Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why the government should not reduce spending in a recession is that a recession comes about when private business is contracting, spending less on salaries, investment and research, etc. All that unspent money results in further contraction as people are thrown out of work, firms get reduced orders for goods and services, and so on in a vicious circle.

One effect of the contraction is reduced tax receipts leading to an increased deficit.

This effect can be offset by the government spending to get the economy moving again.

The conservatives were in fact forced to do this in the form of quantitative easing when their policy of austerity failed in the first couple of years.

The important thing in the long term is to get the economy growing, get people back to work with growing incomes, and eventually the government can run a surplus and pay down the national debt.

This is the theory under Keynesian economics, at least. And for a long time, it worked. Unfortunately, the mutation in the state of economics shifting to a more globalised form has resulted in the above becoming far less certain, and you take the risk of introducing large scale quantitative easing and taking large debts for none of the promised payoff. These things no longer guarantee a return to growth.

I can't say austerity is necessarily the best policy, but Keynesian economics were based on an economic model half a century out of date now. The truth is, all governments are more or less just flailing around and hoping that something they try will work, because none of them (or any economist) really has any clue what necessarily works anymore.

What rapid increase? starting from the massive spike in the 50's after WW2 bankrupted the UK and repaying of war debt to the USA and massive public spending to rebuild the country, debt as a % of GDP has continued to fall sharply simply because we werent shoveling cash into the furnace to rebuild.

Taking that graph from more recent history of about 1960- today, we see a different picture, debt as a % levels off circe the mid 60's, falls again under labour but this was also during the period of the 3 day week, winter of discontent and massive strike action, again around the early-mid seventies debt reduction levels off for about 6 years, then we get the Thatcher Tory Gt, we see debt start to fall rapidly (it halves from50% to 25% of GDP) between 1982 and 1992, the Thatcher and Major governments.

We then get to Labours landslide in 1997, all the reduction in deficit which was turned into a surplus under Major! was undone in about 5 years, it then dips again under blairs second term, then under gordon Browns tenure, where the more left elements of old labour begin to come back after the new labour PM leaves, debt spikes massively and we return to 75% debt of GDP. The highest it had been for over 45 years.

What part of that debt spike was under the tory govt, oh yes, the bit where the curve dipped sharply, and the sharp increase....yes, after 15 years of labour over spending.

Granted the banking\sub prime crisis happened which made it much worse, but even Blair admits they should have been reigning in the spending about 2005, but they carried on regardless and left a poisoned chalice for the tories to deal with, and surprise surprise, the electorate dont like cuts and tax increaes, and are upset that the tories couldnt fix the largest % debt in 60 years in under 5 years.

But carrying on the methods that got us into this debt crisis again under labour, that will reduce the deficit.....

I'll be voting for the lib dems )though I live in a very safe tody seat) but their policies appeal the most to me.

I think the key to me is having a coalition, but a centrist one, a coalition of SNP/labour or Tory/UKIP is a disaster.

Only particular types of spending help. None of the areas Labour have said they want to increase spending in are going to help for growth.

The infrastructure spending by the Conservatives is though.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not that quick on the uptake when it comes to understanding the figures and what it all means. So I had a hunt around and found a BBC article on the subject:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

Now to my simple brain / understanding it would appear to be all pie in the sky. There is no way on this earth that we will actually ever clear the debt, even if we control the deficit. The article sates that we were in surplus with regard to the deficit for long periods of time... still managed to rack up the debt though. Again, as I said, I not quick on getting my head around this stuff, but it doesn't look like tightening our belts for 10 years will make any difference what so ever. It's not like focusing on clearing off your large credit card bill. Say the Tories got were in power for the next ten years and implemented their deficit reduction plan, what would that actually mean in the real world?

 Wolfstan wrote:
I'm the first to admit that I'm not that quick on the uptake when it comes to understanding the figures and what it all means. So I had a hunt around and found a BBC article on the subject:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

Now to my simple brain / understanding it would appear to be all pie in the sky. There is no way on this earth that we will actually ever clear the debt, even if we control the deficit. The article sates that we were in surplus with regard to the deficit for long periods of time... still managed to rack up the debt though. Again, as I said, I not quick on getting my head around this stuff, but it doesn't look like tightening our belts for 10 years will make any difference what so ever. It's not like focusing on clearing off your large credit card bill. Say the Tories got were in power for the next ten years and implemented their deficit reduction plan, what would that actually mean in the real world?

