Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BobG on April 03, 2015, 08:20:36 pm
-
Have a go at this link. It doesn't take long. It's really quite interesting. It gives your best match nationally, and in your own constituency. It's shocked me too. I thought I knew who I was best matched with. I was wrong. Turns out it's the Green's that best reflect my opinions. Handy that.....
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c07ffe/2d5d8b99/44a346ca/463419c6/3839151291/VEsF/
As an aside, the results from across everyone who's used this in my constituency show the LibDems on a whopping 7%, Green Party leading on 32% (which leads to some interesting thoughts) and UKIP on 24% (which also leads to some interesting thoughts). Tories are a long way behind the Greens and UKIP - but this is one of the safest Tory seats on the planet so that's a reflection of hope rather than reality.
BobG
-
81% Green, 63% Labour 45% Liberal democrat...
I did one in the Guardian the other day and I came out more towards the green side of life too. I guess if you believe in fairness and decency you do score like that... :whistle:
-
I did 38 degrees too. Also came out for the Greens, but no hope in my constituency. At least it gets me on the correct political spectrum.
-
It's no surprise to me you are all coming out as greens. I'm not surprised you didn't know you were greens. Most people on this forum are from the hard left and don't have a clue about economics. Hence why you are greens.
I came out 91% UKIP.
Get in.
-
It's no surprise to me you are all coming out as greens. I'm not surprised you didn't know you were greens. Most people on this forum are from the hard left and don't have a clue about economics. Hence why you are greens.
I came out 91% UKIP.
Get in.
I'm so sorry Mick.. What a horrible result..Bless your heart.
-
Thanks for this, I came out Green too, but am not surprised as I am a proper Liberal, not a Lib dem I hasten to add!!
I guess my sandals, unshaven appearance and veggie lifestyle are also clues.
Trouble is I live in Solhull where the greens are of the nimby variety rather than lentil lovers.
And IC1967 is only 91% UKIP, I guess he is a bit green too as he likes recycling his views.
-
"The current predicted chance of Plaid Cymru winning in Don Valley is less than 1%"
I've a feeling I might have worked that one out :)
-
73% ukip for me,though interestingly on a personal level was thst I showed at 51% for both Labour and Tory. One of these are likely to get into power and based on the results of the quiz it wouldnt make much difference to me which one gets in overall
-
If anyone has the time, I'd love to know what the LibDems score in your constituency from those who have done the poll. It's easy to find: just click on the 'consituency' button. I know this is no way a scientific sample, and probably isn't even statistically significant yet, but I'd like a chance to gloat at the fin de siecle foolishness of their leader.
As I said, in my constituency, they score 7%. Is that typical?
BobG
-
88% Conservative and 51% Liberal Democrat!
As we were then!
-
If anyone has the time, I'd love to know what the LibDems score in your constituency from those who have done the poll. It's easy to find: just click on the 'consituency' button. I know this is no way a scientific sample, and probably isn't even statistically significant yet, but I'd like a chance to gloat at the fin de siecle foolishness of their leader.
As I said, in my constituency, they score 7%. Is that typical?
BobG
Bob you really ought to let this drop, its like an old gramaphone record. He has done NOTHING different from many other leaders and their parties who have committed the same sins I.e over promising and not being in a fiscal position to deliver....do you think he would have thought that he and his Party would ever have to share power with the Tories. Labour cocked up by not taking them seriously ; they genuinely would have preferred to work with a minority Labour Govt.
Give it up it is puerile .
-
This hatred of Nick is totally illogical. What his haters quickly forget is that he was in the minor party in a coalition. Does anyone seriously think that in this position he should be able to implement the whole of his manifesto? Of course not. He dropped the tuition fees pledge. So what. He got plenty of his other policies through such as massively raising the threshold before you pay income tax. He has punched well above his weight. I say well done to the the bloke. He put the country first before political gain. He should be knighted.
Do any of you leftie haters really think that if Labour manage to form the next government with the help of the SNP that the SNP should be allowed to have the whole of their manifesto implemented? Get a grip for ffs.
-
"The current predicted chance of Plaid Cymru winning in Don Valley is less than 1%"
I've a feeling I might have worked that one out :)
Yes and also the SNP are at less than 1% to win as well
-
Hoola
Sorry mate but you are missing the point about Clegg and the LDs.
In May 2010, we had an era-defining choice. Did we go for hard Austerity and reducing the size if the State, or did we go for something much less rapid?
That wasn't a minor policy detail. It went right to the heart of what your core beliefs were. It's about what kind of country you want your grand kids to grow up in. Because the decision made in 2010 was going to have that length of effect.
There were principled, honest arguments to be made on both sides. There was no absolute "right" and "wrong".
The LDs campaigned hard on one side of that argument. And then, within days of the Election, they ditched the lot and signed up to the other side. Clegg himself is on record as saying that he "changed his mind" in the last few days before the Election. But he didn't tell anyone until afterwards.
You CANNOT DO THAT and retain any credence as a serious political party. You can't! You can renege on detailed policies. You can u-turn on less strategic stuff. But you cannot campaign on core philosophical issues, then argue afterwards that your philosophy was wrong and you've changed your mind.
THAT is why the LDs support suffered an utterly unprecedented collapse in the first 6 months after the Election. That has never, ever happened before to a party joining Government. That was the sound of 3million people asking themselves "What the f*** have I just voted for? What does this party actually believe in?"
The Tuition Fees issue is emblematic of the problem. It is the distillation of the "they say THIS but do THAT" criticism. But if it were just that one thing in isolation, it would be easy to ride out. All political parties jettison some things they've promised (although not many are so stupid as to video themselves signing pledges to do something, then do the opposite - that was really f**king dumb!) What no party ever does (and retains credibility) is to jettison their core belief. It happened to Labour under Ramsey MacDonald in the 1920s and it took a generation (and a World War) for them to regain credibility.
I said in May 2010 that the LDs were facing an existential crisis and that is exactly what we have witnessed for 5 years. It'll be another 30 before they get back to being taken seriously again, if they ever do.
-
I was surprised to see I agree with Green Party more than Labour too?
83% Green
53% Labour
41% LD
22% Cons
Little point in voting for anyone but Labour in Barnsley East I might add :whistle:
-
Hoola
Sorry mate but you are missing the point about Clegg and the LDs.
In May 2010, we had an era-defining choice. Did we go for hard Austerity and reducing the size if the State, or did we go for something much less rapid?
That wasn't a minor policy detail. It went right to the heart of what your core beliefs were. It's about what kind of country you want your grand kids to grow up in. Because the decision made in 2010 was going to have that length of effect.
There were principled, honest arguments to be made on both sides. There was no absolute "right" and "wrong".
The LDs campaigned hard on one side of that argument. And then, within days of the Election, they ditched the lot and signed up to the other side. Clegg himself is on record as saying that he "changed his mind" in the last few days before the Election. But he didn't tell anyone until afterwards.
You CANNOT DO THAT and retain any credence as a serious political party. You can't! You can renege on detailed policies. You can u-turn on less strategic stuff. But you cannot campaign on core philosophical issues, then argue afterwards that your philosophy was wrong and you've changed your mind.
THAT is why the LDs support suffered an utterly unprecedented collapse in the first 6 months after the Election. That has never, ever happened before to a party joining Government. That was the sound of 3million people asking themselves "What the f*** have I just voted for? What does this party actually believe in?"
The Tuition Fees issue is emblematic of the problem. It is the distillation of the "they say THIS but do THAT" criticism. But if it were just that one thing in isolation, it would be easy to ride out. All political parties jettison some things they've promised (although not many are so stupid as to video themselves signing pledges to do something, then do the opposite - that was really f***ing dumb!) What no party ever does (and retains credibility) is to jettison their core belief. It happened to Labour under Ramsey MacDonald in the 1920s and it took a generation (and a World War) for them to regain credibility.
I said in May 2010 that the LDs were facing an existential crisis and that is exactly what we have witnessed for 5 years. It'll be another 30 before they get back to being taken seriously again, if they ever do.
What planet are you on? We haven't had hard austerity. This government has borrowed more than all the previous Labour governments put together. The national debt has doubled in the last 5 years. Austerity? What austerity?
Let's also ignore the fact that darling's plans were virtually the same as the Tories.
You really don't have a clue what you are on about.
-
Having Mick on Ignore has many benefits. I highly recommend it.
One of the best ones is that, every time I see that he's contributed to what is otherwise an intelligent and reasoned discussion, I'm reminded of Harold Wilson's wittiest quip.
He received a memo from Tony Benn about economic policy when Wilson was PM in 1975. Benn asked for Wilson's opinions about his proposals. Wilson wrote a memo back. "I haven't read your proposals. I don't propose to do so. But I disagree with every aspect of them."
