Intersting little tool for identifying which party matches your personal beliefs

[hoolahoop]

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

[jucyberry]

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.

[hoolahoop]

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

[IC1967]

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.



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.

[IC1967]

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.

[wilts rover]

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.

[Mr1Croft]

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.



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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?



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.

[IC1967]

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.

[wilts rover]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[Filo]

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!

[wilts rover]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[BobG]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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&region=Body

[Bentley Bullet]

I've been diagnosed UKIP. Bugger, does that mean I'm a racist?   

[The Red Baron]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[The Red Baron]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[wilts rover]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[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

[IC1967]

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.

[BobG]

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

[IC1967]

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.