General Election Predictions

The SNP are practially the only serious left-wing party around these days (along with the Greens). Labour now firmly entrenched in the centre-ground.

Anyway, here's an interesting report from the Institute for Financial Studies which puts paid to Osborne's lies about how hunky dory things are with the economy thanks to his sterling efforts:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/british-wage-slump-post-financial-crisis-uk

A completely recovery-less recovery - the first time this has ever occurred following a recession.

90 odd more days of total bullsh1t and petty point scoring, childish behaviour and question dodging from grown men and women who will pretty much say anything to capture your vote followed by 4/5 years of backtracking and blaming the last government (or one before that) for why they havnt delivered what they have promised.
Would quite like the idea of a completely hung parliament but instead of them working together for the people of Britain i am sure it would just end up with 4/5 years of stagnation as they block each others proposals.

What really does p1ss me off is all the austerity measures that the current coalition enforced due to the previous Labour overspend, thats fine, try and pay our debts, live within our means maybe an ideal scenario...but then last week Cameron announces a £50million spend on holocaust memorial project !!!  
Regardless of the cause if we are skint then we are skint arent we?
  

Quoted from moosey_club

What really does p1ss me off is all the austerity measures that the current coalition enforced due to the previous Labour overspend, thats fine, try and pay our debts, live within our means maybe an ideal scenario...but then last week Cameron announces a £50million spend on holocaust memorial project !!!  
Regardless of the cause if we are skint then we are skint arent we?

Unfortunately, you've bought into the Conservative nonsense that the last government massively overspent and this is why austerity is required. This is simply not true, to be blunt, it's a lie. At the point that the financial crisis hit in 2008, the ratio of the national debt to GDP as a percentage was lower than when Labour took office in 1997. It was also lower than the US, France and those economic no-hopers, Germany. Here's a link to a simple chart (if you can be bothered to look at it):

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/debt-and-growth-in-the-g7/

In 2007, before the financial crisis had hit, the Conservatives had pledged to match the Labour government's spending plans. I can't see any mention from Osborne in this article that they thought the Labour government was spending too much at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

The financial crisis came in 2008 after the markets crashed due, in large part, to the lack of regulation which was begun under Thatcher in the 1980s (and not reversed under the subsequent Labour government). I don't recall the Conservatives predicting such a crisis at all and, in 2007, they were even arguing that we should deregulate the financial markets even further:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

The recession, subsequent huge deficits and spending on bank bailouts led to the massive increase in debt and came entirely because of the financial crash which was not foreseen by anyone at all in the major parties or the financial sector.

A complete cluster-intercourse, for certain, but it is a bald-faced lie for Osborne and Cameron to claim that the economic crisis and their subsequent choice for austerity is anything to do with previous Labour spending. It's just not true. The fact that the right-wing dominated media doesn't point this out is understandable, but the acquiescence of the BBC is just amazing (and depressing) to see. Still, perhaps it's not too surprising when you consider that the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson was head of the Young Conservative Party when at Oxford University and subsequently was Chairman of the National Young Conservatives Party. Hmmm. Wonder if he ever shows bias in his reporting?

Osborne's choice to implement austerity almost took us back into recession until he quietly reduce the rate of cuts whilst still claiming his "Plan A" was working. Nobody in the media seemed to question him on this. Regardless, all the economic text books show that austerity during a recovery is absolutely idiotic and this is why, despite his cuts, the drop in wages and living standards, debt continues to increase enormously. In fact, in the past 5 years, this government has borrowed more than every previous Labour government combined.

The amazing thing is that the majority of people have been hoodwinked to believe so many lies - Osborne is so political that pretty much every time he's opened his mouth in recent months, an untruth has come out, yet he's still considered more competent on the economy than the Labour party!

That said, I do wonder what on Earth the two Eds have been doing over the past few years? Surely it wouldn't be difficult to point out the many lies that have been told, yet they've kept shtum! Bizarre.  