-
Having Mick on Ignore has many benefits. I highly recommend it.
One of the best ones is that, every time I see that he's contributed to what is otherwise an intelligent and reasoned discussion, I'm reminded of Harold Wilson's wittiest quip.
He received a memo from Tony Benn about economic policy when Wilson was PM in 1975. Benn asked for Wilson's opinions about his proposals. Wilson wrote a memo back. "I haven't read your proposals. I don't propose to do so. But I disagree with every aspect of them."
Hahahaha!!! It's nothing but leftie propaganda when you contribute. The level of debate is raised considerably when I get involved.
How on earth you can claim we've had hard austerity for 5 years when the government has doubled the national debt during this period is laughable in the extreme and just shows how financially illiterate you are. They borrowed more in their first 3 years than Labour did in their 13 years in office!
Hard austerity my arse. A government has never borrowed and spent so much.
-
no shock, all Tory for me. Still no idea who'll end up pm. I believe it'll be Milliband in a hung parliament despite polling less than the Tories.
-
Having Mick on Ignore has many benefits. I highly recommend it.
One of the best ones is that, every time I see that he's contributed to what is otherwise an intelligent and reasoned discussion, I'm reminded of Harold Wilson's wittiest quip.
He received a memo from Tony Benn about economic policy when Wilson was PM in 1975. Benn asked for Wilson's opinions about his proposals. Wilson wrote a memo back. "I haven't read your proposals. I don't propose to do so. But I disagree with every aspect of them."
Hahahaha!!! It's nothing but leftie propaganda when you contribute. The level of debate is raised considerably when I get involved.
How on earth you can claim we've had hard austerity for 5 years when the government has doubled the national debt during this period is laughable in the extreme and just shows how financially illiterate you are. They borrowed more in their first 3 years than Labour did in their 13 years in office!
Hard austerity my arse. A government has never borrowed and spent so much.
The austerity was the cuts they made. Because they then pissed away the savings they made instead of bringing the deficit down with them doesn't mean the austerity didn't happen.
-
Glyn
Bang on. We had really quite severe fiscal tightening in 2010-12, in particular on the capital budget. It was economic lunacy, and Osborne finally accepted that when he stopped the tightening in 2013, with the result that growth has come back.
But then it was never about the economics. Jeremy Warner, the economics editor of the Telegraph gave the game away after he'd been torn to pieces in an exchange about Austerity with Simon Wren-Lewis. He said he was sick of the economic arguments. Austerity was actually about cutting the size of the state. And that you can only do that in a crisis, when people are prepared to take hard medicine because they think it's good for them.
THAT is what Clegg did. He signed up for that agenda. And THAT is why he has finished off his party as a major vote-winning force for a generation.
-
Having Mick on Ignore has many benefits. I highly recommend it.
One of the best ones is that, every time I see that he's contributed to what is otherwise an intelligent and reasoned discussion, I'm reminded of Harold Wilson's wittiest quip.
He received a memo from Tony Benn about economic policy when Wilson was PM in 1975. Benn asked for Wilson's opinions about his proposals. Wilson wrote a memo back. "I haven't read your proposals. I don't propose to do so. But I disagree with every aspect of them."
Hahahaha!!! It's nothing but leftie propaganda when you contribute. The level of debate is raised considerably when I get involved.
How on earth you can claim we've had hard austerity for 5 years when the government has doubled the national debt during this period is laughable in the extreme and just shows how financially illiterate you are. They borrowed more in their first 3 years than Labour did in their 13 years in office!
Hard austerity my arse. A government has never borrowed and spent so much.
The austerity was the cuts they made. Because they then pissed away the savings they made instead of bringing the deficit down with them doesn't mean the austerity didn't happen.
What a load of gobbledygook. So are you saying the austerity finished in 2013?
-
Of course I'm not. Do try and keep up even if it is a strain for you.
-
£11.3 billion is how much the Tories have cut from the public sector, at an estimated cost of 500 000 jobs and who nows how many services, day care centres, libraries, schools, bus routes, etc that make life better. And the national debt still has gone up. And they have still had to borrow a record amount. And you trust their economic competence!!!
http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/local-government/key-issues/cuts-to-local-services/the-facts/
-
Glyn
Do you HAVE to quote his witterings when you reply? I'm enjoying being in blissful ignorance of the contents of his verbal diarrhoea. But when you quote him, I end up reading his idiocy and it has to be slapped down.
So yes Mick I AM saying exactly that. The numbers are out there if you were EVER interested in looking.
(http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/wren01_3704_01.gif)
I'll explain it because I appreciate that you cannot see the bleeding obvious when it's right under your ignorant face.
The actual turn out of deficit reduction from 2010 to 2012 was much faster than the Govt had planned in June 2010. You'll remember what also happened in 2010-12. We had the worst recovery from recession for over 200 years, since the South Sea Bubble in fact.
Then you'll see a curious thing. In 2013, the deficit didn't come down at all. That's because Osborne started spending again. Because he knew he'd f**k the Tories chances in 2015 if the economy didn't get moving.
The economy got moving.
Osborne, being a consummate politician, insisted that he was sticking to Plan A.
Labour, being politically shit, didn't pick up on this.
A very small number of academic economists DID pick up on it. Simon Wren-Lewis, Jonathan Portes. They have screamed in their blogs about it and shown data from the OBR that demonstrates this unequivocably. The media, notably, has not shown the slightest interest. Wren-Lewis has had a long and vicious spat with Robert Peston about this.
And here's the rub. Osborne has won the political argument hands down. He claims that the recovery is DUE to deficit reduction. No-one in the media questions him. So NOW he says that the lesson is that we must have MORE Austerity after the Election.
It is political brilliance. Do B. Insist that you have done A. Claim that A has resulted in a wonderful outcome. Conclude that we must have more A.
And the REAL reason why he wants us to have more A is not due to the economics. That much is utterly unarguable, because A led to an economic catastrophe and we got no recovery till he did B. But A will achieve the political and philosophical aim of shrinking the state.
-
So let's get this straight. You are saying austerity ended in 2013. Mr Wigley is saying of course it didn't. Which is it?
-
For f**k's sake, your idiocy doesn't improve with ignoring you does it?
Of course Austerity didn't "End" in 2013. Go and look at that f**king graph and use your brain.
It was temporarily put on hold in 2013, long enough to get the economy kick-started to give the Tories a fighting chance in May 2015. Deficit reduction is planned to be far harsher in 2015-20 than it has been from 2010-15.
Now f**k off and stop annoying the grown-ups.
-
Mick you appear to have missed my post. To help you along I have a couple of questions:
Do you believe we have had a period of Austerity?
If yes - then what do you think to the economic competence of a government who cut £11b of public services, most from the vunerable in society and 500000 public sector jobs - and still managed to increase the national debt?
If no - then how else would you describe the cut of £11b of public services and 500000 people's jobs?
-
I have to say that the predictive bit at the end of the tool leaves something to be desired. It said that in Solihull the Lib Dems have 1% chance of winning the seat, the same as the SNP! The seat is currently held by the Lib Dems who, judging by the amount of bumf I've had through my letterbox, are fighting tooth and nail to keep it.
-
Mick you appear to have missed my post. To help you along I have a couple of questions:
Do you believe we have had a period of Austerity?
If yes - then what do you think to the economic competence of a government who cut £11b of public services, most from the vunerable in society and 500000 public sector jobs - and still managed to increase the national debt?
If no - then how else would you describe the cut of £11b of public services and 500000 people's jobs?
We most certainly have not had a period of austerity.
I would describe the cuts you mention as a small step in the right direction but nowhere near enough to get us living within our means.
Look. It's simple. We've spent many years living well beyond our means. The party is over. We are going through the hangover phase. I'd like the hangover to be dealt with more quickly. You lefties want to carry on having a party.
It's time you all sobered up.
-
Miliband for me is potentially the best leader, he does seem to be learning as he goes, but he is trying not to make promises he can't keep.
Clegg seems a decent man who made a promise without looking into whether it was possible he could deliver on it, sometimes politicians can't keep promises because things just aren't possible, other promise anything to get in, i think Clegg is the former, a decent man who made a mistake.
-
Miliband for me is potentially the best leader, he does seem to be learning as he goes, but he is trying not to make promises he can't keep.
Clegg seems a decent man who made a promise without looking into whether it was possible he could deliver on it, sometimes politicians can't keep promises because things just aren't possible, other promise anything to get in, i think Clegg is the former, a decent man who made a mistake.
