The General Election Thread

[Chancy Termites]

The Conservative party has been in power far more often and for longer than any other party these last 100 years. In the post war years, including these past 5 years of coalition, they've been in power 40 out of the last 70 years.

The period of real destruction to our ecomomy was the early 80's, where we lost 45% of our manufacturing industry.

Yet all our woes are down to labour, including, I assume, the global meltdown brought about by bankers engaging in wanton casino gambling of toxic assets, poisoned by millions of sub prime mortgages, mostly originating in the USA.

Christ! Labour really knows how to fuck up on a global scale!

Fallacy. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell from 21% in 1979 to about 16% in 1997 so it fell by about a quarter in 18 years. It then fell from 16% to about 12% in 2010, so about a quarter in just 13 years. Manufacturing fell faster under Blair and Brown than it did under Thatcher and Major.

By all means criticise the Conservatives; they've done plenty to be critical of. But it's misleading to suggest, as you did, that the Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, when Labour destroyed it quicker.

You're dead right about the financial meltdown in 2007 though. That was absolutely down to Labour's decision to stop regulating the City in order to suck all the dodgy money in from elsewhere in the world where there were tighter regulations (eg the USA) when they introduced the Financial Services Act 2000. No single person anywhere in the world bears more responsibility for it than that act's author, Gordon Brown.

As a share of GDP you might well be correct, you can lose X of something that makes up GDP, but if Y that makes up the rest grows then the decline of X is diminished as a percentage of the whole. Nevertheless you still lose X, I think the figure was 44% of manufacturing capacity now I've done a bit of digging, but I'll find something a bit more definitive.

As for financial de-regulation, you can draw the line in the sand as far back as the Big Bang, no guesses where I draw it.

But regardless of lines in the sand, the financial crash started across the pond and it effects are profound and still felt today, placing the blame on Labour is very convenient, but that's all it is.

GOAL!!!

Anyway, the picture in terms of unemployment is as bad or even worse for Labour's 13 years compared to the Conservatives' 17.

If you want to blame the Big Bang, you need to explain why the financial meltdown didn't happen in the 13 or so years after it, but did happen after the further deregulation that Labour brought about.

Oh shit, goal for Everton now!

 

[DelToro]

Fallacy. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell from 21% in 1979 to about 16% in 1997 so it fell by about a quarter in 18 years. It then fell from 16% to about 12% in 2010, so about a quarter in just 13 years. Manufacturing fell faster under Blair and Brown than it did under Thatcher and Major.

By all means criticise the Conservatives; they've done plenty to be critical of. But it's misleading to suggest, as you did, that the Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, when Labour destroyed it quicker.

You're dead right about the financial meltdown in 2007 though. That was absolutely down to Labour's decision to stop regulating the City in order to suck all the dodgy money in from elsewhere in the world where there were tighter regulations (eg the USA) when they introduced the Financial Services Act 2000. No single person anywhere in the world bears more responsibility for it than that act's author, Gordon Brown.

As a share of GDP you might well be correct, you can lose X of something that makes up GDP, but if Y that makes up the rest grows then the decline of X is diminished as a percentage of the whole. Nevertheless you still lose X, I think the figure was 44% of manufacturing capacity now I've done a bit of digging, but I'll find something a bit more definitive.

As for financial de-regulation, you can draw the line in the sand as far back as the Big Bang, no guesses where I draw it.

But regardless of lines in the sand, the financial crash started across the pond and it effects are profound and still felt today, placing the blame on Labour is very convenient, but that's all it is.

GOAL!!!

Anyway, the picture in terms of unemployment is as bad or even worse for Labour's 13 years compared to the Conservatives' 17.

If you want to blame the Big Bang, you need to explain why the financial meltdown didn't happen in the 13 or so years after it, but did happen after the further deregulation that Labour brought about.

Oh shit, goal for Everton now!

I blame Labour.

 

[Chancy Termites]

@ The Perfect Fumble. It started here. Those US dodgy investments were taking place in the UK precisely because Brown recklessly pushed the boundaries in a competition to deregulate vs Wall Street. Finance is a truly globalised business and the money goes wherever the investors believe they can do the best. Labour set out to win business from the the USA, Germany and Japan and he did exactly that, as those other countries decided he'd gone too far and thus chose not to follow.

On the positive side though, plenty of Labour MPs got themselves some seriously well paid directorships from the big banks, so it's not all bad news!

 

[Bill]

And poor.

But seriously, what?

I don't think he understands the word pretentious

He also seems to struggle quoting what i presume is an annual salary, those 0's and commas can be problematic

although a lot of people earning over a hundred grand a year will sleep that bit easier tonight

Sorry about the 0, will find you a definition of pretentious later,got to go.

need any help?

