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.
NeilYoungIsBack said:
I've been following the chatter on the UK Voting Intentions website.

A number of people are reporting on a higher than normal turnout of young people at polling stations.

If true this could be closer than the final opinion polls have predicted.

Having said that, my home-office window overlooks our village polling station and I see nothing but oldies arriving to cast their vote...
Click to expand...

I was the youngest at my polling station by about 40 years. Nothing gets old people moving faster than the fear of the next generation deciding the future.
 
NeilYoungIsBack said:
Having said that, my home-office window overlooks our village polling station and I see nothing but oldies arriving to cast their vote...
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
I don't trust any poll completed by this time. Most people vote after work. Students are still in bed.
 
RandomJ said:
I was the youngest at my polling station by about 40 years. Nothing gets old people moving faster than the fear of the next generation deciding the future.
Click to expand...

I am 53 and had to negotiate many a zimmer at mine this morning. Youngest there by a couple of decades.
 
Blue Mooner said:
Your talking so much gobbledegook you're confusing yourself. I fail to understand how you can have a deficit and yet somehow reduce a debt. A deficit is a deficit. If GDP goes up that will have a cosequential positive impact on the ability to reduce that deficit (assuming you decide to pay that down rather than spend it elsewhere)

The tories have reduced that deficit by 3/4's but it is still a deficit - therefore the debt will continue to rise.

How you seem to think borrowing more will help to reduce the deficit is frankly crass. If you need to stimulate the economy to encourage growth to help reduce the deficit you don't do that by taxing businesses more (affecting inward investment) and the wealth creators (the rich that socialists hate/envy so much) Increasing the minimum wage is likely to further discourage inward investment (growth) by encouraging businesses to invest where it is cheaper to fund employees.

What you are suggesting is the economics of the madhouse and indicates that you think Government is the economy when in actual fact the Government is nothing without the businesses and private individuals that create jobs, attract inward investment and sell goods and services abroad that brings revenue into the country - punish them and you are punishing yourself, it's like self flagellation and simply idiotic to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, but Scottish economics are different.
 
CityStu said:
The deficit is the rate of change of the debt. The debt can't decline without the deficit being a surplus (excepting the sales of assets).

Think of it as a car - the debt is your speed and the deficit is how much you're accelerating. When Labour left the car was going quickly and they had their foot planted. The Tories took over the car and eased off the accelerator but haven't begun braking. The car's still going faster than it was initially, but not as quickly as if we'd kept accelerating at the rate we were.
Click to expand...
Or think of it this way:
City Stu in 2010: " Hello Mr Bank Manager, my business is in the shit, I'm in debt big style but I'm going to reduce my current spending and in five years time my books will balance and I can start bringing my total debt down".
Bank Manager: " Alright mate".
City Stu in 2015: "Hello Mr Bank Manager, sorry I haven't eliminated my deficit yet but it's down by 60% and falling."
Bank Manager: Too right you haven't eliminated your deficit, if you had your debt would have been 1.3tn and falling, as it is it's 1.6tn and rising. When are you going to get rid of your deficit?"
City Stu: " Er ..by about 2025....... Maybe"
Bank Manager: " You're 'avin a giraffe , by then your debt will be 2tn and if interest rates go up you'll never pay it back, especially as you're leaving that trading club. No way, you're not borrowing any more I'm capping your overdraft today. Goodbye mate".
 
SWP's back said:
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.
Click to expand...
This has indeed been explained so often

That so many continue to get it entirely confused - and that on this thread / year, it seems to be mainly Labour voters - then you can understand how the Labour incoherence with regard their statements on the economy has been so desperately lapped up. I guess if it is what you want to hear your mind can close down to rational analysis and debate.

It is also likely why their 'fully costed manifesto' is accepted as such - they know that previous manifesto promises have not been accompanied by the associated costings that they seem to just accept superficial things at face value - when it does not bear even the shallowest scrutiny.

You can go further and start to look at the robustness of their claims on what increases in Corporation Tax will achieve etc. But you have to eventually ask yourself if it is worth it - they just want to not hear sensible challenge (or your explanations) - their is a Father Christmas after all it seems.
 
NeilYoungIsBack said:
I've been following the chatter on the UK Voting Intentions website.

A number of people are reporting on a higher than normal turnout of young people at polling stations.

If true this could be closer than the final opinion polls have predicted.

Having said that, my home-office window overlooks our village polling station and I see nothing but oldies arriving to cast their vote...
Click to expand...

Isn't it likely that people who are hoping for a high turn out of young people will be quick to notice and flag up any signs of a high turn out of young people? If they're reporting it early in the day its probably wishful thinking.
 
BLUEMATT23 said:
voted conservative and hopeful of a comfortable victory.
Stunned that the vote above suggests more Labour support.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're surprised by that. Manchester has always been a Labour stronghold, and most of our users are Manchester-based. To be honest, I'm glad that, despite claims to the contrary, it's still a predominantly left wing forum. Those on the right just tend to shout louder.
 
mcfc1632 said:
This has indeed been explained so often

That so many continue to get it entirely confused - and that on this thread / year, it seems to be mainly Labour voters - then you can understand how the Labour incoherence with regard their statements on the economy has been so desperately lapped up. I guess if it is what you want to hear your mind can close down to rational analysis and debate.

It is also likely why their 'fully costed manifesto' is accepted as such - they know that previous manifesto promises have not been accompanied by the associated costings that they seem to just accept superficial things at face value - when it does not bear even the shallowest scrutiny.

You can go further and start to look at the robustness of their claims on what increases in Corporation Tax will achieve etc. But you have to eventually ask yourself if it is worth it - they just want to not hear sensible challenge (or your explanations) - their is a Father Christmas after all it seems.
Click to expand...
Most on here understand perfectly the relationship between deficit and total debt and that if you don't bring the deficit down quick enough and fast enough, the increase in your national debt can become a major problem, particularly when interest rates rise. So just to remind you, Osborne said he would eliminate the deficit by 2015 by which time the national debt would have been 1.3tn and falling. As it is the latest target is to reduce the deficit ( definitely maybe) by 2025 by which time the national debt will be two trillion plus. A major fail from the party of so called economic competence.
It's the likes of yourself et al who use the deficit/national debt debate as a smokescreen to hide the rank failure of your beloved Tories.
 
cibaman said:
Isn't it likely that people who are hoping for a high turn out of young people will be quick to notice and flag up any signs of a high turn out of young people? If they're reporting it early in the day its probably wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's always this. Happens every election.

A fantastic day for Labour will be only losing by a 50 seat majority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top