I couldn't agree more Sammy, why would Clegg deliberately decide as a career politician to harm both his own reputation and that of his Party.
Just one question, has any other manifesto from the past, carried any broken promises in it .....I bet you EVERY one did and for various reasons. This broken promise was not caused by a party that was completely in control of government agenda am I missing summat here ?
-
Clegg is mainly reviled for his broken 'promise' on tuition fees. I think Labour would do well to remember who introduced them. I don't recall it being in their manifesto.
-
Hoola/Sammy
Fascinating interview with Clegg in The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21647826-full-transcript-our-interview-lib-dem-leader-which-he-discussed-his-partys-strategy?zid=462&ah=238e34b86abdcc232cbff7e3eaa9f972
A combination of brutally honest insights and some mendacity.
He gets it as to why the LDs have their existential crisis. He admits that they had decades of being ideologically "vague" and that they've been through a process of "hardening" their ideology. Trouble is, that is EXACTLY their problem. He thinks that will pay dividends eventually. In reality, it's lost them the one attraction that they used to have.
He's clearly given up on ever getting back the voters he has lost. He spends the first few paragraphs vitriolically slagging them off.
But the self-justifying mendacity that gets my goat is his justification of the coalition because "we could have ended up like Greece". That was his excuse in 2010. There was some reason for him to believe that then because there was still a debate about how the bond markets worked. But if there has been one economic certainty to come out of the last 5 years, it is that countries with their own currency were NEVER in danger of losing the confidence of the bond markets and "ending up like Greece."
For Clegg to repeat that now means he is either ignorant of the facts, a barefaced liar or simply in denial about the monumental decision he took in 2010 and trying to justify it to himself.
-
Sproty scored 58% UKIP 49% Tort 46 % Lib Dem 45 % Labour!
-
Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.
Cheers
BobG
-
Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.
Cheers
BobG
I will give you an in depth reply separated by paragraphs in due course Bob.
Fact is that you and your "leftie " mates never looked at this from a historical point of view ever. You were inclined to 'put the boot on' even prior to the GE of 2010
Basically we needed to form a government. "Cobbled together" somewhat I agree but nevertheless we needed one to chart a course out of the mess this country found itself in during that period.
I admit that the fault did not lay totally at Labour's door but many mistakes were made then as we know. 13 yes 13 years of a Socialist government did nothing for the poor and I don't have to remind you of the WMD fiasco that led to the deaths of many of our servicemen or the weaknesses in our fiscal policy or the lost nay reneged promises of that Blair governance do I Bob ?
I understand that you want to see the demise of the Coalition, Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party but don't try for one minute to pretend that you are doing that solely from a historical perspective.
That pretence does not and has not covered up your natural bias from the start. They say you should never discuss politics as it leads to rancour and your post certainly doesn't seek to disguise that notion.
I am fed up of folk sticking the boot in to a politician who does nothing different to his colleagues who sport the colours of every other political persuasion.
Academic "lefties" piss me off, we see them every year at NUT conferences and their ilk. I don't want to fall out with you Bob and I will leave you with that old Monty Python saying ....." What 'ave the Socialists ever done for us ? "
Little if nothing for me fella OK ?
-
BTW to answer your question , I came up with LD and my constituency came up with Labour .....no surprise there eh being Thorne ; where a baboon with a red rosette could be elected.
If you are looking for a total LD collapse then I think you will be greatly disappointed. However should that happen then I suspect there will be an overall Tory governance for the next 5 years . Sad days for Labour its all going wrong in Scotland and England. Wales next perhaps ?
Just interested from a historical perspective of course.
-
Hoola mate. I'll repeat. What Clegg and the LDs did in 2010 is NOT what "every" politician and party does.
There are some things that are core to your beliefs. One of the biggest is your opinion on the role of the State in the modern world.
What Clegg did on that score was to campaign on one idea then TOTALLY reject it after the Election. Say that everything he'd campaigned on, on that theme, was wrong.
No other politician this side of WWII has done that. Others have made slow conversions on big issues (Blair on foreign intervention) and paid a very big price. Or they have reneged on more minor issues (Cameron on VAT). But NOBODY jettisons a core belief over the space of 1 week.
Don't you see the problem there?
-
Hools: I'm not quite sure what you were referring to in your post a couple of days back? Why is me linking to this thing and asking a question about how the Lib Dems are faring worthy of the adjectives you used? I'm a historian. Remember? I am interested, always, in seminal events. I am interested in what causes them; in what happens during them; and in what the consequence of them are. So, yes. I am interested in what is happening to the LibDem vote. For anyone with even a smattering off political interest, it is the single most exciting question for 40 years. We could be seeing the end of the party of Gladstone, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Lloyd George. Aren't you interested in that? Aren't you interested in why it might be happening in front of your own eyes? I want to know what the tea leaves are saying. So pack it in with the abuse and tell me what the LibDem percentage is in your constituency.
Cheers
BobG
I will give you an in depth reply separated by paragraphs in due course Bob.
Fact is that you and your "leftie " mates never looked at this from a historical point of view ever. You were inclined to 'put the boot on' even prior to the GE of 2010
Basically we needed to form a government. "Cobbled together" somewhat I agree but nevertheless we needed one to chart a course out of the mess this country found itself in during that period.
I admit that the fault did not lay totally at Labour's door but many mistakes were made then as we know. 13 yes 13 years of a Socialist government did nothing for the poor and I don't have to remind you of the WMD fiasco that led to the deaths of many of our servicemen or the weaknesses in our fiscal policy or the lost nay reneged promises of that Blair governance do I Bob ?
I understand that you want to see the demise of the Coalition, Clegg and the Liberal Democratic party but don't try for one minute to pretend that you are doing that solely from a historical perspective.
That pretence does not and has not covered up your natural bias from the start. They say you should never discuss politics as it leads to rancour and your post certainly doesn't seek to disguise that notion.
I am fed up of folk sticking the boot in to a politician who does nothing different to his colleagues who sport the colours of every other political persuasion.
Academic "lefties" piss me off, we see them every year at NUT conferences and their ilk. I don't want to fall out with you Bob and I will leave you with that old Monty Python saying ....." What 'ave the Socialists ever done for us ? "
Little if nothing for me fella OK ?
NHS?
Despite the sorry state the NHS is in today, many people wouldn't be here today if it weren't for the NHS. Only the wealthy could have afforded essential treatment, whilst the poor would have been discarded to die
-
Whatever your political beliefs the 2010 GE was a historic occassion as it was the first time since 1919 we came out of it with three major parties. Which is why this election will be just as interesting, and historic. Will we have gone back to two major parties? Will there be four? As Bob has asked, what will happen to the 2010 Liberal vote? Will there be another Strange Death of Liberal England?
-
This is Clegg for you, 5 years we've hade of the Lib Dems supporting Gideons fiscal plans and now he tells us he's a very dangerous man!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/06/nick-clegg-george-osborne-is-a-very-dangerous-man
-
Filo
That article sums up what I've been saying about Clegg and the LDs for 5 years.
"Osborne's dangerous. Balls is dangerous. I don't like either of them. But after the Election I will sign up to one if their plans. And I won't tell you which one until after the Election."
-
This is Clegg for you, 5 years we've hade of the Lib Dems supporting Gideons fiscal plans and now he tells us he's a very dangerous man!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/06/nick-clegg-george-osborne-is-a-very-dangerous-man
Filo , don't you realise that he and the LDs are fighting their OWN campaign . It was not their fault that 1) They held the balance of power. 2) They didn't find an interested party over with the Labour lot . 3) They were forced to ''abandon'' some of the main planks of their election promises. 4) There was no fecking money in the pot !
Being the 'minor' partner of any Coalition means you HAVE to temporarily abandon some of your objectives/promises to implement others that you can get through. What was the alternative a weak and ineffectual Government to deal with major problems ?
As a final thought , just why do you think that Labour was and is the only party looking to have and maintain a proper and effective National Health Service ? The old Liberal party had tried to implement such a system years before the Labour party even existed. Most of the major social reforms of the last 150 years were brought about by the Whigs / Liberals. All of the parties seek to improve the current NHS as well don't they ?
Bob , I'm sorry fella it was the phrase in your OP that pissed me off ''the Liberals with a whopping 7%'' that told me that you were having a sly tee hee moment rather than assessing the LDs from a neutrally historically political perspective.
Now if you were being totally objective then I wouldn't have taken umbrage.
As a final thought , Labour supporters be careful for what you wish for... a LD collapse has a potentially enormous effect on Labour's ambitions. Piss off the 23% or part of it at least and your a dead duck, you better pray that the LD vote holds up otherwise many of their key marginals will potentially tumble to the Conservatives. Then Labour will be squeezed in all the home countries !
