Print Topic - Archive

Fishy Forum  /  Archive  /  
Posted by: GrimRob, January 25, 2015, 5:15pm
100 days to go. Regardless of who you want to win, stick you neck and say what you think will happen.

I predict David Cameron will stay on as Prime Minister, probably not with a Tory majority, he'll maybe to have to form a collation with the Ulster Unionists. UKIP will get about 5 seats, the Greens 1, Lib Dems around 20. Scotland will cost Labour a majority.
Posted by: Doubled, January 25, 2015, 5:26pm; Reply: 1
I predict this will get bumped to non footy!
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, January 26, 2015, 10:26am; Reply: 2
It will certainly result in a coalition with the worst case scenario being some sort of Tory and UKIP coalition, the ConKips if you will.
Posted by: carrot top, January 27, 2015, 1:01pm; Reply: 3
Hung Parliament probabaly, god help us. I'm all for ditching austerity like the Greeks. Make those pay for the mess they created not the public.
In Greece there are 300,000 cut off from the electricity supply as they were sacked by the Govt and had no means to pay, which is quite frankly disgraceful in this modern world.

Who would I want in power? Nobody floats my boat at the moment FFS. A complete overhaul of the political system would be needed IMO
Posted by: maxfox44, January 27, 2015, 1:14pm; Reply: 4
I can't imagine Red Ed will fight for our cause in Europe at all.  Cap in hand to German Angel-hell, like the rest of Europe.

I think we'll end up with Red Ed and his trusty side kick Nicola Fishface (SNP).  So Scotland will be effectively running the UK, how ironic!
Posted by: AdamHaddock, January 27, 2015, 1:24pm; Reply: 5
Labour -  Lib Dem coalition. Although Clegg will lose his Sheffield Hallam seat and many  other Lib Dem seats in student areas like Manchester Withington. Labour will just take back a few of the swing seats they lost last time like Cleethorpes.

SNP 20
Plaid 5
Green 4
UKIP 3
Posted by: horsforthmariner, January 27, 2015, 1:37pm; Reply: 6
Clegg won't lose Hallam. The Lib Dems won all but one the seats at the Council Elections in his constituency last May and loads of students have been kicked off the register with individual voter registration.

Anyway my prediction. The Tories will win most votes, but Labour will win most seats and will run a minority Govt with the help of the SNP/Plaid and Irish voters. It will be an absolute disaster as Labour will have 5 years of infighting between the Blairites and the left wingers with a weak Milliband in the middle.

The Tories will also implode as they tack to the right to counter UKIP, irritating their moderates.

It's basically a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: Maringer, January 27, 2015, 4:52pm; Reply: 7
Anyone but Osborne, please. The man's incompetent or crooked (possibly both) and some of the bare-faced lies about his achievements with the economy he's coming out with at the moment beggar belief. You don't expect the right-wing dominated press to report on this, but the BBC's failure to point it out shows how they have become lapdogs of the government. Hardly surprising when you see arch-Tory Nick Robinson as their political editor.

As for the election itself, I can see either a hung parliament or a coalition being on the cards. Anything involving the Conservatives and we might as well turn off the lights and go home now. Heaven only knows what sort of ideological bullshit they would come up with - most of the stuff they have passed since getting into power wasn't even mentioned in their manifesto at the last election and anything but a further transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich seems unlikely.

The LibDems' vote really ought to be wiped out. Their main claim for votes at the upcoming election appears to be that they have been able to moderate the Tories excesses but, if so, they haven't done a very good job of it! I expect they will remain the third party, however. As usual, they will take enough votes from left-leaning voters to give the Tories (possibly with Kipper allies) a chance of power. I tend to doubt they will end up with enough seats to be instrumental in forming a coalition.

This election really should have been a slam-dunk for Labour. The Conservative-led government firstly put a stop to a burgeoning recovery with badly-timed austerity and then had the gall to claim their plan a success, despite the fact that they actually eased off austerity in 2012, leading to the current weak recovery. The fact that Balls & Co haven't pointed out this salient fact makes me wonder what the flip they have been doing with themselves? If your opponent claims they have done something and it provably isn't true, surely you should point it out?