The countries credit rating can go down if it looks to creditors that you're not properly servicing the debt. In which case they'll increase the interest rates and lend money less freely.

If we have a balanced budget cost of lending can go down. Saving money and also allows business in the UK better access to credit, more businesses means more jobs, means more money in tax.

To add to my above post, this shows why debt will be so bad for so long, and that the Tories ARE reducing the debt in the last couple of years, but it will take a long time.

https://blogs.city.ac.uk/autumnstatement13/files/2013/12/graph-debt-and-deficit-xugxyd-1024x625.jpg

 Reaver83 wrote:
I'll be voting for the lib dems )though I live in a very safe tody seat) but their policies appeal the most to me.

I think the key to me is having a coalition, but a centrist one, a coalition of SNP/labour or Tory/UKIP is a disaster.

Out of interest, what is it you find appealing about a centrist government, as opposed to something more left or right?

To me, centerism is a large part of why our politics in the UK are so stale, and why there is so much voter apathy based on the argument that 'they're all the same anyway'. As the former left and right wing parties have come closer to the centre of the spectrum, and it has become harder to actually discern the difference between a Labour and Conservative policy in many cases (especially during a term as opposed to during an election campaign), all the vigour and meaning of politics is being sucked away.

Centerism to me says (the case of the LDs styling the themselves as actual centrists) that 'we don't actually have any policy or intent, we're here just to get into power', or (in the case of Lab/Con moving closer to the centre) 'we'll abandon the founding principles of our party ideology if it looks like we can appear more appealing and get into power'. The divide closes, and we start talking about coalitions like they're the best/normal outcome, and to me that's not right. To me, a coalition (unless it's a proper Left+left or Right+right one), means that someone, somewhere, is selling out their ideals for a shot at power.

Centerism doesn't seem healthy to me, either for government itself or how politics as a whole is perceived in the UK.

(By the way, please don't take any of this as an attack on your views, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you'd prefer a centrist coalition to a more left/right leaning one.)

 Paradigm wrote:

 Reaver83 wrote:
I'll be voting for the lib dems )though I live in a very safe tody seat) but their policies appeal the most to me.

I think the key to me is having a coalition, but a centrist one, a coalition of SNP/labour or Tory/UKIP is a disaster.

Out of interest, what is it you find appealing about a centrist government, as opposed to something more left or right?

To me, centerism is a large part of why our politics in the UK are so stale, and why there is so much voter apathy based on the argument that 'they're all the same anyway'. As the former left and right wing parties have come closer to the centre of the spectrum, and it has become harder to actually discern the difference between a Labour and Conservative policy in many cases (especially during a term as opposed to during an election campaign), all the vigour and meaning of politics is being sucked away.

Centerism to me says (the case of the LDs styling the themselves as actual centrists) that 'we don't actually have any policy or intent, we're here just to get into power', or (in the case of Lab/Con moving closer to the centre) 'we'll abandon the founding principles of our party ideology if it looks like we can appear more appealing and get into power'. The divide closes, and we start talking about coalitions like they're the best/normal outcome, and to me that's not right. To me, a coalition (unless it's a proper Left+left or Right+right one), means that someone, somewhere, is selling out their ideals for a shot at power.

Centerism doesn't seem healthy to me, either for government itself or how politics as a whole is perceived in the UK.

(By the way, please don't take any of this as an attack on your views, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you'd prefer a centrist coalition to a more left/right leaning one.)

Probably because in truth most of us don't really care about the day to day stuff, which in reality means that in our hearts most of us are happy with boring politics. Do I have a job? Can I pay the mortgage? Can I get medical treatment when I need it? Are my kids be educated the best way? I would imagine for a lot of people that is all that really matters on a day to day basis.

I think I mentioned it before, not sure, but for me and my wife I have to say that all the stuff you see in the news hasn't really impacted us in any bad way. Both of us work, or mortgage is small (so interest rate drop was great for us), education doesn't really affect us and had no real problems getting medical treatment. So day to day, meh!?!