-
It boils my piss that those on this forum that like to brag about their education look down their noses at other people and think their opinions are the only valid ones. I've lost count of the number of times I've battered a leftie into submission. I can't ever remember having lost a debate to one.
Just goes to show that a university education is no good to you you when you go up against me. So stop bragging about it. It only makes you look pompous and out of touch.
Hoola is right. You lefties despise Nick because he put the country first and kicked your lot out of government. Labour are the party that is in meltdown not the Lib Dems. Just look at how fast they've lost support in Scotland. The same will happen in Wales and England.
The Lib Dems will get around 30 seats and rebuild from there. The Tories will get an overall majority. Worst case is that they don't and form another government with Nick. Whichever way you look at it Labour will not be forming the next government.
Get in.
-
Filo
That article sums up what I've been saying about Clegg and the LDs for 5 years.
"Osborne's dangerous. Balls is dangerous. I don't like either of them. But after the Election I will sign up to one if their plans. And I won't tell you which one until after the Election."
Of course he doesn't Billy , he has his own objectives and policies . Why the feck do you think he would make the same mistake that most politicians have made i.e. drop himself in the shite ? Should he once again hold the balance of power then over committing himself would be ridiculous. He would have to once again make compromises. surely
Btw please don't try telling me that Clegg is the ''only'' one that has broken an election pledge because we both know that's nonsense. There are countless politicians that change or are forced to go in different directions both on policies they espouse and even political parties they choose to swap too. Clegg , despite what you say, is no different from 100's of politicians that have governed this country. Churchill, one of our most notable politicians did change parties and changed his core beliefs did he not ?
-
It boils my piss that those on this forum that like to brag about their education look down their noses at other people and think their opinions are the only valid ones. I've lost count of the number of times I've battered a leftie into submission. I can't ever remember having lost a debate to one.
Just goes to show that a university education is no good to you you when you go up against me. So stop bragging about it. It only makes you look pompous and out of touch.
Hoola is right. You lefties despise Nick because he put the country first and kicked your lot out of government. Labour are the party that is in meltdown not the Lib Dems. Just look at how fast they've lost support in Scotland. The same will happen in Wales and England.
The Lib Dems will get around 30 seats and rebuild from there. The Tories will get an overall majority. Worst case is that they don't and form another government with Nick. Whichever way you look at it Labour will not be forming the next government.
Get in.
Thats rubish
I've comprhensivley battered you again
Sort out that abject apology!
-
Hoola
Your point 4.
That is the nub. The "there's no money, we HAVE to cut the deficit" meme was NOT a fact. It was a political judgement.
Clegg campaigned on a very different plan. He then, within a week of the Election, effectively said that everything he'd campaigned on on that topic was wrong, and There Was No Alternative to deficit reduction.
Now, if he'd been honest, he would have said "We DON'T agree with deficit reduction at the pace that Osborne wants. We've just spent 3 months campaigning on that score. BUT, the way the Election has panned out, we have no option but to support this."
But he DIDNT say that. He said that Osborne was right all along in THE only issue of importance. And that if we didn't do what Osborne wanted, we'd go the same way as Greece.
I am genuinely astonished how anyone can take him seriously as a credible politician after that. No one has ever pulled a stunt remotely like that in 3 generations. This is qualitatively utterly different from the usual broken promise issue. This is a broken political philosophy. Clegg admitted as much in that interview I posted yesterday. That is why he lost 2/3rds of their support within 4-6 months of May 2010 and why it has never come back. What he did is political suicide.
-
Hoola
Your point 4.
That is the nub. The "there's no money, we HAVE to cut the deficit" meme was NOT a fact. It was a political judgement.
Clegg campaigned on a very different plan. He then, within a week of the Election, effectively said that everything he'd campaigned on on that topic was wrong, and There Was No Alternative to deficit reduction.
Now, if he'd been honest, he would have said "We DON'T agree with deficit reduction at the pace that Osborne wants. We've just spent 3 months campaigning on that score. BUT, the way the Election has panned out, we have no option but to support this."
But he DIDNT say that. He said that Osborne was right all along in THE only issue of importance. And that if we didn't do what Osborne wanted, we'd go the same way as Greece.
I am genuinely astonished how anyone can take him seriously as a credible politician after that. No one has ever pulled a stunt remotely like that in 3 generations. This is qualitatively utterly different from the usual broken promise issue. This is a broken political philosophy. Clegg admitted as much in that interview I posted yesterday. That is why he lost 2/3rds of their support within 4-6 months of May 2010 and why it has never come back. What he did is political suicide.
Well we will soon see if it was political suicide Billy , personally I don't think so and if he has committed political suicide then God help the Labour Party now. Basically it's being squeezed from all sides especially if the ''disaffected'' millions that you think will desert don't go to the Labour Party if they go to the Tories then politically this country could be in a right mess with once again a hastily cobbled together arrangement passing for an organised method of government.
Tell me what would you have done in the same position Billy , Filo , Bob et al ? You were up against an intransigent Labour Party and a diametrically different political party in the Tories . Take your hats off just for a moment and tell me what you all would have done given the same scenario, resources etc ?
For five long years you lot have perpetuated the myth that Clegg and the LDs were the only individuals or political parties that have ever had to abandon core planks of their election pledges once in power. Frankly you were pissed off with the resulting Coalition that deprived Labour of yet more haunting years that historians would have pored over had thirteen ineffectual years turned into eighteen years of more of Socialist madness, of over spending, of yet more ''nannying'' .........jeez is that what you all wanted ? God forbid !!
-
Hoola
I've told you times many what I would have done. Called Osborne's bluff. Gone for C&S instead of coalition. Insisted on FAR slower spending cuts.
He didn't. He signed up to the lot. The generous interpretation is that Osborne and Mervyn King put the frighteners on him and he shit it. The harsh interpretation is that he never believed in what he had campaigned for anyway.
So he was either an amateur, or a charlatan. There genuinely is no other interpretation.
And this is not a trivial issue. This was a decision of historic importance. The OBR calculate that the fiscal tightening of 2010-12 cost us 5-6% of GDP. That's £100bn for the country. £6000 per family. Gone. Forever. Because of Clegg's support for Osborne's Austerity.
No politician in living memory has EVER made a u-turn like that.
-
Hoola
I've told you times many what I would have done. Called Osborne's bluff. Gone for C&S instead of coalition. Insisted on FAR slower spending cuts.
He didn't. He signed up to the lot. The generous interpretation is that Osborne and Mervyn King put the frighteners on him and he shit it. The harsh interpretation is that he never believed in what he had campaigned for anyway.
So he was either an amateur, or a charlatan. There genuinely is no other interpretation.
And this is not a trivial issue. This was a decision of historic importance. The OBR calculate that the fiscal tightening of 2010-12 cost us 5-6% of GDP. That's £100bn for the country. £6000 per family. Gone. Forever. Because of Clegg's support for Osborne's Austerity.
No politician in living memory has EVER made a u-turn like that.
Billy I genuinely think he was out-manoeuvred and yes you are probably right inexperienced so to speak but unlike you I don't believe in the ridiculous assertion that he might have been a charlatan. Where is this coming from ? Are you suggesting that he deliberately tried to wreck his own career and the future of his party deliberately.
Presumably you are also suggesting that Osborne and the Tories were also as hellbent in self-destruction too ?
Definitely a need for an election then if the country has gone downhill since 2010. Strange these reports you get seem to be diametrically opposed to the generous consensus that economically this country is recovering quite well rather than rolling downhill faster than a man in an avalanche.
The OBR report compiled in March 2015 re. the economic outlook for 2015/2016 makes far more comfortable reading and I'm not surprised that you haven't made reference to it. As they say there are statistics and damn statistics with respect you have a penchant for using only the information that suits your arguments. I hah hoped that you might present me with a more balanced and less biased point of view . If I told you that red was red , you would find me a report or two compiled elsewhere that red was in fact a strange hue of red called ''blue''. Everyone either involved or interested in politics can twist every and any situation to suit their argument. Indeed that is exactly how and why you have singled out Clegg for vilification. He messed up the GE of 2010 for you and didn't kowtow to Brown and the other kingpins of the Labour Party. They were found wanting and on the back foot or perhaps they wanted to get out of the kitchen when things got too hot. The legacy of those 13 years was what Billy ?
As for 'u turns' by politicians, just how many instances have their been when 1) Coalitions have been formed between political parties in this country where their policies generally weren't convergent ? 2) Where the national finances were a fairly unknown quantity to the 3rd party ? and 3) Where the party holding power seemed by all accounts to be disinterested in holding onto power albeit as a minority party ? 4) Where there seemed to be little or no possibility of that 3rd party wielding any major influence after the election itself.
