General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
DByb16AWAAAv1sk.jpg:large


Paul Nuttall casting his vote in Congleton.. didn't know he lived there !!
 
SWP's back said:
Possibly the most misguided post and graph in the entire thread which is good work at this stage.

The Tories have reduced the deficit they inherited by around 75%. The debt can't reduce until that deficit has had been eradicated as has been explained numberous times. Imagine how bad that graph would look with Labour still in charge.
Click to expand...

This is the same deficit which George Osborne claimed would be cleared by 2015
 
It won't matter much.
In 5 years time the boundary changes will give a net gain to Conservative seats.
Five years after that, Scotland will withdraw and another 50 seats can be discounted. I suspect a few of the more lunatic Conservatives are quietly supportive of Scotland leaving!
 
SWP's back said:
Possibly the most misguided post and graph in the entire thread which is good work at this stage.

The Tories have reduced the deficit they inherited by around 75%. The debt can't reduce until that deficit has had been eradicated as has been explained numberous times. Imagine how bad that graph would look with Labour still in charge.
Click to expand...
Is that the deficit they predicted would be eliminated by 2015 under their guidance? What's the prediction now? 2019? 2020? I guess that's what happens when you put a history major in charge of the economy. The point isn't that it's still increasing, it's that it's barely slowing.

Maybe you'd prefer the graph in this article that show that there's barely any distinction between the parties on whether they run a surplus or a deficit. But most importantly, the running of big deficits coincides pretty strongly with Margaret Thatcher's shift to liberal economics.
 
Last edited:
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Tuition fee abolition won't cost a penny. The government are paying all the fees now, they just want to hide it on a different side of the balance sheet (like PFI).
Everyone keeps saying hardly anyone will pay it back, so what is the point? If you want payback, then 0.5% on income tax for all graduates for 10/15 years would cover it.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - if it was that simple you would think that the shadow schools minister Mike Kane could have responded better to simple questions than simply doing a 'Diane Abbot impersonation'
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Is that the deficit they predicted would be eliminated by 2015 under their guidance? What's the prediction now? 2019? 2020? I guess that's what happens when you put a history major in charge of the economy. The point isn't that it's still increasing, it's that it's barely slowing.
Click to expand...

You've posted a load of bollocks, been called up on it and then moved the goalposts of the argument.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
1) We don't know what's being proposed for social care under the Tories as they say one thing one day then something else the next day. They talked about a cap but couldn't say what that cap was and the small print behind the headline indicated that it was a very selective cap.

2) You keep saying the economy is in good shape and I showed you why growth was not being driven by the right fundamentals (eg productivity, which was stagnant). At that point you went very quiet. Yes there is some growth but it's weak and has slumped in Q1 2017 and is the weakest in the EU. So we can comprehensively nail the lie that the economy is in good shape.

3) There is a choice between security and civil liberties but even countries where the latter are severely restricted have security issues. Even Israel suffers terror attacks despite having possibly the most effective security services in the world the humiliating & draconian measures taken against Palestinians in the West Bank which effectively ghettoises them.

There is simply no way that anyone can guarantee that we won't suffer more attacks like the ones we've seen recently. Corbyn voted against those measures (most of which have been implemented despite that) not because he's pro-terrorist but because he's anti the erosion of our civil liberties. Because once those are gone, they're gone.
Click to expand...
1) which is still better than the current situation with social care that came into being under Labour where your house has to be sold and your beneficiaries get under £30k ring fenced.

2) UK growth has been ahead of the EU average in 5 of the last 7 quarters and is NOT the lowest in Europe. That's a lie.

3) So yes, even Israel gets attacked. Why would you then say the UK has failed just because it's had its first two attacks in 12 years?
 
Ban-jani said:
You've posted a load of bollocks, been called up on it and then moved the goalposts of the argument.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. I corrected you on your misinformed interpretation of the data. You said you'd voted for them because they'll cut the debt. I posted data showing that not only have they failed to do that in 7 years of power, but they've also failed to make any significant inroads into the speed of increase in the debt. And now because you can't respond to that criticism, you're resorting to pathetic points like the one above.
 
Magicpole said:
You're mixing up deficit with debt.

Two different things.

The deficit has reduced due to cuts so the difference in deficit concerns the gap in what we spend and what we earn.

The debt has risen nearly £900m since 2010 and this is not connected to deficit, so, your misunderstanding if the two makes your post misguided.

We can have zero deficit in GNP but be up to our ears in debt. Which we are.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting mixed up about anything. I live economics. I'm explaining why the fucking debt is going up (and that it will continue to do so until the deficit becomes a surplus).

You can't talk about one without reference to the other and really, don't try and tell me what I am confusing when it's you that is befuddled:

"The debt has risen nearly £900m since 2010 and this is not connected to deficit" (your sentence) shows you have zero understanding of the topic. So go away and read up and then come back to me.
 
Blue Mooner said:
But your totally missing the point, no one, not least the poorest will be better off in an economy that has tanked and run out of money because of profligate spending. It might 'feel' better for a few years whilst the 'borrowed' money gets pumped in but when it runs out, as it always does with Labour, it's yet again left to the 'nasty' tories to pick up the mess and make the difficult decisions and sadly that means people's lives being affected adversely. That's the real world not Labour's fantasy one.

If inflation gets out of hand because of profligate spending, above inflation salary rises ,then interest rates will have to rise and that will put millions of mortgaged families at risk of unaffordable payments and more burden on public finances that we can ill afford.

