General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You can spout your Daily Mail-inspired economic illiteracy as much as you like, but I'm afraid it doesn't stand scrutiny against the facts.

I hear of the Daily Mail being cited in a vast number of postings, but noting the daily purchasing figures that are in the public domain, it is not exactly one of the highest-selling newspapers, which makes me really wonder if there are all that many of those on this website who actually subscribe to it.

 

[table38]

I think the actual reason they 'flee France' is simply because France is closer to the African/Asian countries people are escaping so they reach France on the way to their intended destination.

But France is a socialist paradise! Surely there's no poverty or homelessness or food banks there. So why risk your life under a truck to come to the UK?

 

[CC 72100]

But France is a socialist paradise! Surely there's no poverty or homelessness or food banks there.

The streets of Paris suggest a rather different story... never seen poverty like it!

 

[muddythefish]

Yup. As I said, cleaning up the mess left by the last government, who as I recall were so financially illiterate they didn't even know the difference between a tax and a subsidy

Did you actually ready my post proving everything you say is wrong ?

The facts and figures are easily available on the internet - if you can be bothered to check.

 

[Mojo]

The streets of Paris suggest a rather different story... never seen poverty like it!

Exactly the point he was trying to make!

 

[CC 72100]

Exactly the point he was trying to make!

I sort of get that now... I didn't know whether it was an educated guess or a description of reality. Unfortunately I'll confirm it is the latter

 

[pemma]

But France is a socialist paradise! Surely there's no poverty or homelessness or food banks there. So why risk your life under a truck to come to the UK?

Inability to speak French?

Knowing people who are already in the UK? Manchester has a Libyan community so it could be some of the Libyans who have been rescued in the Mediterranean would like to reach Manchester for that reason.

 

[pemma]

The streets of Paris suggest a rather different story... never seen poverty like it!

Arriving by Eurostar in Paris certainly doesn't give you a good first impression of Paris.

However, according to the IMF per capita the French are richer than us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

However, my understanding is in France the rich are richer and the poor are poorer when compared to the UK, which could explain why Sarkozy's right leaning government lost out to Hollande's left leaning government at the last election - the French want things to change.

 

[yorksrob]

France is not a great example of a country with a social democratic consensus. French politics is pretty polarised between left and right like in the UK and the extremes of rich and poor are not unlike the UK either. Better to look at the Nordic countries and the Netherlands to an extent where incomes and living standards are very high, but taxation is also high. The Nordic countries accept this as a necessary price to avoid the extremes experienced in western European countries and also to pay for world class public services. These countries also don't have much debt. Anglo-Saxon countries like the UK and the US choose high debt over high taxation.

The concept of borrowing for tax cuts is not unknown, and George W Bush did that during his presidency, despite having to borrow vast sums to pay for wars.

There is much to admire in the Nordic countries, and I often think we could follow their example on many things.

The thing that worries me that I never understand about them (going by second hand reports) is that beer always seems very expensive in these places. Is there some unwritten law of economics that if you're going to live in a well run state with social justice, you have to be wrung out at the bar?

 

[The Snap]

There is much to admire in the Nordic countries, and I often think we could follow their example on many things.

The thing that worries me that I never understand about them (going by second hand reports) is that beer always seems very expensive in these places. Is there some unwritten law of economics that if you're going to live in a well run state with social justice, you have to be wrung out at the bar?

Beer is also very expensive in Ireland, and look how that turned out!!

 

[pemma]

If you look at George Osborne's own record as Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first 3 years he managed to add more to the national debt than the supposedly "profligate and irresponsible" Labour party did in the 13 preceding years.

Osborne has gone on about no giveaways but the Conservatives are offering giveaways and actually proposed more in their manifesto for the most recent election than Labour did in theirs, despite their constant claims of Labour overspending and not being able to trust Labour with the economy. According to the IFS the party with the most viable plan for a recovery is the Lib Dems, so no longer having the Lib Dems in government may mean things get worse this term.

The last Labour government proposed the way to get the economy moving again was a temporary VAT cut to 15%, many MPs currently in the Conservative cabinet, including George Osborne, voted in favour of it. However, when they got in to government not only did they allow VAT to return to 17.5% they proposed an increase to 20% to cut the deficit.

In the last Labour budget a scheme to incentivise low earners to put money in to savings account was announced called Savings Gateway. The Coalition stopped that going ahead as part of their spending review. Yet 5 years later the Conservatives came up with a similar scheme called the Help To Buy ISA but targeted at different people - also ones more likely to vote Conservative. I think Miliband missed a trick by saying Labour would still allow the Help To Buy ISA to go ahead but would revise some of the terms opposed going back to Savings Gateway, which might have helped them win back support of people voters who used to vote Labour.

 

[zuriblue]

There is much to admire in the Nordic countries, and I often think we could follow their example on many things.

The thing that worries me that I never understand about them (going by second hand reports) is that beer always seems very expensive in these places. Is there some unwritten law of economics that if you're going to live in a well run state with social justice, you have to be wrung out at the bar?