Believe me Billy there have been massive u-turns by sitting ''stand alone'' governments notably the Blair governments. I'm sure if you care to dig just a little deeper you will find almost every politician has reneged partly or even fully on promises either when in power or more importantly if there appeared to be little chance of that power. This LD party under it's leader have had to trade off some of their election promises in much the same way as they would of had to had they shared power with the Labour Party. However that fact has NEVER got in the way of your mirth and vitriol.
Believe me the defeat in the last election would have been so much heavier on the Labour Party had the LDs not 'diluted' the number of seats won by the Conservatives. As it is they (the Labour Party) find themselves fighting on every front ; The Conservatives, Lib/Dems , UKIP and the Greens in England, The SNP and Lib/Dems in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales.........I hope they have the resources .
-
I think the only politician in ANY memory who did make a U turn like that was Robert Peel. About 180 years ago. And he split his party in half by doing so.
Hools mate. You've got this all wrong :) I truly am not interested any more in the outcome of this election. The Tories are going to win and that's that. But what I AM interested in is what is happening to the existance of the political party with the oldest roots of all in this country. This is seminal stuff. This is life changing - for all of us. It is quite possible that nothing, nothing, will ever be the same again after this election. And all I am trying to do is to plot how that is panning out. So please. Do me a favour. Stop putting words, actions and thoughts in my mouth. They are none of them, not one, true. I repeat: all I am interested in now is plotting the development of what could turn out to be a revolution. Stop telling me what i'm thinking eh? I am telling you. I am way beyond debating a foregone conclusion.
BobG
PS You haven't understood Billys point. Every political party changes its views and actions in operational matters. They do not do so in philosophical ones. Clegg did. And he's f**ked as a result. Like I said, it has been done - once before. And that didn't end well for the guy that did it. Try to see the difference between operations and policy mate.
-
Hoola
I'm looking for plausible reasons why Clegg campaigned hard on an anti-Austerity ticket in April 2010, then signed up for full-blown Osborne Austerity in May 2010 AND insisted that this had to be done to save the country.
There are only three possible explanations
1) He was genuinely converted by fear of what had happened to Greece.
2) He never believed what he was campaigning on in April 2010 and was happy to come clean in May 2010.
3) He never believed in what he signed up for in May 2010 but did it because...well, who knows.
There ARE no other alternative explanations.
If 1) is correct, then he is an intellectual and political lightweight and is economically ignorant, and should never have been remotely close to being in a position to take such an important decision.
If 2) or 3) are correct, then he is a liar and a charlatan.
If you can think of an alternative explanation that fits the turnabout in Clegg between April 10 and May 10, then te me what it is. I genuinely have been unable to think of any alternative in these last 5 years.
And I'll repeat. This is NOT some relatively minor policy detail. This is by far and away the greatest political, philosophical and economic decision of my adult lifetime. The mistake Clegg made in 2010 will leave us permanently poorer. There was a way out of the situation we were in in 2010. Clegg campaigned on that way out. And then he spent 5 years supporting the mirror opposite policy. It's cost us £100bn in lost wealth. AND, it's put Osborne in a position to shrink the State to a level we've not seen since 1939.
And you wonder why I despise Clegg?
-
By the way Hoola. You keep saying that ALL parties make U-turns. Give me ANY example in the past 80 years of a party in Govt that has voluntarily abandoned a truly fundamental core principle that it stood on at the previous Election.
Not a relative minor issue like which tax you raise and lower. A really fundamental one like what the basic principle by which you manage the economy is.
I can think of only one that comes remotely close. That was Callaghan's Govt in 1976 going monetarist and massively reducing state spending.
But that one wasn't voluntary. The money truly HAD run out (at least according to the Treasury numbers) and the policies Callaghan u-turned on were imposed on him by the IMF. The result was 15 years of civil war in the Labour Party and 23 years without getting close to power.
Clegg's decision in 2010 is FAR less defensible. He claims to have dropped the core policy because of what he THOUGHT might happen. Not because he had no choice. It was a conscious decision to do so. And THAT is why I say that he has ruined the LDs as a major vote-winning party for a generation.
-
Sproty scored 58% UKIP 49% Tort 46 % Lib Dem 45 % Labour!
I think the only politician in ANY memory who did make a U turn like that was Robert Peel. About 180 years ago. And he split his party in half by doing so.
Hools mate. You've got this all wrong :) I truly am not interested any more in the outcome of this election. The Tories are going to win and that's that. But what I AM interested in is what is happening to the existance of the political party with the oldest roots of all in this country. This is seminal stuff. This is life changing - for all of us. It is quite possible that nothing, nothing, will ever be the same again after this election. And all I am trying to do is to plot how that is panning out. So please. Do me a favour. Stop putting words, actions and thoughts in my mouth. They are none of them, not one, true. I repeat: all I am interested in now is plotting the development of what could turn out to be a revolution. Stop telling me what i'm thinking eh? I am telling you. I am way beyond debating a foregone conclusion.
BobG
PS You haven't understood Billys point. Every political party changes its views and actions in operational matters. They do not do so in philosophical ones. Clegg did. And he's f***ed as a result. Like I said, it has been done - once before. And that didn't end well for the guy that did it. Try to see the difference between operations and policy mate.
Bob first of all I did understand Billy's point and the point you are making too.
Secondly , like you , I would hate to see the demise of a political party that has fought so much for the rights and conditions of working people long before the Labour party was in existence let alone in power.
I have watched how over my lifetime it has been gradually destroyed internally by scandals and a lack of cohesive policies and externally by the strength and financial clout of the Labour party and of the Conservatives. Unfortunately the centre left ground that this once proud party occupied neither had the means nor the press coverage that it once occupied. Basically the party that produced Walpole, Pitt, Asquith , Lloyd -George, Melbourne , Gladstone etc. faced extinction. These are the political heavyweights of a once great party that are the forerunners of today's LD party. A party that pushed for an NHS long before the modern Labour party even existed.
BTW I'm not trying to educate those on here that are posting but perhaps those that are reading this and wondering wtf we are all getting in a tizz about.
IMO we DO need a 3rd party to prevent the lurching from left to right and as a counterweight against the more extreme ideologies that we have so often seen over the last 100 years.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your OP and found it to be mischievous ; I now realise from this post that it was not your intention.
As someone that shares your interest in politics you must understand that it did read that way and BTW there has and continues to be plenty of gloating on here . Perhaps there won't be quite so much come the election results in May!!
Please excuse the brevity of my post , I will come back to you both later but I'm shattered :(
-
Hoola
Between 2010 and 2012 we had the most rapid reduction in state spending since the end of WWII. That policy was a bizarre right-wing experiment that had no grounding in economic theory or practice. It was done under the pretext of a handful of highly influential right-wing policy makers saying that we needed to do it to "restore confidence". The real reason was always to use the crisis as a way of reducing the size of the State.
Neither you nor I have ever experienced such an extreme, ideologically driven political policy in this country. That experiment has permanently lost us £100bn.
How the hell did the presence of a third party help avoid that outcome?
-
At the end of the day Clegg has proved himself to be a monumental disappointment. Many, many people myself included believed he would be a breath of fresh air. I still believe he, like Ed is a decent man but he has also been proven to be a weak one. He would have us believe that without the Libdems the tory cuts would have been worse but from where I'm standing I would say he didn't exactly put up much of a fight.
Talking big at his conferences and then doing the opposite back in Westminster doesn't show a party of strength.
It is so fashionable to kick those at the bottom at the moment, the Tory propaganda machine has done sterling work to convince those with no experience of how living below the breadline really is. He could have done so much more to stop this poison but he hasn't.
Cuts to the disabled are deep and it seems the only couple that coped with disability in this country we are supposed to feel sorry for is the Camerons.
-
You want to know how far to the Right Clegg has gone?
Maynard Keynes was THE Liberal intellectual of the 20th century. A towering intellect who made it his life's work to determine how to make Capitalism work in a way that aided all sections of society. He was the heart and brains of centre-left politics of the 20th Century. And he was a lifelong Liberal, who despised Socialism.
Keynes taught the world how to manage recessions and get Capitalism back to recovery after its bouts of sickness.
We were following Keynes's prescription to the letter up to May 2010. We had had a horrific recession, but we were recovering in precisely the way that Keynes said we should. Another triumph for the great Liberal intellectual. Just like every single post-War recovery from recession had been.