Outside of that I do believe that the vulnerable should be protected, we should be able to defend ourselves and help other peoples that need help, that education should be open to all, that everybody pays what is due tax wise, and that the NHS should be free. With regard to immigration, I say you have to of been working here for a year before you have entitlement to it (emergency treatment aside). I also believe that A&E is only for emergencies, anything else and you are turned away, however these visits are recorded. This means that they can then be looked into to see if there is actually a problem with access to GP surgeries or it's just bloody laziness/impatience.

So when it comes to voting those are the sort of things I look at, even if I've not been affected by any of it personally.

I think personally going to far either way be both damaging socially and economically, taking as slightly extreme examples if we went for the Lab/SNP end of the spectrum, we would likely have bloated public services costing us lots ( as an NHS employee odd i know) conversely cutting all spending to benefits from a Con/UKIP area would cause huge suffering to those who need it most.

Honestly I think we need more cuts - but with compassion and care, and also need more spending, but not recklessly and irresponsibly.

One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.

 Wolfstan wrote:
One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.

I agree,

I'm also in favour of NHS privatisation really, if it's done correctly.

I think a hybrid system where the state owns the hospitals and has a set of private contractors bid for the running of the hospitals. The contract is given to the best company for the job. If they do well they keep their contract, if they do poorly another company comes in takes control.

That way we don't have such huge admin fees to keep the thing running, Politicians aren't meant to manage hospitals really are they?

Thanks for the answers.

@wolfstan very fair point, I can certainly see how 'boring' politics are no worry so long as you can go on living as normal regardless of government.

@Reaver: so basically, you don't trust the parties at either end of the spectrum to act in moderation, so a centre coalition that keeps both sides in check is a better option? Fair enough, can't argue with that!


I freely admit that I am something of an idealist when it comes to politics, hence why personally I think the bigger the gap between left and right the better (obviously remaining within the bounds of reason, I'm not saying our choice should be fascist or communist at the polls!), and why I'd rather have a Left or Right majority in government with a strong stance than a potentially more 'stable' centre coalition. But I can certainly see why others disagree.

How does this show Tory economic management in a good light?

It doesn't.

There's always been this myth that Labour bankrupts the country, whilst the Conservatives clean up the mess.

I remember the John Major days and the complete humiliation of Black Wednesday.

That happened on the Tory's watch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.

I agree,

I'm also in favour of NHS privatisation really, if it's done correctly.

I think a hybrid system where the state owns the hospitals and has a set of private contractors bid for the running of the hospitals. The contract is given to the best company for the job. If they do well they keep their contract, if they do poorly another company comes in takes control.

That way we don't have such huge admin fees to keep the thing running, Politicians aren't meant to manage hospitals really are they?

They tried that hybrid system in Scotland under the Labour regime at the Scottish parliament - it was a complete disaster!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfstan wrote:
One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.

We can safely assume you're not in favour of HS2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Thanks for the answers.

@wolfstan very fair point, I can certainly see how 'boiring' politics are no worry so long as you can go on living as normal regardless of government.

@Reaver: so basically, you don't trust the parties at either end of the spectrum to act in moderation, so a centre coalition that keeps both sides in check is a better option? Fair enough, can't argue with that!


I freely admit that I am something of an idealist when it comes to politics, hence why personally I think the bigger the gap between left and right the better (obviously remaining within the bounds of reason, I'm not saying our choice should be fascist or communist at the polls!), and why I'd rather have a Left or Right majority in government with a strong stance than a potentially more 'stable' centre coalition. But I can certainly see why others disagree.

That gap between left and right died in the 1980s. Since then, everybody's been trying to occupy the middle, which is why all the parties are so similar, and why none can command a majority.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That gap between left and right died in the 1980s. Since then, everybody's been trying to occupy the middle, which is why all the parties are so similar, and why none can command a majority.

Everything is shifting left or left of centre.

The Conservative party are a joke.

The reason politics are so similar is that no progress can be made without some clamour for "free stuff". The Welfare state needs massively cut back.

We can safely assume you're not in favour of HS2?

I have some strong reservations about it. There seems to be no real benefit for it, apart from allowing commuters to get in to London quicker, from further out. It appears to be a big budget project that provides no real economic benefit... apart for those building it!