I think it's more that with the long winters there is a strong preponderance towards alcoholism in the Nordic countries.

 

[pemma]

There is much to admire in the Nordic countries, and I often think we could follow their example on many things.

The thing that worries me that I never understand about them (going by second hand reports) is that beer always seems very expensive in these places. Is there some unwritten law of economics that if you're going to live in a well run state with social justice, you have to be wrung out at the bar?

Beer is also very expensive in Ireland, and look how that turned out!!

Not all countries see beer the same way as we do. If a British bar offered one type of beer brewed in the country and no other beers I don't think it'd do well. However, in some countries a lack of choice is the norm and if you want a choice you choose alternative alcoholic beverages.

 

[radamfi]

There is much to admire in the Nordic countries, and I often think we could follow their example on many things.

The thing that worries me that I never understand about them (going by second hand reports) is that beer always seems very expensive in these places. Is there some unwritten law of economics that if you're going to live in a well run state with social justice, you have to be wrung out at the bar?

The Netherlands is pretty Nordic-like but isn't nearly as expensive as the Scandinavian countries. I think the Netherlands is a more realistic role model for the UK.

 

[pemma]

The Netherlands is pretty Nordic-like but isn't nearly as expensive as the Scandinavian countries. I think the Netherlands is a more realistic role model for the UK.

Population density also plays a factor on prices. I also imagine the costs of keeping infrastructure running in extreme conditions has a negative affect on prices in Nordic countries and the Polar nights experienced will certainly mean more electricity is required to keep things going.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

But France is a socialist paradise! Surely there's no poverty or homelessness or food banks there. So why risk your life under a truck to come to the UK?

I know BBC ignored this story, but 90 immigrants were arrested and many more beaten by French Police yesterday in a camp in central Paris. Hardly paradise.

 

[Clip]

If you look at George Osborne's own record as Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first 3 years he managed to add more to the national debt than the supposedly "profligate and irresponsible" Labour party did in the 13 preceding years.

In fact, in just 4 years George Osborne has increased the national debt in real terms more than every Labour party chancellor in history combined!

You can spout your Daily Mail-inspired economic illiteracy as much as you like, but I'm afraid it doesn't stand scrutiny against the facts.

You are aware though, that when Osborne first came to power the interest payments alone were an eye watering £49Bn. That's a lot of money before you start paying off the intital debt itself isn't it?
Anyway here is a lovely graph

 

[TheKnightWho]

You are aware though, that when Osborne first came to power the interest payments alone were an eye watering £49Bn. That's a lot of money before you start paying off the intital debt itself isn't it?
Anyway here is a lovely graph

That is the deficit - not the debt, though.

 

[muddythefish]

You are aware though, that when Osborne first came to power the interest payments alone were an eye watering £49Bn. That's a lot of money before you start paying off the intital debt itself isn't it?
Anyway here is a lovely graph

Thanks for that graph - tells the story in a nutshell that Brown's borrowing was nothing out of the ordinary until 2008-09 when the government had to bail out the banks to save the economy (and the country).

 

[Manchester77]

While this isn't related to the current topic of discussion the latest polling for Holyrood next year puts the SNP on 60% for the constituencies and 50% for the list! however due to the fact Holyrood uses AMS and not FPTP other parties will exist despite the SNPs 60%. Interesting that if Holyrood was like Westminster with FPTP there would be no Labour MSPs anymore as they've lost all constituencies. Also to add the labour constituency thing is pretty constant now with polls predicting for months that the constituencies will be pretty much all SNP.

https://twitter.com/scotlandvotes/status/608208620635987968

 

[pemma]

Thanks for that graph - tells the story in a nutshell that Brown's borrowing was nothing out of the ordinary until 2008-09 when the government had to bail out the banks to save the economy (and the country).

I think it's also a bit misleading by showing Brown's reign ended before the downturn. Reason being Brown (as PM) overruled Darling (as chancellor) when Darling proposed some spending cuts.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Thanks for that graph - tells the story in a nutshell that Brown's borrowing was nothing out of the ordinary until 2008-09 when the government had to bail out the banks to save the economy (and the country).

One other point worth noting is that the graph appears to show the monetary value of the deficit. But the important figure is what the deficit is as a % of GDP. If the graph was corrected for that, it would show relatively higher deficits the further back in time you go. By not correcting for that, the graph shows the deficits during the Thatcher/Major years as being smaller than they actually are in real terms, relative to deficits in more recent years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are aware though, that when Osborne first came to power the interest payments alone were an eye watering £49Bn. That's a lot of money before you start paying off the intital debt itself isn't it?
Anyway here is a lovely graph

£49BN seems eye-watering, but the situation is actually a lot more complicated than that. I don't know the figures, but much of that interest will be being paid to organizations within the UK - and that money therefore immediately re-enters the flow of money within the British economy, boosting economic growth, and of course much of that is very quickly returned to the Government in the form of extra tax revenue.