And then Clegg decided that if we didn't support Osborne to the letter, everything would go tits up. Look at the effect. The Coalition started at month 27 on this graph. Austerity was eased off to produce a pre-Election boom at around month 54.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/GDP/may2014s.png)
That graph is the ultimate vindication of the brilliance of Keynes. And Clegg has spent the last 5 years calling people who support Keynesianism fantasists, idiots, radicals and dangerous spendthrifts.
Clegg has totally disowned Liberal tradition and signed up to economics that Thatcher never dared countenance. That's another reason why he has destroyed his party's base.
-
This is the devastation Clegg and his spineless band has enabled.
http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2015-04-07-Opinion-Will-anyone-house-people-on-benefits-from-8-May
-
Hoola
Between 2010 and 2012 we had the most rapid reduction in state spending since the end of WWII. That policy was a bizarre right-wing experiment that had no grounding in economic theory or practice. It was done under the pretext of a handful of highly influential right-wing policy makers saying that we needed to do it to "restore confidence". The real reason was always to use the crisis as a way of reducing the size of the State.
Neither you nor I have ever experienced such an extreme, ideologically driven political policy in this country. That experiment has permanently lost us £100bn.
How the hell did the presence of a third party help avoid that outcome?
You still haven't told me how Clegg caused thus ''supposed'' loss of wealth that the nation has suffered from or explained to me what would have happened in your view had he tried 'to call Osborne's bluff,''. In my view we would have been stuck in an economic and political mire had we not have a sustained and consistent Government.
This 'blame Clegg' nonsense has to stop , even the Labour Party and 'Ed' don't follow this line ! Another intellectual lightweight perhaps ? Does he strike you as Prime Ministerial material , because I'm struggling to see his attributes apart from the fact that he can keep saying ''we were wrong''....I always value humbleness.
13 years to implement the core values of the Labour party, you will be telling me next that they were successful terms of office . Perhaps a time when the Socialist left had the opportunity to implement their wider ranging and bloated public sector for the good of the working man ? No it didn't happen like that and we both know it . The Labour party moved further and further into the centre ground didn't it ? It made multitudinous miscalculations didn't it ?
Basically it didn't govern the country in a Socialist way when the opportunity was there :( Massive opportunities presented themselves, with large majorities but it ended up in tears and with little success. Yes they inched themselves away from core socialist policies because generally they were no longer current or 'eye catching ' for the modern voter in this country.
-
This is the devastation Clegg and his spineless band has enabled.
http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2015-04-07-Opinion-Will-anyone-house-people-on-benefits-from-8-May
Of course Deb let's build a gallows and string them all up with the previous spineless mob who couldn't get out of their jobs fast enough. Where is your balanced argument. There were many headlines or reports of this nature when Labour were in power and ....................we heard nothing , nada from you .
I'm disappointed that you are so unbalanced in your viewpoint :(
-
Steve, I can only say as I see both from personal experience along talking to other carers at mind and from people suffering on the forums I belong to. No party comes out covered in glory but this lot are the most spitefully ideological of the lot. People who are already struggling don't want to know about the past, none of us can change that. What you are looking at is a very large group of very vulnerable people and their carers who are terrified of what their futures will hold. Yes I do blame Clegg as much as I do Cameron.
We are at the stage where people are killing themselves because of the changes, people who are dying in absolute poverty because of the mismanagement of the DHS. And believe me it WILL only get worse if they aren't stopped.
To me that is the issue.
-
Steve, I can only say as I see both from personal experience along talking to other carers at mind and from people suffering on the forums I belong to. No party comes out covered in glory but this lot are the most spitefully ideological of the lot. People who are already struggling don't want to know about the past, none of us can change that. What you are looking at is a very large group of very vulnerable people and their carers who are terrified of what their futures will hold. Yes I do blame Clegg as much as I do Cameron.
We are at the stage where people are killing themselves because of the changes, people who are dying in absolute poverty because of the mismanagement of the DHS. And believe me it WILL only get worse if they aren't stopped.
To me that is the issue.
Believe me when I say I'm really sorry for the situation that you and your friends find themselves in . Of course you are right , it is only the here and now that matters when you are struggling. I must count myself fortunate having not worked for the last 18 months insomuch as I feel I personally have been looked after and continue to be looked after in every respect both through my NHS visits and operations and with the DHS.
You know I have empathy for you and your friends and hope that issues get resolved shortly. What sort of fora are you getting all this feedback from and what exactly are you referring to when you use the word ''spiteful'' ? I need to understand what exactly Clegg has done in the area that concerns you most , what exactly has he signed off ? Deb please I'm not being deliberately obtuse but what is it exactly that you are referring to ? x
-
You want to know how far to the Right Clegg has gone?
Maynard Keynes was THE Liberal intellectual of the 20th century. A towering intellect who made it his life's work to determine how to make Capitalism work in a way that aided all sections of society. He was the heart and brains of centre-left politics of the 20th Century. And he was a lifelong Liberal, who despised Socialism.
Keynes taught the world how to manage recessions and get Capitalism back to recovery after its bouts of sickness.
We were following Keynes's prescription to the letter up to May 2010. We had had a horrific recession, but we were recovering in precisely the way that Keynes said we should. Another triumph for the great Liberal intellectual. Just like every single post-War recovery from recession had been.
And then Clegg decided that if we didn't support Osborne to the letter, everything would go tits up. Look at the effect. The Coalition started at month 27 on this graph. Austerity was eased off to produce a pre-Election boom at around month 54.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/GDP/may2014s.png)
That graph is the ultimate vindication of the brilliance of Keynes. And Clegg has spent the last 5 years calling people who support Keynesianism fantasists, idiots, radicals and dangerous spendthrifts.
Clegg has totally disowned Liberal tradition and signed up to economics that Thatcher never dared countenance. That's another reason why he has destroyed his party's base.
We most definitely weren't following Keynes prescription. You always conveniently forget about the part of the prescription that says we should put money away during the good times to fund the bad times. Labour did not put any money away. They did not mend the roof when the sun was shining. They did the complete opposite. They overspent wildly.
In silly Billy land the solution to every problem is spend more money. You then try and justify this crazy approach by wheeling out Keynes. Very disingenuous.
-
This is the devastation Clegg and his spineless band has enabled.
http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2015-04-07-Opinion-Will-anyone-house-people-on-benefits-from-8-May
I think you should be blaming Labour for these problems. They were in power for 13 years and by the time they left office the country was bankrupt. This current government has borrowed more than all the previous Labour governments put together. This monumental amount of money is still not enough to fund services like they were previously due to the cataclysmic destruction job Labour did on the country's finances.
The coalition government has done a brilliant job considering the circumstances when they took over.
-
Mick you appear to have missed my post. To help you along I have a couple of questions:
Do you believe we have had a period of Austerity?
If yes - then what do you think to the economic competence of a government who cut £11b of public services, most from the vunerable in society and 500000 public sector jobs - and still managed to increase the national debt?
If no - then how else would you describe the cut of £11b of public services and 500000 people's jobs?
We most certainly have not had a period of austerity.
I would describe the cuts you mention as a small step in the right direction but nowhere near enough to get us living within our means.
Look. It's simple. We've spent many years living well beyond our means. The party is over. We are going through the hangover phase. I'd like the hangover to be dealt with more quickly. You lefties want to carry on having a party.
It's time you all sobered up.
Mick you appear to have missed the second part of my question.
-
You want to know how far to the Right Clegg has gone?
Maynard Keynes was THE Liberal intellectual of the 20th century. A towering intellect who made it his life's work to determine how to make Capitalism work in a way that aided all sections of society. He was the heart and brains of centre-left politics of the 20th Century. And he was a lifelong Liberal, who despised Socialism.
Keynes taught the world how to manage recessions and get Capitalism back to recovery after its bouts of sickness.
We were following Keynes's prescription to the letter up to May 2010. We had had a horrific recession, but we were recovering in precisely the way that Keynes said we should. Another triumph for the great Liberal intellectual. Just like every single post-War recovery from recession had been.
And then Clegg decided that if we didn't support Osborne to the letter, everything would go tits up. Look at the effect. The Coalition started at month 27 on this graph. Austerity was eased off to produce a pre-Election boom at around month 54.
(http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/images/GDP/may2014s.png)
That graph is the ultimate vindication of the brilliance of Keynes. And Clegg has spent the last 5 years calling people who support Keynesianism fantasists, idiots, radicals and dangerous spendthrifts.
Clegg has totally disowned Liberal tradition and signed up to economics that Thatcher never dared countenance. That's another reason why he has destroyed his party's base.
Interesting graph BST, but don't you think it's a little narrow minded to compare the recession of 2008 onwards with that of previous years, given how the recession was one of global financial crisis and how our position in the global political economy has changed in the last century? I've not done the research to back it up, but it'd be interesting to see how this recession compares to previous ones globally and not just nationally.
