Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[NPBlue]

As a neutral with no real interest in politics and no idea who to vote for, I listened to the programme and it left me none the wiser about anything.

Listen to that car crash of a programme on the radio, as I did, and there is nothing to report other than it sounded like a group of 10 year old children having a squabble in the playground.

it sounded dreadful, and it was disappointing to hear our leading politicians sounding so petty.

Maybe they collectively ought to remember you won't sell anything just by knocking the opposition.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Hello mate, guess what - in 2007 only 37 bn was borrowed, by 2010 the figure was 170 bn.
Guess what happened between 2007 and 2010 - the global financial crash! Hence the increase.
Capiche?

There was a deficit in 2007? I thought the economy grew that year?

That doesn't make sense.

The Govt borrowed 37 bn, 28 bn was invested in major projects leaving a deficit of 9bn.
Actually Labour were doing quite well, weren't they.

Fuck no.

Why on earth would a healthy, growing economy be *borrowing* more and more and more and more money? That was the idiocy of the Labour government, and the previous Labour government and the one before that.

You've fallen for this "investing in major projects" bullshit. What that really means is "employing more and more people in the public sector" and "taking more and more money of people in the private sector to pay for it, and borrowing what you can't get away with taking".

That's why the economy was so terribly vulnerable when the crash came. We were in a shoddy state and the crash left us in the pitiful position the tories has to try to recover us from.

Look at the direction the economy was heading in, in 2007. And look at the direction it was heading in, in 2005. The only staggering thing is that it took Labour so long to fuck it up from 1997, and that's because Tony Blair was in many way a closet Tory. As soon as Gordon cretin Brown got his hands on the wheel, the wheel came off.

[bigimg]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg[/bigimg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data</a>

 

[Chippy_boy]

Cheese is made of milk, the main ingredient of which is water when frozen and falling from the upper atmosphere is what we refer to as snow. Could probably restructure that into a valid argument with some effort.

:)

Knock yourself out ;-)

By the way,


Most reports describe the deficit in terms of % of GDP, which back in 2010 was 11% of GDP. Some that give the numbers are these:

<a class="postlink" href="http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/37839-OBR-Cm-8820-accessible-web-v2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/ ... web-v2.pdf</a>

1.10 Our forecast implies that by 2018-19 the UK’s budget deficit will have fallen by 11.2 per cent of GDP from its post-war peak in 2009-10 (around £190 billion in today’s terms).

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-The-economic-recovery-and-the-budget-deficit.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... eficit.pdf</a>

"Reducing the budget deficit will be the central economic challenge of the new Parliament. The deficit is forecast to be £163 billion (11.1% of GDP) this year: a very high level by historical standards."

I'm not disagreeing with you either per se, but I just want to point out that your argument is hinging on a few assumptions. Firstly, that a country running on a deficit is always a bad thing. You haven't yet proven that a country cannot operate on a deficit. Here is a list of government budgets with most recent estimates available, the vast majority of which run at a deficit. So if a country can operate at a deficit what should that deficit be? From my perspective as long as you have the means to service your debt then you're in a good position. However this is where I would agree with you that we need to improve our position and reduce the deficit, as the downgrading of our credit rating amongst other things suggests our ability to pay our debts is potentially at risk.

The second assumption you make is that austerity will definitely reduce our deficit. It isn't necessarily that clear that it would. Many governments have attempted to make cuts in the wrong places and haven't helped their economy at all, in a lot of cases they've sent them backwards.

I'm a centrist in the sense that I think public services should be cost-effective and we should cut-out middle-management and waste where it is necessary and sensible to do so. However, austerity for austerity sake is non-constructive and can often lead to us actually worsening our situation by causing stagnation, higher unemployment, diminishing consumer spending and confidence in the markets. I'm all for spending cuts, but I don't want them to be arbitrary and driven by targets.

It actually comes down to Leanne Wood's rather apt point that putting deadlines on reducing the deficit doesn't help anybody. As long as our economy is growing and the deficit is decreasing then our debt as a % of GDP is stabilising, and that seems a favourable position to be in.

I tend to have a more right wing view, but I understand your position and you argue it well.

The line I will pick up on is "austerity for austerity sake". Of course that would be ridiculous and I don't think anyone on any side of the debate is arguing for that. The most tenuous argument might be austerity for the sake or reducing the size of the public sector on ideological grounds, but that's about as far as it goes. Austerity is always going to be undertaken for some reason or another.

For me, the terrifying thing that needed to be addressed was (and still is) the overall national debt, which although headlining in the high £1.x trillions is perhaps nearer £4 trillion when you add in other liabilities not included, such as pensions. A few people compare this to debt levels in the distant past, such as the 1,700's - 1,800's - or even the early to mid 1,900's - and conclude that as a percentage of GDP, it's not so bad.