Quoted from Maringer

Unfortunately, you've bought into the Conservative nonsense that the last government massively overspent and this is why austerity is required. This is simply not true, to be blunt, it's a lie. At the point that the financial crisis hit in 2008, the ratio of the national debt to GDP as a percentage was lower than when Labour took office in 1997. It was also lower than the US, France and those economic no-hopers, Germany. Here's a link to a simple chart (if you can be bothered to look at it):

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/debt-and-growth-in-the-g7/

In 2007, before the financial crisis had hit, the Conservatives had pledged to match the Labour government's spending plans. I can't see any mention from Osborne in this article that they thought the Labour government was spending too much at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

The financial crisis came in 2008 after the markets crashed due, in large part, to the lack of regulation which was begun under Thatcher in the 1980s (and not reversed under the subsequent Labour government). I don't recall the Conservatives predicting such a crisis at all and, in 2007, they were even arguing that we should deregulate the financial markets even further:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

The recession, subsequent huge deficits and spending on bank bailouts led to the massive increase in debt and came entirely because of the financial crash which was not foreseen by anyone at all in the major parties or the financial sector.

A complete cluster-intercourse, for certain, but it is a bald-faced lie for Osborne and Cameron to claim that the economic crisis and their subsequent choice for austerity is anything to do with previous Labour spending. It's just not true. The fact that the right-wing dominated media doesn't point this out is understandable, but the acquiescence of the BBC is just amazing (and depressing) to see. Still, perhaps it's not too surprising when you consider that the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson was head of the Young Conservative Party when at Oxford University and subsequently was Chairman of the National Young Conservatives Party. Hmmm. Wonder if he ever shows bias in his reporting?

Osborne's choice to implement austerity almost took us back into recession until he quietly reduce the rate of cuts whilst still claiming his "Plan A" was working. Nobody in the media seemed to question him on this. Regardless, all the economic text books show that austerity during a recovery is absolutely idiotic and this is why, despite his cuts, the drop in wages and living standards, debt continues to increase enormously. In fact, in the past 5 years, this government has borrowed more than every previous Labour government combined.

The amazing thing is that the majority of people have been hoodwinked to believe so many lies - Osborne is so political that pretty much every time he's opened his mouth in recent months, an untruth has come out, yet he's still considered more competent on the economy than the Labour party!

That said, I do wonder what on Earth the two Eds have been doing over the past few years? Surely it wouldn't be difficult to point out the many lies that have been told, yet they've kept shtum! Bizarre.  

That could be the most accurate dissection of the political problems of this country ever written ...but unfortunately....like 40% of the population i just cant be @rsed with any of it anymore, your post comes across as largely pro Labour whereas i am politically unbiased, in fact indifferent, i just want to vote for someone who i believe is telling the truth and is honest, couldnt give a flying fvck what colour their rosette is, or what their promises are...just as long as i thought they were actually going to keep them.
Ie - we will increase NHS spending by £6,000,000,000 by introducing effiency measures....or we will increase NHS spending by £6,000,000,000 but you will have to pay an extra £2 per week on your National Insurance...its fvcked.. it needs help...you all use the NHS...you all pay a bit more as a result....fair enough.
I dont trust a single one of them currently so unfortunately.....much like the former GY M.P when any voting is to be done.. i will probably just not bother voting.  

Don't worry, I know it was a bit of a long post. Didn't assume you would read it all, but it is all true. Facts are laid out there in black and white.

I've always been a bit of a lefty but I'm unimpressed (to put it lightly) with the current Labour Party leadership. However, I'm going to have to vote for them because, in comparison to Cameron and Osborne they don't appear to endlessly lie about the current economic situation or the 'achievements' of the current government. Cameron and Osborne don't for one moment believe that the recession was caused because of overspending by the Labour government but they will claim this just to win votes.

Osborne has been actively incompetent in his job as Chancellor - practically everything he's done over the past couple of years has been with one eye on this year's election and governing with purely political gains in mind in a difficult economic situation is just appalling. To put it bluntly, if they get re-elected, we're pretty much copulated as the country will be a basket case in another 5 years. Anything we own that can be sold off will be (at a cheap price, no doubt), the wealthy will continue to get all the tax breaks and gains and we'll see all sorts of excrement privatised, poverty increasing. It will be shocking.

As for the NHS, it's going to get more expensive with the aging population so, rather than moan about the 'funding gap', it's pretty obvious we need to raise more money to pay for it. Taxes on the wealthy (who have been doing very well indeed in recent decades) would seem to be the best way to do this to me.

Completely agree Maringer. Factual analysis spot on. Assessment of the causes spot on. Agree with you on the two Eds too. That's the frigging frustrating thing about the whole topic.

They need to pull their tricking fingers out quick.

The problem we have is austerity caused by a global collapse and short sighted Labour government throwing money around like confetti.  In my heart I am labour, a party for the people who have made life changing policies for the general population and not just a privileged few.  The NHS, minimum wage, Health and Safety at Work act and many more.

