The chaos of Ed

[hermit]

The Tories are definitely applying the fear tactics that worked so well in the Scottish referendum. Today we have the letter from business leaders supporting the Tories and warning that any “change in course” would “put the recovery at risk”. Surely not as much as the Tory promise of a referendum on staying in the EU. A potential EU exit would pose a much larger risk to our economic security than a Labour government imho.

 

[Mick P]

Chaps

Surely it is about time we brought some realism into this topic.

1. The general election is less than 6 weeks away.

2. Most of us here are over the age of 45 and have already decided which way we are going to vote.

3. If a 45 plus year old has not yet decided which way he is going to vote, then frankly he is a dumb bugger who should not be allowed to walk the streets.

4. Most right wingers ignore what the left wingers say.

5. Most left wingers ignore what the right wingers say.

6. Most supporters of the LibDems, UKIP and the Greens just think everyone else is thick.

7. The scope for changing someone elses mind is all but zero.

8. Discussing this topic is a total waste of our time, it produces nothing except hot air.

9. Say your piece once and leave it at that, therefore this is my one and only contribution to this thread.

So vote for whoever you support and then we can sort out the inevitable mess of a hung Parliament afterwards when everyone will accuse every party (except the one they voted for) of being an unprincipled turncoat. Also those who voted will inevitably claim non voters have no right to complain, so it is all very predictable and boring.

Regards

Mick

 

[Barrymagrec]

I hate it when I have to agree with you, Mick.

 

[Colin L]

Sadly I agree too.

What really irks about this whole process is the blatant lies being spouted by all parties (but mostly the Tories) and the bias in the MSM especially the daily rags. The biggest misconception is that we need strong government and a party with a majority to run the country. Personally I want a splintering of the parties and a many headed coalition so that the buggers can do as little as possible. We can then get away from the elected dictatorship that produces major swings in policy from government to government.

 

[KC Cantiaci]

Sadly I agree too.

What really irks about this whole process is the blatant lies being spouted by all parties (but mostly the Tories) and the bias in the MSM especially the daily rags. The biggest misconception is that we need strong government and a party with a majority to run the country. Personally I want a splintering of the parties and a many headed coalition so that the buggers can do as little as possible. We can then get away from the elected dictatorship that produces major swings in policy from government to government.

On that basis, might be better served with a PR based system to get accurate representation in parliament so that coalitions can be formed on voter percentages as opposed to seats......so LibDem then?

 

[The Far North]

On that basis, might be better served with a PR based system to get accurate representation in parliament so that coalitions can be formed on voter percentages as opposed to seats......so LibDem then?

We have PR in Scotland and it was drawn up to ensure that no party would ever have an overall majority, yet the SNP managed just that. The irony is that this system gives Tories a level of representation they could only dream of, to such an extent that their leader Ruth Davidson uttered these immortal words on 7 Jan this year:

Ms Davidson has also set a target to increase her party's share of the vote in Scotland, where it has just one MP.

She said the first-past-the-post system had held the Scottish Tories back.

 

[KC Cantiaci]

We have PR in Scotland and it was drawn up to ensure that no party would ever have an overall majority, yet the SNP managed just that. The irony is that this system gives Tories a level of representation they could only dream of, to such an extent that their leader Ruth Davidson uttered these immortal words on 7 Jan this year:

Ms Davidson has also set a target to increase her party's share of the vote in Scotland, where it has just one MP.

She said the first-past-the-post system had held the Scottish Tories back.

No system will ever ensure that a single party wouldn't have a majority because it depends on how the voters vote. But the idea is that if 10% of the population voted Tory, they should have 10% representation whether the rest like it or not as that is the makeup of the country. I am a believer in the idea that PR does encourage the electorate to a) vote and b) vote for their beliefs as opposed to the current system that in some/a lot of areas, it discourages votes in strong seats due to the belief that there's no point and/or tactical voting.....which is a nonsense and shouldn't exist today imo.

 

[Colin L]

On that basis, might be better served with a PR based system to get accurate representation in parliament so that coalitions can be formed on voter percentages as opposed to seats......so LibDem then?

PR is certainly preferred to the broken system we have now with all the major parties bought and paid for by big business and finance.

Unfortunately Libdem are going to be made to pay for sucking up to the Tories for the past five years just to keep their ministerial perks. If the Libdems had any balls at all they would have told the Tories to take a hike a year in after it became clear their big society tosh was exactly that.