But that fundamentally misunderstands that the country was in very different situations in those two epochs. The former was the start of the industrialisation of Britain and our global expansion into becoming the world's biggest and most successful economy, and crucially, underpinned by the exploitation of the commonweath. This led to huge trade and budget surpluses and rapid reduction of debt throughout the 1,800's on a scale we could never imagine today.

The 1,900's debt was caused by two world wars - hardly a position to aspire to when making comparisons.

 

[cibaman]

According to tomorrow's Torygraph, a leaked memo shows that Sturgeon secretly wants a Tory government.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... meron.html</a>

If the Telegraph has the memo and publishes it, this could be very bad for the SNP. But only if they have it and are willing to produce it, otherwise it will be just a ripple. The Telegraph was once a conservative paper of note, but now it's nothing more than a broadsheet rag full of right wing polemic and north of the border I suspect the Scots wouldn't wipe their arse with it, but if they physically have in their hands the memo, or a least a copy of it, then it'll be a body blow for Sturgeon.

Its a memo from a civil servant about a telephone converesation with a bloke who describes a conversation between two other people, who have different first languages. Sturgeon can flatly deny it and nobody will prove otherwise.

In any case it falls into the "stating the bleedin obvious" category.

 

[cibaman]

Miliband and Labour must be pretty happy with how it seems neck and neck in the polls considering all the doom and gloom before hand about Ed's ability to be PM. If come election night they have a 50/50 chance of winning, I'm sure they would take it now. Makes it exciting.

I hope Labour win, change is good, and it's Labour's time now.

Scottish Labour had a very bad night on Thursday. It will be interesting to see how Sturgeon's performance is reflected in the polls in Scotland in the next few days. If its game over for Scottish Labour then it becomes very difficult for Labour to win an outright majority. Which means that the focus over the next few weeks will increasingly be on the nature of a minority Labour government. I cant see how Labour would be pretty happy about that prospect.

 

[blueinsa]

Agreed 100%. Hatred springs to mind the language used by many of the YES campaign, i saw it and heard it first hand but its gone, they lost and the SNP are the only option up here in Scotland as Labour are dead!

It's another debate but you seem to be framing the independence movement in Scotland in to some kind of Hollywood Braveheart thing, it was nothing of the sort, the whole campaign had a nasty racist undertone to it

Nonesense.

To generalise a movement like that is ridiculous.

I never met one single yes voter who portrayed any kind of racist behaviour.

I know two no voters who voted no because they support the Rangers. And they have a love in with being British. I actually got a text from the no voter a week ago that read this.
'Rangers are the quintessential British club, it's only fitting to use British flags when talking about such a great British institution'

I've never once come across anyone who 'hated' the rest of the UK and thus voted yes.
I've came across many, myself included, who hate westminster and the way they roger our country.

Make no mistake, the yes generation has been born and it will have its day.

Scottish labour will struggle, in fact I would say they will never get into power again but of that you can't be certain, to ever be in power up here again.

The SNP should, rightly, romp this election.

Agreed 100%. Hatred springs to mind the language used by many of the YES campaign, i saw it and heard it first hand but its gone, they lost and the SNP are the only option up here in Scotland as Labour are dead!

It's another debate but you seem to be framing the independence movement in Scotland in to some kind of Hollywood Braveheart thing, it was nothing of the sort, the whole campaign had a nasty racist undertone to it

Nonesense.

To generalise a movement like that is ridiculous.

I never met one single yes voter who portrayed any kind of racist behaviour.

I know two no voters who voted no because they support the Rangers. And they have a love in with being British. I actually got a text from the no voter a week ago that read this.
'Rangers are the quintessential British club, it's only fitting to use British flags when talking about such a great British institution'

I've never once come across anyone who 'hated' the rest of the UK and thus voted yes.
I've came across many, myself included, who hate westminster and the way they roger our country.

Make no mistake, the yes generation has been born and it will have its day.

Scottish labour will struggle, in fact I would say they will never get into power again but of that you can't be certain, to ever be in power up here again.

The SNP should, rightly, romp this election.

Just had the chance to log on so I apologise if there's been further posts on this matter but I agree 100% with this post.

The only hatred I seen from the yes campaign was directed at Westminster. It wasn't directed at the English or the Welsh or anyone else, just at those in charge. Of course there would have been a few racist nuggets in there and likewise on the other side of the coin. But the movement in absolutely no shape or form had any racist undertone to it imo.

Also disagree with SWP's back. If I were a betting man and we had gained independence I'd have had my mortgage on us being accepted into the EU. But hey ho, that's all ifs and buts now and I debated on here for ages on that very matter at the relevant time.

The polls up here suggest a SNP romp but I don't think it'll be just as much as the polls suggest. The silent majority turned out for the referendum and I expect a silent bunch to turn out for Labour in May. Never the less, I'd estimate SNP will take 10 or 11 Labour seats. High - but not as high as some forecasts.