Labour (New Labour) under Blair took us into more conflicts and wars than any other Prime minster in our history, that cost us billions because NATO didn't cover the costs.  Also from history, labour fail dramatically when it comes to finance.

The Tories have been ruthless with the cuts but these cuts wouldn't have seemed so bad if Labour didn't over spend.  The Tories are the party to get us out of debt and until we are debt free I can only see a Tory+1 or 2 for the next few parliaments I am sad to say.

I think UKIP will win more seats and Scottish Labour will will back some lost seats.  I think that Scottish labour suffered because of Gordon Browns failure as PM.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The problem we have is austerity caused by a global collapse and short sighted Labour government throwing money around like confetti.  In my heart I am labour, a party for the people who have made life changing policies for the general population and not just a privileged few.  The NHS, minimum wage, Health and Safety at Work act and many more.

Labour (New Labour) under Blair took us into more conflicts and wars than any other Prime minster in our history, that cost us billions because NATO didn't cover the costs.  Also from history, labour fail dramatically when it comes to finance.

The Tories have been ruthless with the cuts but these cuts wouldn't have seemed so bad if Labour didn't over spend.  The Tories are the party to get us out of debt and until we are debt free I can only see a Tory+1 or 2 for the next few parliaments I am sad to say.

I think UKIP will win more seats and Scottish Labour will will back some lost seats.  I think that Scottish labour suffered because of Gordon Browns failure as PM.

Unfortunately, most of your post is nonsense.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, the previous Labour government did not 'throw money around like confetti'. Government debt as a percentage of GDP was lower in 2008 than it was in 1997 and was historically at a relatively low level even then. As I noted elsewhere, it was lower than most of the other G7 countries. Could the debt have been a few percentage points lower? Certainly, but it made not one jot of difference to our ability to deal with the effects of the financial crisis which hit in 2008. We were quite able to enact a stimulus to help alleviate the problems caused by the crash in addition to bailing out the banks (a larger stimulus would have been better, but Brown chickened out of this). As it stands, the early stimulus was cut off much too soon and the current government's early cuts almost put us back into recession before Osborne quietly reduced their rate, something he hasn't even admitted to doing. Any claims you hear from Conservative politicians about 'Labour's recession' being caused by excessive spending are utter and complete lies.

Blair's urge to be Bush's poodle and follow the US into any conflict going is neither here nor there, to be honest, as there is no doubt that a Conservative government would have done exactly the same thing. A stupid waste of lives and money, I agree.

However, your statement that Labour governments always fail economically (with the implication that the Tories 'fix' things) is a typically right-wing load of codswallop. Only two Labour governments have seen a rise in national debt (as a percentage of GDP) on their watch. The first of these came following the Wall Street crash in 1929, the second was the 'New Labour' government which had to deal with the financial crash in 2008. Both of these enormous recessions were caused by factors outside of the UK so can hardly be blamed on the government of the time! All the other Labour governments there have been have reduced the national debt, even the much-maligned Wilson-Callaghan administration of the 1970s. The current government will (hopefully) leave office this year having increased the debt to GDP ratio by more than 25 percentage points and having overseen the weakest ever recovery following a recession.

I'm have to admit that I'm baffled as to why you seem to think there is some kind of immediate requirement to pay off all of the national debt as soon as possible. In the 300+ years we've had a national debt, nobody has ever attempted to pay it all off (it's just not necessary) and our current debt approaching 90% of GDP is not too unusual historically. It was around 250% of GDP after the Napoleonic War and Second World War and these were paid down in good times. Bear in mind that the 'national debt' is not one big chunk of money. We're endlessly repaying and issuing bonds, just like pretty much every other government in the world. Interest rates are currently incredibly low so the debt we are issuing at the moment (through the £100 billion or so Osborne is borrowing each year), will be pretty cheap for us to repay in the future.

Hopefully, UKIP won't win too many seats because they really aren't much more than a reactionary extension of the looney right of the Tory party. Their policies (such as they are) don't deserve to earn them seats, but we'll have to see what goes on in the election. As I've said before, I'd be embarrassed for the town if Grimsby were to elect a UKIP MP. A poor, northern working-class town voting for ultra right-wingers would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

You're entirely incorrect about the way Brown is seen in Scotland. If you remember back a few months, he was dragged out of (partial) retirement to boost the 'No' campaign because he is still so well-regarded there. His problem came with voters here in England! The problems of the Labour Party in Scotland are due as much to incompetence and infighting amongst their leadership over the past few years as much as the SNP's successes. There is no doubt that Salmond and Sturgeon are very capable and popular politicians indeed though they both get right on my nerves!