I think its also worth looking at how much the private sector has changed with the rapid surge of Globalisation and as such how difficult it makes it for the Government to try and replicate Keynesian 'remedies' in the economic climate. Again, it's hard to isolate this recession on merely GDP alone.
Which brings us more to an economics themed topic, some would argue that GDP isn't a true reflection of measuring the economy and macroeconomics - like Keynesian's school of thought - is a tad outdated. Personally, I'm not sure.
-
MrC
Aye. Look at the recovery from the 1930-34 recession which was also the result of a financial crash. We came out of that recession because we came off the Gold Standard and started spending A LOT on re-arming in the build up to WWII.
See, what gets me is that EVERYONE has an explanation for why Keynesian stimulus wouldn't work nowadays. Why there's something qualitatively different these days. It usually boils down to
a) it won't work or
b) you can't run up huge Govt debts because the markets won't wear it.
Both are demonstrably rubbish arguments. Look at how the curve turned round from month 12-27 and from month 60 onwards when we WERE having a fiscal stimulus and how it flatlined in between when we were having fiscal tightening. For such a messy "science" as economics, that is as definitive an outcome as you will ever see.
You asked about what happened in other countries. Keynes's central insight was that in a recession, Govt spending is needed to fill the gap when the private sector takes fright and stops spending. In 2008-10, the private sector had the biggest global panic in 80 years. Keynes would have predicted that Govts who contracted their spending fastest in such a scenario would have seen the biggest GDP collapses and vice versa.
We're far enough past 2008-10 to see the outcome now. So what was the outcome?
(http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Fiscal-tightening-and-Eurozone-GDP-2008-2012.png)
I am baffled why anyone is still arguing about this. There is no ECONOMIC argument left. There's just the political argument from the likes of Osborne who have somehow managed to convince people that Austerity worked so we should have more of it.
As for your comments about GDP, it's not ideal, but it is still the main measure if the size of economic output. Which is what we are really interested in.
-
Mick you appear to have missed my post. To help you along I have a couple of questions:
Do you believe we have had a period of Austerity?
If yes - then what do you think to the economic competence of a government who cut £11b of public services, most from the vunerable in society and 500000 public sector jobs - and still managed to increase the national debt?
If no - then how else would you describe the cut of £11b of public services and 500000 people's jobs?
We most certainly have not had a period of austerity.
I would describe the cuts you mention as a small step in the right direction but nowhere near enough to get us living within our means.
Look. It's simple. We've spent many years living well beyond our means. The party is over. We are going through the hangover phase. I'd like the hangover to be dealt with more quickly. You lefties want to carry on having a party.
It's time you all sobered up.
Mick you appear to have missed the second part of my question.
Unlike you I always answer every question asked of me. I'll spell it out again. The cuts you mention are a small step in the right direction. Question answered. I'll spell it out a bit more for you as you clearly don't seem happy with this answer. £11bn of cuts is a small step in the right direction. The loss of 500,000 public sector jobs is a small step in the right direction.
Under Labour, the size of the state was more than half of the economy. That is far too large. I'd much prefer it to be nearer 30% maximum. The private sector should not have the burden of such a large public sector. The economy does much better when people keep more of their own money rather than handing it over to politicians to waste and bribe the electorate.
Got it? Get it? Good.
-
Mick you appear to have missed my post. To help you along I have a couple of questions:
Do you believe we have had a period of Austerity?
If yes - then what do you think to the economic competence of a government who cut £11b of public services, most from the vunerable in society and 500000 public sector jobs - and still managed to increase the national debt?
If no - then how else would you describe the cut of £11b of public services and 500000 people's jobs?
We most certainly have not had a period of austerity.
I would describe the cuts you mention as a small step in the right direction but nowhere near enough to get us living within our means.
Look. It's simple. We've spent many years living well beyond our means. The party is over. We are going through the hangover phase. I'd like the hangover to be dealt with more quickly. You lefties want to carry on having a party.
It's time you all sobered up.
Mick you appear to have missed the second part of my question.
Unlike you I always answer every question asked of me. I'll spell it out again. The cuts you mention are a small step in the right direction. Question answered. I'll spell it out a bit more for you as you clearly don't seem happy with this answer. £11bn of cuts is a small step in the right direction. The loss of 500,000 public sector jobs is a small step in the right direction.
Under Labour, the size of the state was more than half of the economy. That is far too large. I'd much prefer it to be nearer 30% maximum. The private sector should not have the burden of such a large public sector. The economy does much better when people keep more of their own money rather than handing it over to politicians to waste and bribe the electorate.
Got it? Get it? Good.
And why is the loss of a job in a period of high unemployment for those people not going to mean austerity for them and their former clients?
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
Zero hours contracts!
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
But it is not more than have been lost in the two sectors combined is it? Which has done what to real wages?
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
But it is not more than have been lost in the two sectors combined is it? Which has done what to real wages?
You're not making sense. There are 2 million new jobs in the private sector since 2010. This is more than enough to mop up the non jobs that have been culled from the bloated public sector. Real wages?
The uncontrolled immigration started under Labour is responsible for keeping wages down.
-
I'd still like to know what propertion of people find the LibDems their party of choice in their constituencies. That's why I posted the link in the first place. Not to wade through the vacuous witterings of pillocks like Mick, or, and I'm sorry about this Hools, read the emotional outpourings of someone unable to stand back to grasp the point I continue to make. What the bloody hell percentage are the LibDems the best answer for folk in your constituency? Mick? Hools? Anybody?
Jesus H Christ. It's worse than getting blood from a stone. Mind you, I'm chuffed to bits to read, and learn, more about one of the real intellectual giants of the last century. Billy's right. Those graphs say it all. Hools: you're pissing into the wind mate. There is NO evidence, anywhere, that what has happened to this country this last few years has been economically beneficial. Politically - maybe. Economically? Zilch.
And as an aside, just what conclusions do you draw about the press in this country given the success of the bizarre message that Osborne and co have continued to dish out? That is a really bloody scary line of thought that is.
BobG
-
Bob
Re: Osborne and the UK Media
Krugman, leans heavily on Simon Wren-Lewis on this issue. But, whereas, the Oxford Prof goes into detail, Krugman does what Krugman does. Cuts through the bullshit and gets straight to the point.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/osbornia-revisited/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
-
I've been diagnosed UKIP. Bugger, does that mean I'm a racist? :ohmy:
-
Keynes's theory is sound, but the problem comes when the economy recovers. At that point governments should scale back spending, but in practice they don't do, because they fear they will lose popularity.
The result is either inflation, as in the 70s, or the creation of a huge debt overhang, which is what we had now.
Had the last Labour Government followed Keynes's prescription they would have reduced public spending between 2001 and 2008. Instead, they increased it. No doubt they will argue that if they had made cuts, they would have lost the Election in 2005.
-
TRB
Interesting points you've raised there. That goes to the heart of the economic debate at the moment.
There's actually very little evidence that over the past 40 years, many governments have been madly spending in the "good" years. There's an argument that we could have spent a little less over the period in the run-up to the big crash, but that's relatively small beer. Wren Lewis dealt with that several times.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/how-can-labour-say-it-didnt-crash.html?m=1
Of course there are some Govts which did spend madly (Greece being the prime example) but for the most part, Govt spending as a proportion of GDP was very restrained by historical levels in the run up to the Crash.
And after the crash, it was astonishing how quickly Govts across the world dived into policies of cutting back Govt spending,with some pretty dire results for economic growth. You can use the 1970s inflation as a warning, but the evidence is that there is no appetite for repeating those mistakes.
And even if you DO think that Govts overspent in the run up to the crash, the evidence is that inflation was very low during that period. Which shows that we WEREN'T re-living the 70s.
The BIG economic debate at the moment is whether we are in a period of secular stagnation where ONLY Govt spending can keep the economy ticking over. The evidence for that is mounting by the year at the moment. Larry Sandwrs who is hardly a loony lefty has been making that case over the last year. Brad DeLong has weighed in just recently.
http://equitablegrowth.org/2015/04/05/draft-rethinking-macroeconomics-conference-fiscal-policy-panel/
It all makes our "debate" in this country (Deficit = bad: end of discussion) seem rather anaemic.
-
BST.
You make a reasonable point about governments cutting back spending in the aftermath of the crash. I probably should have covered this paradox in my original posting as I know it is deeply frustrating to Keynesians.
From an economic standpoint, Keynes is quite clear that governments should increase spending in times of a downturn and reduce it gradually when the private sector is able to take up the slack.