As an Englishman living and working in Scotland, (Castle Douglas) i like the SNP and they will have my vote come May as Scottish Labour is dead in the water. The only thing we disagree upon was the vitriol surrounding the referendum and im the first to admit that both sides were quick to dish the abuse out but to suggest as you are that the YES campaign was in no way patriotic and to that end anti English is just not on. The arguments within my work place alone went way too far and some of the things said to me as an Englishman by YES supporters went too far and to this day wont be forgotten. Facefuck was also a sounding board for many and a daily perusal of the YES campaign threads made for some tasty reading shall we say.

That said its been and gone and i accept the YES campaign is here to stay and will have its day in the sun in the future and rightly so as Westminster isn't fit for purpose and as a country we either get Tory lite of full on Tory governments.

 

[Len Rum]

There was a deficit in 2007? I thought the economy grew that year?

That doesn't make sense.

The Govt borrowed 37 bn, 28 bn was invested in major projects leaving a deficit of 9bn.
Actually Labour were doing quite well, weren't they.

Fuck no.

Why on earth would a healthy, growing economy be *borrowing* more and more and more and more money? That was the idiocy of the Labour government, and the previous Labour government and the one before that.

You've fallen for this "investing in major projects" bullshit. What that really means is "employing more and more people in the public sector" and "taking more and more money of people in the private sector to pay for it, and borrowing what you can't get away with taking".

That's why the economy was so terribly vulnerable when the crash came. We were in a shoddy state and the crash left us in the pitiful position the tories has to try to recover us from.

Look at the direction the economy was heading in, in 2007. And look at the direction it was heading in, in 2005. The only staggering thing is that it took Labour so long to fuck it up from 1997, and that's because Tony Blair was in many way a closet Tory. As soon as Gordon cretin Brown got his hands on the wheel, the wheel came off.

[bigimg]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg[/bigimg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data</a>

That's an interesting chart.
Borrowing under The Tories and Labour over the long term seems about similar until the financial crash happened.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There was a deficit in 2007? I thought the economy grew that year?

That doesn't make sense.

The Govt borrowed 37 bn, 28 bn was invested in major projects leaving a deficit of 9bn.
Actually Labour were doing quite well, weren't they.

Fuck no.

Why on earth would a healthy, growing economy be *borrowing* more and more and more and more money? That was the idiocy of the Labour government, and the previous Labour government and the one before that.

You've fallen for this "investing in major projects" bullshit. What that really means is "employing more and more people in the public sector" and "taking more and more money of people in the private sector to pay for it, and borrowing what you can't get away with taking".

That's why the economy was so terribly vulnerable when the crash came. We were in a shoddy state and the crash left us in the pitiful position the tories has to try to recover us from.

Look at the direction the economy was heading in, in 2007. And look at the direction it was heading in, in 2005. The only staggering thing is that it took Labour so long to fuck it up from 1997, and that's because Tony Blair was in many way a closet Tory. As soon as Gordon cretin Brown got his hands on the wheel, the wheel came off.

[bigimg]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg[/bigimg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data</a>

Those figures between 2002 and 2007 are a fucking irresponsible disgrace.

 

[Len Rum]

The Govt borrowed 37 bn, 28 bn was invested in major projects leaving a deficit of 9bn.
Actually Labour were doing quite well, weren't they.

Fuck no.

Why on earth would a healthy, growing economy be *borrowing* more and more and more and more money? That was the idiocy of the Labour government, and the previous Labour government and the one before that.

You've fallen for this "investing in major projects" bullshit. What that really means is "employing more and more people in the public sector" and "taking more and more money of people in the private sector to pay for it, and borrowing what you can't get away with taking".

That's why the economy was so terribly vulnerable when the crash came. We were in a shoddy state and the crash left us in the pitiful position the tories has to try to recover us from.

Look at the direction the economy was heading in, in 2007. And look at the direction it was heading in, in 2005. The only staggering thing is that it took Labour so long to fuck it up from 1997, and that's because Tony Blair was in many way a closet Tory. As soon as Gordon cretin Brown got his hands on the wheel, the wheel came off.

[bigimg]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg[/bigimg]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data</a>

Those figures between 2002 and 2007 are a fucking irresponsible disgrace.

And 1990 -1996?

 

[blueinsa]

I know the sweet sum of nothing when it comes to anything financial but these £billions we owe. Who do we owe it too? Is this money real, sat in big fuck off piles somewhere or is it just numbers being crunched on a computer screen by a few folk having a huge jolly controlling the world and getting rather rich off it?

Every time someone needs money be it a bank or government the B of E manages to find it down the back of a sofa which tells me its all bollocks!

Apologies if im being a thick ****.