Election Time..????

[Nik_B 3,790]

Yes of course, I thought it was tripe with many holes in it.

 

What you might want to look at is which party got handed the economy with budget surpluses or deficits at each election cycle. Maybe it's possible one party has to borrow more because the got handed an economy with a deficit due to over spending during the good times. Blair was handed the reigns in such a situation but then went on a massive spending spree increasing wages which was fine for a long time until the economy crashed. Governments always have a hard time cutting public sector wages, benefits and pensions so tend to borrow to balance the books until growth returns.

 

You should also read the comments section on his post.

[downsview 448]

For me it's all about who I hate least at the moment I hate may and the Tories less than I hate the whingeing failed student minded left

[Nik_B 3,790]

BGD

p.s I think it's a false argument which relies on the premise that the conservatives are a low tax small government party and Labour is big government high tax when the reality is for many years there has been little difference between the two as your comment about the Conservatives being little different to Blares Labour. You've also got several external economic crises like the loss of our Empire, the effects of WW2 which lasted for several decades, the oil crises and so on.

 

His article reminded me of the Global warming science where bad statistics can show trends that aren't really there.

 

Anyway I don't have a dog in the fight, I wouldn't vote for either and baring one foolish time in my life have never voted either and I never will.

[kanny 20,499]

Thinking of voting labour? We all know to stay in the single market would mean accepting free movement

 

It would scrap Theresa May's Brexit plan - outlined in a White Paper in February - which envisages leaving the single market and customs union.

Instead, it will focus on delivering a deal which "retains the benefits" of single market and customs union membership.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39698465

[Born Hunter 17,751]

It's meaningful in the sense that Labour have obviously dropped the ball on messaging if they've allowed themselves to be branded the party of economic irresponsibility when the numbers seem to show the opposite to be the case.

 

I doubt either of the points you raised would make a huge difference to the overall picture but if you feel like crunching the numbers I'd be interested to see the results.

 

Just look at a graph of debt as a % of gdp and impose the terms of governments on it. I have but I can't upload it on this machine.

 

IMO it shows a fairer picture because borrowing to stimulate growth is good. It's dominated by the effects of the War debt and in more recent times significant events include the '90s financial crisis and the '08 GFC.

 

In honesty I don't think there is enough data to make a fair assessment of either parties ability to govern economically. Clearly after the War there was huge potential for economic growth and savings which both Labour and Tory's made. Later, the savings that Thatchers government made set Major and the country up well to deal with the '90s crisis. Major looks to have borrowed but didn't leave the country worse than the Tories inherited it despite dealing with the effects of a financial crisis/recession. Blair's Labour inherited this economically robust (perhaps not quite healthy?) country and post '90s recession therefore once again continued with the debt reduction (as a % of GDP!) but then started to borrow and spend leaving them caught off guard when the GFC hit in '08. The coalition and recent Tory Gov' since then look to have started to flatten out the debt but still haven't quite turned the tide.

 

Make your own judgements but I can't say that the two analyses show the same picture, I just don't think they do. Equally I don't think there is enough data to fairly judge Labour. Maybe we need another few Labour governments?

Edited April 25, 2017 by Born Hunter

[shepp 2,285]

 

 

I don't doubt his sources or raw numbers could be correct, just the fact is that people compiling statistics pick out the bits what they want them to show and leave out the bits they don't, that is their job, plus the fact that his own profession discredit his work doesn't help his credentials though he must hurt him more to think Labour doesn't rate him either.

Like removing the financial crisis from his data....ouch!

Did you even read the article? He showed figures both including and excluding the financial crisis to show the effect it had.

 

 

Including

 

 

Excluding

 

 

As you can see Labour borrowed less whether you include the financial crisis or not.

 

 

 

 

I don't doubt his sources or raw numbers could be correct, just the fact is that people compiling statistics pick out the bits what they want them to show and leave out the bits they don't, that is their job, plus the fact that his own profession discredit his work doesn't help his credentials though he must hurt him more to think Labour doesn't rate him either.

Like removing the financial crisis from his data....ouch!

Did you even read the article? He showed figures both including and excluding the financial crisis to show the effect it had.

 

 

Including

 

 

Excluding

 

 

As you can see Labour borrowed less whether you include the financial crisis or not.

 

 

 

That's because Labour tend to inherit a buoyant economy, f**k it up and Conservatives are voted back in to clear up the mess.

[Nik_B 3,790]

Personally I think there should be laws restricting borrowing and spending so that we don't have this constant cycle of bust and boom.

 

The country should be run like we have to run our households, if you don't have it you don't spend it. In the good times they should save money so we don't have to get in to debt in the bad times.

[kanny 20,499]

So what I can gather now is labour are saying they want a end to free movement but want to keep the benefits of being in the single market? Wtf how clear have the EU been about the freedom of movement and the single market being inseparable? It also appears that labours main point is securing the rights for EU citizens who are already here.

[sandymere 8,263]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-you-need-to-speak-to-someone-who.html

 

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-do-people-who-like-nhs-vote-tory.html

Edited April 25, 2017 by sandymere

[arcticgun 4,548]

don't trust or vote for either, seriously what have either done for you in the last fifty years,, can you seriously think anything is going too change at all whist they still the options we have? Just ignore them, don't take part in it at all, see what happens then, it cant be any worse than making one of two extremely poor choices one look through this thread shows you that, it is not against the law for you too totally ignore them, they ignore you for four year periods at a time, then all f a sudden they want to speak and listen to you mmm

 

The above thread shows they are all dishonest at the very least and its also shows we being forced to chose between two really poor contenders with appalling track records, what kind of choice is that?

[kanny 20,499]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-you-need-to-speak-to-someone-who.html

 

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-do-people-who-like-nhs-vote-tory.html

If you want to help the NHS then end free movement don't vote labour

[Malt 379]

Just heard some headlines on R2, apparently Labour have said their version of Brexit includes the end of free movement, apart from students and anyone with a job offer..

 

I've worked in an industry for a multinational who used cheap imported foreign labour, this will do absolutely nothing to stop that happening and keeping the wages down..

[tatsblisters 9,516]

don't trust or vote for either, seriously what have either done for you in the last fifty years,, can you seriously think anything is going too change at all whist they still the options we have? Just ignore them, don't take part in it at all, see what happens then, it cant be any worse than making one of two extremely poor choices one look through this thread shows you that, it is not against the law for you too totally ignore them, they ignore you for four year periods at a time, then all f a sudden they want to speak and listen to you mmm

 

The above thread shows they are all dishonest at the very least and its also shows we being forced to chose between two really poor contenders with appalling track records, what kind of choice is that?

I am thinking the same that you have just wrote though I have always voted and one of the reasons I was told growing up was that good men and women had paid in blood so I could vote in two world wars but know I am thinking feck it.