If the Government somehow magically paid off its entire debt, then financial situation would improve, but NOT by anything like that £49bn, because those benefits to the economy from the debt repayments would disappear, reducing the Government's income. And a consequence of this is that the actual loss to the Government that results from repayments of accumulated debt is going to be much less than the raw figures would suggest. (I don't know by how much though)

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

While this isn't related to the current topic of discussion the latest polling for Holyrood next year puts the SNP on 60% for the constituencies and 50% for the list! however due to the fact Holyrood uses AMS and not FPTP other parties will exist despite the SNPs 60%. Interesting that if Holyrood was like Westminster with FPTP there would be no Labour MSPs anymore as they've lost all constituencies. Also to add the labour constituency thing is pretty constant now with polls predicting for months that the constituencies will be pretty much all SNP.

https://twitter.com/scotlandvotes/status/608208620635987968

There's 1 Labour(Edinburgh South),, 1 Tory(Dumfries) and 1 Lib Dem(Orkney & Shetland) seat in Scotland.
It's not all SNP in Scots Westminster seats.

 

[Aldaniti]

Thanks for that graph - tells the story in a nutshell that Brown's borrowing was nothing out of the ordinary until 2008-09 when the government had to bail out the banks to save the economy (and the country).

Oh yes it was. The deficit in the 90's was as a result of Black Wednesday - and the Tories paid a price at the next General Election. Labour told us that it was quite acceptable to run a deficit of £40bn. Cobblers - only Labour believed that - everyone else wondered why the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world had got itself into such a state that it had to borrow. Gordon Brown wasn't responsible for the banking crisis, but his (and Blair's) fingerprints are all over the evidence, along with many other politicians going back to the 70's when Tricky Dicky [effectively] scrapped Bretton Woods.

 

[Manchester77]

There's 1 Labour(Edinburgh South),, 1 Tory(Dumfries) and 1 Lib Dem(Orkney & Shetland) seat in Scotland.
It's not all SNP in Scots Westminster seats.

I wasn't talking about Westminster I'm talking about Holyrood where based on the recent polls labour would have no MSPs if it weren't for the list.

And with Carmichael under investigation and the possibility of a prosecution due to him possibly breaking the Represenation of the People Act (1983) there may only be two non-SNP Westminster MPs.

 

[muddythefish]

All countries borrow. The question is, with interest rates at next to zero why we aren't borrowing more to invest in this country's lamentable infrastructure.

 

[Aldaniti]

All countries borrow. The question is, with interest rates at next to zero why we aren't borrowing more to invest in this country's lamentable infrastructure.

It's not the infrastructure that's the problem. Its demand......

Interest rates might be low now, but you forget the capital element. Money borrowed is still money which has to be repaid - by taxpayers. Moreover, whilst interest rates are indeed low, they will, at some point, rise. As sure as night follows day. How long do you want to borrow more for? Many people forget we've printed an awful lot of magic money in recent years - I think the trendy term was quantitative easing. There will, at some point, be an effect to that, mark my words.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh yes it was. The deficit in the 90's was as a result of Black Wednesday - and the Tories paid a price at the next General Election. Labour told us that it was quite acceptable to run a deficit of £40bn. Cobblers - only Labour believed that - everyone else wondered why the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world had got itself into such a state that it had to borrow. Gordon Brown wasn't responsible for the banking crisis, but his (and Blair's) fingerprints are all over the evidence, along with many other politicians going back to the 70's when Tricky Dicky [effectively] scrapped Bretton Woods.

Are you serious? Every economy needs to borrow - this idea that money works the same way for the economy as it does for households is utterly off-point.

You going on about infrastructure totally misses the point - money borrowed and then spent generates demand. You then pay that back in times of prosperity. The "magic money" you mention comes to bite in the form of inflation, which is currently hovering around 0% - a figure that is actually too low.

 

[radamfi]

everyone else wondered why the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world had got itself into such a state that it had to borrow.

The size of economy is irrelevant. What counts is the debt to GDP ratio.

But if we want to talk about size, what about the biggest economy in the world? Government Gross Debt to GDP ratio of 106%. The USA, a country famous for low tax and 'small government'. Even worse than the UK at 90%.

What about 'socialist' Sweden? 38%
'Socialist' Denmark? 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

 

[Aldaniti]

Are you serious? Every economy needs to borrow - this idea that money works the same way for the economy as it does for households is utterly off-point.

You going on about infrastructure totally misses the point - money borrowed and then spent generates demand. You then pay that back in times of prosperity. The "magic money" you mention comes to bite in the form of inflation, which is currently hovering around 0% - a figure that is actually too low.

Student economics. The real world is somewhat different.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The size of economy is irrelevant. What counts is the debt to GDP ratio.

But if we want to talk about size, what about the biggest economy in the world? Government Gross Debt to GDP ratio of 106%. The USA, a country famous for low tax and 'small government'. Even worse than the UK at 90%.

What about 'socialist' Sweden? 38%
'Socialist' Denmark? 50%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Again, too much theory and not enough reality I'm afraid. And in any event, you miss the substantive point I make, as illustrated by the selective quotation. Both of you need to go back to 1970 and start again.