 

[auric]

Only under Dave http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...romillions-lottery-draw-second-time-two-years

 

[Colin L]

From Mainlymacro.....

For those of you that swallow the myth that Tories are more competent with the economy that Labour....growth in GDP / head for the last 60 odd years. I was taught this at Uni doing Economics 35 years ago

Notice the growth trend really doesn't differ whichever party was in power, except for the past 5 years when we have Tory doctrine-driven completely unnecessary austerity.

 

[KC Cantiaci]

PR is certainly preferred to the broken system we have now with all the major parties bought and paid for by big business and finance.

Unfortunately Libdem are going to be made to pay for sucking up to the Tories for the past five years just to keep their ministerial perks. If the Libdems had any balls at all they would have told the Tories to take a hike a year in after it became clear their big society tosh was exactly that.

I feel sorry for the LibDems tbh..... I think they have done a pretty good job as a brake on what might have been. People amount some key policy u-turns like tuition fees but what could they do as the junior party in power? If the LibDems had control and then raised tuition fees, then I could understand the heavy criticism. If anything, their stint as part of the coalition might have give them more insight as to what can and can't be done whilst in government as opposed to being able to criticise from the sidelines. To that end, it might benefit them in the long run.

 

[KC Cantiaci]

From Mainlymacro.....

For those of you that swallow the myth that Tories are more competent with the economy that Labour....growth in GDP / head for the last 60 odd years. I was taught this at Uni doing Economics 35 years ago

Notice the growth trend really doesn't differ whichever party was in power, except for the past 5 years when we have Tory doctrine-driven completely unnecessary austerity.

Like to see that going back to 1900 to see the effect of the last Great Recession.

 

[matthewr]

Like to see that going back to 1900 to see the effect of the last Great Recession.

We've known that the UK recovery has been worse than the 1930s for some time.

And here are all the major recessions and who long they took to get back to zero on one graph:

And here Osborne takes on France

 

[matthewr]

And in case you missed it

Summary

In the week before the dissolution of Parliament, the Centre for Macroeconomics asked its panel of experts about the effects of governments on aggregate economic activity.

The great majority of respondents disagree with the proposition that the coalition government’s austerity policies have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity. And an overwhelming majority of respondents agree that the outcome of the general election (assuming a stable government is formed) will have non-trivial consequences for economic activity.

The policies of the coalition government

Question 1: Do you agree that the austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK?

Summary of responses

The great majority disagree or disagree strongly with the proposition. Of the 50 economists in the survey, 33 responded: two thirds disagree or strongly disagree that coalition policies have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity. To be precise, no one strongly agrees, 15% agree, 18% neither agree nor disagree, 33% disagree and 33% strongly disagree. Ignoring those who sat on the fence, 19% agree and 81% disagree with the proposition.

http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity

 

[Paul R]

And here Osborne takes on France

Your charts are all rather unsatisfactorily obfuscated in their axes, but this one appears to show Labour doing much worse than France and the Coalition doing rather better, especially recently.

Paul

 

[matthewr]

The Recession was more severe in the UK given our greater dependency on Financial Services.

Yes the coalition have been doing better since adopting Plan B towards the end of 2012.

 

[Brian]

The Recession was more severe in the UK given our greater dependency on Financial Services.

Yes the coalition have been doing better since adopting Plan B towards the end of 2012.

It's clear in the graph, but is it clear for everyone?

 

[Paul R]

Yes the coalition have been doing better since adopting Plan B towards the end of 2012.

So what happened in France at the beginning of 2011?

You do seem to have a touching faith in mechanistic economics, that growth can always be bought.

Paul

 

[Mullardman]

Not really. It's one of, if not, the biggest topic of concern for the electorate and hence one of the main political battlegrounds as far as this election is concerned so how can you dismiss it?

Of course it's important to think about the country we want to live in and how it treats its citizens but unfortunately, the funds to pay for the infrastructure to support a growing population comes from the economy. Confidence comes via the economy. It's all intrinsically linked together.

Possibly I didn't express myself very clearly, but I didn't 'dismiss' the economy.

Obviously, we have an economy, and we want it to be healthy. But I for one am not interested in an economy which can only be healthy at the expense of the masses. One which depends upon low wages and services for the majority, in order to maintain and increase the wealth of the few does not interest me.

Nor is it inevitable.


Mull

 

[Greg]

Paul, do you have any evidence that "austerity" is effective during a recession or depression?