 Wolfstan wrote:

We can safely assume you're not in favour of HS2?

I have some strong reservations about it. There seems to be no real benefit for it, apart from allowing commuters to get in to London quicker, from further out. It appears to be a big budget project that provides no real economic benefit... apart for those building it!

That'd be my company, for the earthmoving at least (hopefully, if we get the contract)

You're better building these things before you need it though. This project will take years to complete. By the time it's done it will be more needed

People are focusing on the economics, which is important, but there's another point that tends to be overlooked: The Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

David Cameron can use this to stay in office if a hung parliament is returned on Thursday. In fact, he may be harder to shift than an alcoholic from a brewery.

Now, this may be good news for Conservative voters on this forum, but for the more sensible of us...

Anyway, Derek Bateman (former BBC reporter and pro-indy Scotland supporter) has done a very good piece of analysis on it IMO

Here's the link: http://derekbateman.co.uk/

and here are the main points. Yes, the author is pro-indy, but I think he raises some good points that should concern us all. If Cameron stays, it could be a MAJOR constitutional crisis.

The Cabinet Manual based on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and British custom and practice has a number of passages that were designed for democratic stability which can be twisted by a cunning politician to his own ends. Prime among them is: ‘Prime Ministers stay in office until they resign.’ Right there Cameron has the control over his own destiny. ‘It remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government.’ It adds ominously: ‘It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention.’

Furthering the case for a squatting David Cameron is this section: ‘Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons.’

But, but…he can’t stay on forever if he hasn’t got a majority, surely. No, he can’t, but on the other hand he has no need to resign unless the other parties can trump him by cobbling together a potential majority. ‘Where a range of different administrations could potentially be formed, political parties may wish to hold discussions to establish who is best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons and should form the next government.’

And here's the kicker:

The power vested in the sitting PM is spelled out by Colin Talbot, Professor of Government at Manchester University. ‘Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons. That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queen’s Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing.’

Like I say, Cameron could be very difficult to shift.

Ed, being Ed, has shoot himself in the foot (again) by refusing to work with the SNP. The one party could help him evict Cameron...

If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.

I agree. The point the article is making is that Miliband has played this so badly (allowing the Tory press to dictate to him about the SNP) that he has walked into a constitutional bear trap.

And all he had to do was leave open the possibility of working with the SNP.

Cameron holds the aces because Ed's strategy has been a mess.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.

I agree. The point the article is making is that Miliband has played this so badly (allowing the Tory press to dictate to him about the SNP) that he has walked into a constitutional bear trap.

And all he had to do was leave open the possibility of working with the SNP.

Cameron holds the aces because Ed's strategy has been a mess.

No one really wants the SNP in government, it was the right thing to do.

Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.

That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.

And seeing that's where the party was created...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.

That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.

And seeing that's where the party was created...

He's said he wouldn't before the votes are made. So at least voters know that.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.

That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.

And seeing that's where the party was created...

He's said he wouldn't before the votes are made. So at least voters know that.

Please, tell me you're not that naïve

You know as well as I do, that come Friday morning, if SNP + Labour = Ed in number 10, then Ed will be declaring his love for all things Scotland quicker than you can say Sean Connery

Also if the SNP fails to support genuinely left-wing policies put forward by a Labour govt they only damage themselves in the eyes of their own supporters.

Ugh can we just go and vote already? It feels like we're crawling slowly towards the 7th at this point lol.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Also if the SNP fails to support genuinely left-wing policies put forward by a Labour govt they only damage themselves in the eyes of their own supporters.

Thus, the cycle of the minority party in a coalition getting the short end of the stick begins again.

Aah UKIP, just when things were getting dull...

UKIP candidate Robert Blay suspended over shooting threat - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32595003

Sometimes I reckon Farage could do his party a lot of favours by pulling a Stalin and having a good 'purge' of nutters like this from his ranks.

But of course, that would mean copying one of those foreign people, and a Commie at that, and UKIP couldn't possibly be seen doing that!

More likely, if he purged all the nutters there would be a much smaller party at the end.

UKIP is essentially a party of pub bores, loudmouthed taxi drivers and generally speaking people with a vague discontent that has crystallized into suspicion of foreigners, etc.