Quoted from Maringer

Unfortunately, most of your post is nonsense.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, the previous Labour government did not 'throw money around like confetti'. Government debt as a percentage of GDP was lower in 2008 than it was in 1997 and was historically at a relatively low level even then. As I noted elsewhere, it was lower than most of the other G7 countries. Could the debt have been a few percentage points lower? Certainly, but it made not one jot of difference to our ability to deal with the effects of the financial crisis which hit in 2008. We were quite able to enact a stimulus to help alleviate the problems caused by the crash in addition to bailing out the banks (a larger stimulus would have been better, but Brown chickened out of this). As it stands, the early stimulus was cut off much too soon and the current government's early cuts almost put us back into recession before Osborne quietly reduced their rate, something he hasn't even admitted to doing. Any claims you hear from Conservative politicians about 'Labour's recession' being caused by excessive spending are utter and complete lies.

Blair's urge to be Bush's poodle and follow the US into any conflict going is neither here nor there, to be honest, as there is no doubt that a Conservative government would have done exactly the same thing. A stupid waste of lives and money, I agree.

However, your statement that Labour governments always fail economically (with the implication that the Tories 'fix' things) is a typically right-wing load of codswallop. Only two Labour governments have seen a rise in national debt (as a percentage of GDP) on their watch. The first of these came following the Wall Street crash in 1929, the second was the 'New Labour' government which had to deal with the financial crash in 2008. Both of these enormous recessions were caused by factors outside of the UK so can hardly be blamed on the government of the time! All the other Labour governments there have been have reduced the national debt, even the much-maligned Wilson-Callaghan administration of the 1970s. The current government will (hopefully) leave office this year having increased the debt to GDP ratio by more than 25 percentage points and having overseen the weakest ever recovery following a recession.

I'm have to admit that I'm baffled as to why you seem to think there is some kind of immediate requirement to pay off all of the national debt as soon as possible. In the 300+ years we've had a national debt, nobody has ever attempted to pay it all off (it's just not necessary) and our current debt approaching 90% of GDP is not too unusual historically. It was around 250% of GDP after the Napoleonic War and Second World War and these were paid down in good times. Bear in mind that the 'national debt' is not one big chunk of money. We're endlessly repaying and issuing bonds, just like pretty much every other government in the world. Interest rates are currently incredibly low so the debt we are issuing at the moment (through the £100 billion or so Osborne is borrowing each year), will be pretty cheap for us to repay in the future.

Hopefully, UKIP won't win too many seats because they really aren't much more than a reactionary extension of the looney right of the Tory party. Their policies (such as they are) don't deserve to earn them seats, but we'll have to see what goes on in the election. As I've said before, I'd be embarrassed for the town if Grimsby were to elect a UKIP MP. A poor, northern working-class town voting for ultra right-wingers would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

You're entirely incorrect about the way Brown is seen in Scotland. If you remember back a few months, he was dragged out of (partial) retirement to boost the 'No' campaign because he is still so well-regarded there. His problem came with voters here in England! The problems of the Labour Party in Scotland are due as much to incompetence and infighting amongst their leadership over the past few years as much as the SNP's successes. There is no doubt that Salmond and Sturgeon are very capable and popular politicians indeed though they both get right on my nerves!

You call my post nonsense then spout the above which has more holes in it than a colander.

Labour's great with money, tell me about the sale of public Gold by Gordon Brown, tell me how magnificent that sale was and how much money we made. Tell me what / how American bank Goldman Sacs got out of this deal.  Tell me that the 7 Billion pounds he lost was a right-wing load of codswallop.

Tell me how great value for money all these quangos that popped up under Labour were.

You really believe that hapless Gordon swung people's mind to vote better together. I think more people signed the petition below than were swung to vote no, of course the joint party promise was what swung floating voters.  Brown has to be the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in 300 years, I know he was voted the 3rd worst Prime minster in the last 65 years.  Tony Blair said that Gordon Brown was mad, bad and dangerous.

https://www.change.org/p/gordon-brown-mp-go-intercourse-yourself

The reason, not that it should need explaining is that we are paying interest on what we owe, the longer that is outstanding the more you pay and only a 3rd of the debt is owed to the bank of England which means the money isn't staying in the UK.