I would argue that politicians, even those on the left, look at matters from the other end of the telescope. In short, it is either politically expedient, or politically acceptable, to make cuts at a time when the economy is struggling. On the other hand, when the economy is doing well, politicians feel the urge to spend the increased revenue that comes with growth, and believe (not without justification) that they will be rewarded for it by the electorate.
It is a paradox that Keynesian economists like Wren-Lewis should consider.
In passing, I am reminded of an interview I heard on the radio a while back with a housing expert. He was asked how he would deal with the housing crisis if he was made minister in charge. He said he would solve it within a couple of years, but he'd then be sacked because he'd have lost his government the next election. I suspect the same might be true of a Chancellor who followed Keynesianism to the letter.
-
TRB
It's a question of balance.
It's a question of what level of Govt debt and spending is sustainable in the long run. Since Keynes's time, there has been a revolution in the scope of what Govt does and is responsible for. "Cutting" Govt spending means reducing it to a level that it doesn't impinge detrimentally on the private sector where the private sector can do the job better than Govt. What you ideally want is the right balance.
We had an ideological approach to cutting the State wherever and whenever we could throughout the period from 1980-2000. The result was certainly an improvement in some areas. But also some very serious problems in others. Remember what state our hospitals, schools and railways were in by 2000!
Crucially, the evidence is mounting that, relying on private sector activity alone, we've had a negative output gap through most of the last 20 years. Govt spending through those "good" times WAS higher than fundamentalist Keynesianism would have prescribed (Wren-Lewis has frequently said that under Labour, pre-crash) Govt spending was a LITTLE higher than ideal.)
But the question then is, what would our economic performance and our society have been like without that pump priming. As it was, we had historically low inflation. So there is no evidence that Govt spending during that period over-heated our economy.
THAT is the Secular Stagnation argument. That we're in an era where private enterprise is incapable of utilising all the resources and potential that we have. And it is only by Govt spending that we prevent ourselves tipping into a negative spiral. (Actually, it's more nuanced than that. The argument is that throughout the Nineties and Noughties, it was a series of private bubbles -Dot-com, housing) that prevented the West from tipping into a negative spiral. But that's no sustainable way to run a World. Brad DeLong is arguing that we need planned Govt spending to take up the slack over the next generation to save us from these insane private sector bubbles.)
One way or another, a revolution is coming. We can accept the argument that Govt needs to be reduced further than we did in the 80s, and we hope that the private sector will pick up the slack. But it hasn't done that over the past 20 years without driving destructive bubbles. Or we consider that Govt has an even bigger role to play in future prosperity. Those who claim that there is nothing between the two main parties are totally missing the point. Each side has a philosophy on this question and which one wins in the long run will shape our lives for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, we have such a dumbed-down public debate that these fundamental issues don't get raised. But they underpin everything from the top tax rate to how we deal with non-doms. People need to decide which side they are on, because the differences in our society by the time our grand kids are old will be determined by the side we support over the next 10 years.
PS. It's ironic that the final nails in the post-War Keynesian consensus were hammered in by mistakes made by a right-wing Govt; the insanely pro-cyclical Barber Boom in 1973 which was an attempt to increase growth in an already growing economy to set the scene for Heath to win an election. That was the action that let inflation rip and led us into the stagflation of the 1970s. That certainly WAS a case of Govt making strategically bad economic decisions for political expediency. It's also fascinating that Osborne, who outwardly rejects Govt stimulus as a policy lever has actually used EXACTLY that approach to try to win this election, by dramatically slowing the pace of cuts from 2012/13 and using this to get the economy moving again. He's being very open in saying that he will do the same thing if he wins next month. He's proposing very steep cuts in 15-18, followed by a more relaxed approach in the run-up to 2020's Election. The OBR itself has called his spending and cuts plan a "roller coaster". No way to run an economy, eh?
-
I'll tell you what's no way to run an economy. Borrowing so much money that as things currently stand, every man woman and child in the UK is responsible for around £700 per annum just to pay the interest on our national debt.
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
But it is not more than have been lost in the two sectors combined is it? Which has done what to real wages?
You're not making sense. There are 2 million new jobs in the private sector since 2010. This is more than enough to mop up the non jobs that have been culled from the bloated public sector. Real wages?
The uncontrolled immigration started under Labour is responsible for keeping wages down.
Shall I write it in simple terms then - how many jobs have been lost in the private sector since 2010? Why were real wages rising with the uncontrolled immigration under labour - but stopped when the Tories came into power?
-
Because they can get a proper job in the private sector. In case you haven't noticed there have been 2 million new private sector jobs created in the last 5 years. That's a lot more than have been 'lost' in the public sector.
Sorted.
But it is not more than have been lost in the two sectors combined is it? Which has done what to real wages?
You're not making sense. There are 2 million new jobs in the private sector since 2010. This is more than enough to mop up the non jobs that have been culled from the bloated public sector. Real wages?
The uncontrolled immigration started under Labour is responsible for keeping wages down.
Shall I write it in simple terms then - how many jobs have been lost in the private sector since 2010? Why were real wages rising with the uncontrolled immigration under labour - but stopped when the Tories came into power?
You are still not making sense. Since 2010 there are 2 million more private sector jobs than there were then. So we have actually got more private sector jobs not less. What is it you don't understand? I'm totally baffled by your ramblings.
Your second question should read ' Why were real wages falling at the end of 13 years of a Labour government? The answer is that Labour are crap at running the economy and spend and waste far too much money when in power. They also let in millions of cheap workers that depressed wages for millions of British workers. They left such a mess that it's taken the Tories 5 years to reverse the trend Labour were responsible for.
-
700 quid? Is that all? FFS man! For a man of your persuasion that's chicken feed. Grow some balls. There's nowt surprising, or scaring, about a number of that order of magnitude. Billy's given you the evidence several times. Go look it up.
Oh. Sorry. I forgot. You never learned how to do that did you?
BobG
-
700 quid? Is that all? FFS man! For a man of your persuasion that's chicken feed. Grow some balls. There's nowt surprising, or scaring, about a number of that order of magnitude. Billy's given you the evidence several times. Go look it up.
Oh. Sorry. I forgot. You never learned how to do that did you?
BobG
Anyone would think you had a personal vendetta against me. Why don't you take your own advice and tackle the issue not the man? You are that obsessed with attacking me incessantly I think you don't even realise you are doing it.
I'm pleased for you that you are so relaxed about the amount of interest we all have to pay each year. I most certainly am not as I would imagine are the vast bulk of the population. Unfortunately most of them don't know how serious the situation is. Stupid posts like yours don't help.
At least now people know that all this borrowing and spending you lefties so love has a real cost. £700 per annum (and rising) is just the interest. If we try to pay down the national debt that figure rises considerably. What we don't need is more national debt.
Why can't you lefties just accept we need to live within our means? Why are you happy for our children and their children to pick up the bill for this generation's profligacy? You really don't have any morals.
-
I do have a vendetta against you Mick. That's very observant of you.
There are a good number of intelligent, thoughtful and experienced people on here. They have opinions and views of all kinds. Debating matters with them is a pleasure. And an education. But you? You're the turd on the heel of everyone's shoe. It follows you around. It smells. And it doesn't let go. You are the foetid, putrefying corruption that does its level best to f**k things up for everybody else. I despise you. I think someone should take you outside and help you grow up.
So yes Mick. Your puerile and pathetic attempts to con us into thinking you have a brain that actually works, don't kid anybody. We all know you. We know what you are. We know just how sad and trivial your life is. We know exactly how poorly educated you are. And we laugh about it amongst ourselves. Keep on giving us the jokes Mick. It's all your worth.
BobG
-
For all your faults I will say one thing. You do have a very vivid imagination.
Your main fault is though that you ignore the issue at hand. You launch into a personal attack every time you respond to one of my posts. This is the action of someone that knows he has lost the debate.
You only like to debate with people that agree with you. I on the other hand like debating with people that don't agree with me. I like to consider their views before deciding I was right all along. I then provide the evidence to prove the point.
You on the other hand throw a strop when I don't agree with you and when I show up your point of view as not well thought out.
Look, you really need to take a chill pill. This anger you have inside you is not good for your health. Try not to take life so seriously. You'll feel so much better for it.
Right, back to the issue at hand. Do you think it's fair for this generation to pile so much debt onto future generations? I don't. It seems at the moment that you and your leftie friends do think it's OK.
My view of this is that you are a bunch of selfish so and so's and couldn't care less about the future for our children and their children as long as you have a cushy life at their expense.
It's time you all came into the real world and stopped just thinking about yourselves for a change. You lot really make my piss boil with your selfishness. Get a grip ffs.