Families can't spend beyond their means without going bust, businesses can't spend beyond their means without going bust, and neither can countries. You have to balance the budgets.

Does that mean I think the Tories get everything right, of course not, but they are a damn sight more realistic and responsible then Labour will ever be.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I really haven't missed the point at all. Countries can and invariably do run with a deficit. The Tories came in and promised to reduce the countries deficit, how well did they do with that? Moreover how many people have suffered as a result of their failure to do so.

This is about priorities. they have to borrow and spend the public purse in some way, the Tories choose to do it one way Labour the other. That is the point, Labour promise to spend it on people that need it, the tories don't.

I realise that this debate is futile and you will tell me that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy and Conservatives can. I disagree, we move on.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That because your party has fucked up just about everything else so should be booted out if the election was about the earth onomy, the NHS, security, social care, education, etc.
Click to expand...
I can understand you saying that - I even think that you probably believe it is why I say that

but it is not why I make that statement.


I made that statement because we are about to enter into the Brexit negotiations and if we do not get that right - all the manifesto promises are utterly compromised any way. People are (rightly IMO) pointing out the flimsiness of the Labour 'fully costed manifesto' - if we do not focus on getting Brexit right then the economy is going to suffer badly.

BTW - you are wrong to make the comment "...your party..." I have voted Labour more often than conservative and would be voting for them now if they were more credible than the Conservatives on delivering Brexit.
 
It's pathetic seeing people trying to defend the Tories record on the economy when even by their own targets, they failed.

When they fail to meet the targets they set on the PISA tests for education, no doubt the same people will come on telling us how they're doing a great job on that issue too.

You can't set targets, repeatedly fail to meet them, and then start telling everyone that you've done a great job. It's embarrassing. But sadly, it'll probably work.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
This is the same deficit which George Osborne claimed would be cleared by 2015
Click to expand...

I'm With Stupid said:
Is that the deficit they predicted would be eliminated by 2015 under their guidance? What's the prediction now? 2019? 2020? I guess that's what happens when you put a history major in charge of the economy. The point isn't that it's still increasing, it's that it's barely slowing.

Maybe you'd prefer the graph in this article that show that there's barely any distinction between the parties on whether they run a surplus or a deficit. But most importantly, the running of big deficits coincides pretty strongly with Margaret Thatcher's shift to liberal economics.
Click to expand...

You're both arguing strawmen which I'm not going to engage you in.

I simply explained for those that are obviously very confused on the subject how the debt is at record levels despite the Tories reducing the deficit by 75%.

It's been explained so many times on this forum in the last two years but I'll go again. You take over a failing company, its losses have been growing on a year by year basis before you come in as follows:

Year one: £10,000 loss (10,000 debt)
Year two: £15,000 loss (25,000 debt)
Year three: £20,000 loss (45,000 debt)

You take and get things in control (overheads drop and you start improving your income) and whilst still not turning a profit, you start getting towards it

Year four £12,000 loss (57,000 debt)
Year five £8,000 loss (65,000 debt)
Year six £6,000 loss (71,000 debt)

The debt has still doubled even though you've reduced the losses by 75% but with good stewardship your back yourself to start making a profit again now everything is under control.

Ps, how anyone can say that a 75% reduction in something is "barely slowing" fuck only knows. If you're going down the motorway at 100mph and come across road works or heavy traffic and drop your speed to 25 mph then I doubt you'd say you've barely slowed.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
No I didn't. I corrected you on your misinformed interpretation of the data. You said you'd voted for them because they'll cut the debt. I posted data showing that not only have they failed to do that in 7 years of power, but they've also failed to make any significant inroads into the speed of increase in the debt. And now because you can't respond to that criticism, you're resorting to pathetic points like the one above.
Click to expand...

Your post was a direct response to me saying I wanted to keep borrowing down. You didn't post a graph in relation to borrowing did you? So you've moved the goal posts as I said.

My point was the deficit has gone down over 70% since 2010 and borrowing has gone down from £153 billion to £43 billion... and I want to see it continued.
 
SWP's back said:
I'm not getting mixed up about anything. I live economics. I'm explaining why the fucking debt is going up (and that it will continue to do so until the deficit becomes a surplus).

You can't talk about one without reference to the other and really, don't try and tell me what I am confusing when it's you that is befuddled:

"The debt has risen nearly £900m since 2010 and this is not connected to deficit" (your sentence) shows you have zero understanding of the topic. So go away and read up and then come back to me.
Click to expand...

You're talking shite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
 
mcfc1632 said:
I can understand you saying that - I even think that you probably believe it is why I say that

but it is not why I make that statement.


I made that statement because we are about to enter into the Brexit negotiations and if we do not get that right - all the manifesto promises are utterly compromised any way. People are (rightly IMO) pointing out the flimsiness of the Labour 'fully costed manifesto' - if we do not focus on getting Brexit right then the economy is going to suffer badly.

BTW - you are wrong to make the comment "...your party..." I have voted Labour more often than conservative and would be voting for them now if they were more credible than the Conservatives on delivering Brexit.
Click to expand...
I actually believe that under all the political posturing the aim of both major parties is to find a way to remain in the single market without having the rest of the shit that comes with that. I think there will be a financial cost to be paid for that but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Labour & Liberal Democrats are pretty open about that whereas the Tories are saying things like "Brexit means Brexit" and that they'd be prepared to walk away from a bad deal. So I think that the Tories would be least likely to pay something for a good deal but that's just my opinion. We'll see in 2 years!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top