Blairs wars and conflicts cost the UK tax payer billions because they were funded through NATO, I doubt the Tories would have gone as deep as Tony did, not on the first or second date.

Quoted from Marinerz93

You call my post nonsense then spout the above which has more holes in it than a colander.

Labour's great with money, tell me about the sale of public Gold by Gordon Brown, tell me how magnificent that sale was and how much money we made. Tell me what / how American bank Goldman Sacs got out of this deal.  Tell me that the 7 Billion pounds he lost was a right-wing load of codswallop.

Tell me how great value for money all these quangos that popped up under Labour were.

You really believe that hapless Gordon swung people's mind to vote better together. I think more people signed the petition below than were swung to vote no, of course the joint party promise was what swung floating voters.  Brown has to be the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in 300 years, I know he was voted the 3rd worst Prime minster in the last 65 years.  Tony Blair said that Gordon Brown was mad, bad and dangerous.

https://www.change.org/p/gordon-brown-mp-go-intercourse-yourself

The reason, not that it should need explaining is that we are paying interest on what we owe, the longer that is outstanding the more you pay and only a 3rd of the debt is owed to the bank of England which means the money isn't staying in the UK.

Blairs wars and conflicts cost the UK tax payer billions because they were funded through NATO, I doubt the Tories would have gone as deep as Tony did, not on the first or second date.

Ah, the gold. Always a favoured argument of the right-wing, of course. Claiming we made 'losses' because we sold off a load of gold around 5 years before the price rose considerably is just nonsensical, especially when you consider that gold prices had been pretty much around the same level for the previous 20 years. Holding gold does nothing at all, nothing, for the economy. It just sits there, doesn't create any return or do anything. Here's an (admittedly partisan) rebuttal of the whole "Brown cost us money by selling the gold" nonsense:

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/04/11/the-final-word-on-gordon-browns-gold-sell-off/

Disgusting that Brown didn't realise gold would increase in value so much 12 years after the sale began! I'm sure you're also similarly disgusted that the current Government failed to sell off all of our gold at its peak level in 2011. A quick calculation indicates it would recoup 34% less now than it would have done then. As it stands, it sits there and does nothing. Interesting to see, also, that Ted Heath's government sold almost twice as much off as Brown back in 1970, just a year before the price increased by more than 50%.

The number of quangos which had been created throughout the course of the previous government was, indeed, too high, but many of them were necessary. Some of the first ones to be abolished by the current government (and where a big chunk of the expected savings were to be made) were the Regional Development Agencies and these have been replaced by pretty much nothing. If you assume that these RDAs did some good work, you can't help but wonder if part of the reason for the terribly weak recovery in the regions (a lack of recovery, to tell the truth) was in part due to the removal of these bodies. Is saving £900 million (perhaps) such a good idea, if losing these agencies costs you much more?

The savings which were claimed to be possible were a bit hand-wavy as well:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/bonfires-of-the-quangos/

Still, I don't disagree that there were too many quangos and it seems sensible to me to incorporate many of their functions back into proper government.

My coments about Brown still being popular in Scotland are true. You pointing to a Change.org petition with just 12,500 signatures as rebuttal to this fact is just comical:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/gordon-brown-potent-weapon-scottish-no-campaign

At the last election, the Labour vote rose by 2.5% in Scotland and they held all 41 of their seats. For somebody apparently so unpopular in his homeland, Brown didn't do too badly, there, did he? In fact, it's probable that his departure from the public scene has had an influence on the collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland, though the majority is down to incompetence in their leadership.

If you seriously think the Conservatives wouldn't have gone along with the Yanks' wars in the same way that Blair did, well, I can't help you.

We're not in disagreement about the fact that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were a terrible waste of lives and money, but I think you are overestimating the influence the costs have had on the nations finances:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....rs-30bn-9442640.html

They've cost us around £30 billion if this article is to be believed. That's less that the government is borrowing every 3 months and has been doing since the financial crash in 2008. Not a tiny figure, but not relevant in the grand scheme of things.

Interestingly enough (excuse the pun), interest rates on government debt are currently at a record low which, oddly enough, will save us around £30 billion by 2019:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin.....ction-giveaways.html

Now, as the article notes, this could allow Osborne to relax the squeeze on the economy (which would help boost any recovery) or, alternatively, provide further pre-election giveaways in an attempt to boost the Conservative vote. It's pretty clear which way he'll go. Expect to hear of further sweeteners to the core Conservative voters in the March budget, to the detriment of the nation's finances. The man's a spiv.