 

[law74]

@ The Perfect Fumble. It started here. Those US dodgy investments were taking place in the UK precisely because Brown recklessly pushed the boundaries in a competition to deregulate vs Wall Street. Finance is a truly globalised business and the money goes wherever the investors believe they can do the best. Labour set out to win business from the the USA, Germany and Japan and he did exactly that, as those other countries decided he'd gone too far and thus chose not to follow.

On the positive side though, plenty of Labour MPs got themselves some seriously well paid directorships from the big banks, so it's not all bad news!

I am far from a fan of new-labour which imho is a slightly lighter shade of blue than the tory's were then, but for torys to blame them for the de-regulation when at the time they complained and ridiculed it for not going far enough is typical hypocrisy

 

[Chancy Termites]

@ The Perfect Fumble. It started here. Those US dodgy investments were taking place in the UK precisely because Brown recklessly pushed the boundaries in a competition to deregulate vs Wall Street. Finance is a truly globalised business and the money goes wherever the investors believe they can do the best. Labour set out to win business from the the USA, Germany and Japan and he did exactly that, as those other countries decided he'd gone too far and thus chose not to follow.

On the positive side though, plenty of Labour MPs got themselves some seriously well paid directorships from the big banks, so it's not all bad news!

I am far from a fan of new-labour which imho is a slightly lighter shade of blue than the tory's were then, but for torys to blame them for the de-regulation when at the time they complained and ridiculed it for not going far enough is typical hypocrisy

That's for Tories to say, of which I am not one. In the end though, there was only one party in any sort of position to make legislation at the time and that was Labour.

 

[malg]

Miliband on Andrew Marr right now. Marr trying his hardest to nail him down on figures, but Miliband is holding his own. Fair play to him, he's said they will reinstate the 50% tax rate, they need to cut spending, they are bringing in the Mansion Tax, and also said supported the cap on welfare spending - he wouldn't be drawn on the £26k figure though. Big talk on the NHS, but nothing really specific - more GPs, but that's easy to say.

They talked about the Conservatives and the strike law, and he said he didn't support that, which is hardly surprising given how he was voted Leader.

Marr raised the question about a deal with the SNP, and he just said he didn't have any plans for that.

I've got to say that every time I see him in a one on one interview, he comes across really well. He's pretty likeable, and his voice doesn't grate as much as I thought!

 

[tommybooth]

@ The Perfect Fumble. It started here. Those US dodgy investments were taking place in the UK precisely because Brown recklessly pushed the boundaries in a competition to deregulate vs Wall Street. Finance is a truly globalised business and the money goes wherever the investors believe they can do the best. Labour set out to win business from the the USA, Germany and Japan and he did exactly that, as those other countries decided he'd gone too far and thus chose not to follow.

On the positive side though, plenty of Labour MPs got themselves some seriously well paid directorships from the big banks, so it's not all bad news!

I am far from a fan of new-labour which imho is a slightly lighter shade of blue than the tory's were then, but for torys to blame them for the de-regulation when at the time they complained and ridiculed it for not going far enough is typical hypocrisy

You have missed the boat. They are back to old labour again.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Miliband on Andrew Marr right now. Marr trying his hardest to nail him down on figures, but Miliband is holding his own. Fair play to him, he's said they will reinstate the 50% tax rate, they need to cut spending, they are bringing in the Mansion Tax, and also said supported the cap on welfare spending - he wouldn't be drawn on the £26k figure though. Big talk on the NHS, but nothing really specific - more GPs, but that's easy to say.

They talked about the Conservatives and the strike law, and he said he didn't support that, which is hardly surprising given how he was voted Leader.

Marr raised the question about a deal with the SNP, and he just said he didn't have any plans for that.

I've got to say that every time I see him in a one on one interview, he comes across really well. He's pretty likeable, and his voice doesn't grate as much as I thought!

I watched it too but concluded that he's as evasive as any politician that I've ever seen. However, rather than not playing his hand for tactical reasons, I took his refusal to answer nearly all the questions he was asked (by a very gentle, supportive questioner who is himself, I believe, a member of the Labour Party) as a sign that he really doesn't know what he's talking about. I genuinely believe that he's a bit thick.

 

[law74]

@ The Perfect Fumble. It started here. Those US dodgy investments were taking place in the UK precisely because Brown recklessly pushed the boundaries in a competition to deregulate vs Wall Street. Finance is a truly globalised business and the money goes wherever the investors believe they can do the best. Labour set out to win business from the the USA, Germany and Japan and he did exactly that, as those other countries decided he'd gone too far and thus chose not to follow.

On the positive side though, plenty of Labour MPs got themselves some seriously well paid directorships from the big banks, so it's not all bad news!

I am far from a fan of new-labour which imho is a slightly lighter shade of blue than the tory's were then, but for torys to blame them for the de-regulation when at the time they complained and ridiculed it for not going far enough is typical hypocrisy

You have missed the boat. They are back to old labour again.

that i will believe if after the election they get serious about tax evasion and set about to properly fund public services, and start to return services to public ownership (like the railways for instance)