense. There is a clear majority in the commons now, and no doubt in a fortnight, where 170 or so labour MPs would be happy to agree with 170 or so conservatives of very similar views and form a consensus government. What is stopping them is the pretense they do not agree.