Anyway, Miliband doesn't come across well in the media either due to his awkward personal style. Unfortunately, in the modern day, you need to look and sound right or you won't get a chance and he doesn't look or sound right. As it stands, with the ranks of the right-wing press gunning for him, endlessly playing man not ball (He finds it difficult to eat a chewy bacon sandwich? He can't possibly be PM!), he's actively become a detriment to his party. Personally, I think he's a bit uninspiring, but nothing like as bad as the press are keen to have you believe. One positive thing I could say about him is that he's awkward enough that I don't think he could get away with telling lies in the way that somebody as slick as Cameron does!

UKIP are a joke of a party with a joke of a leader and a manifesto which is a joke (or it will be, if they ever finish it). Not surprising, really, as they are a one-trick party who thinks everything will be well with the world if we left the EU. Their claims of the savings which will be made if we were to leave the EU are mind-bogglingly high and the rest of their policies are typical neo-liberal claptrap with no basis in reality. It's bad enough that they've won a couple of seats down south but if they were to actually win in Grimsby that would just be embarrassing. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

As usual, the Greens will win plenty of votes, but not enough to win more than one or possibly two seats. They are much too left wing for the majority of voters (nobody is going to vote for a Citizens Income, however reasonable it might be) and I wouldn't vote for them because their energy policy is bonkers. Wouldn't surprise me if they took enough votes off Labour/LibDem candidates here and there to gift seats to the Conservatives, however.

As for the SNP, I have to say that I don't actually mind most of their policies! They are further to the left than the very centrist Labour party and I agree with much of what they say (and do) economically in Scotland. However, the collapse of the Labour party up in Scotland (mostly due to incompetence, it must be said), means that they may end up gifting power to the Conservatives.

If it came to it, I would probably favour a Labour/SNP coalition to some degree, as I think they might actually be able to put some reasonable policies through, but this would be politically untenable to most voters in England. Reasonably so, as well.

I wonder if we might end up seeing a minority Labour government propped up by informal agreements with various other parties such as the SNP/Plaid Cymru, Greens and the LibDems with free votes on policies? It would be interesting to see how a proper coalition would work, not just one where the smaller party does little more than bend over and touch its toes for the larger one...

Yeah, I know. TL;DR  ;)
Posted by: grimsby pete, January 29, 2015, 3:32pm; Reply: 8
I predict the Tories will form a coalition with the SNP and UKIP. 8)
Posted by: barralad, January 29, 2015, 10:18pm; Reply: 9
Quoted from grimsby pete
I predict the Tories will form a coalition with the SNP and UKIP. 8)


The latter wouldn't surprise me...there is more chance of them forming a coalition with Sinn Fein than the SNP!

In other news it is rumoured that the Tories aren't going to try very hard to win in Grimsby in return for UKIP not trying very hard in Cleethorpes...
Posted by: Maringer, January 30, 2015, 7:45am; Reply: 10
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.
Posted by: moosey_club, January 30, 2015, 9:20am; Reply: 11
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?
  

Posted by: Maringer, January 30, 2015, 10:58am; Reply: 12
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.  :-/
Posted by: moosey_club, January 30, 2015, 6:04pm; Reply: 13
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.  
Posted by: Maringer, January 30, 2015, 7:15pm; Reply: 14
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.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 1, 2015, 1:32am; Reply: 15
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.
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 1, 2015, 1:42pm; Reply: 16
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.
Posted by: Maringer, February 1, 2015, 4:34pm; Reply: 17
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!
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 2, 2015, 1:19am; Reply: 18
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.
Posted by: Maringer, February 2, 2015, 9:08am; Reply: 19
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/news/uk/politics/costly-failures-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-cost-uk-taxpayers-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/finance/economics/11383171/Britain-nets-30bn-as-borrowing-costs-fall-that-could-fund-pre-election-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.
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 2, 2015, 5:20pm; Reply: 20
When Gordon Brown announced the sale of 400 tonnes of public gold he went against protocol and announced the sale in advance.  This meant the market knew it was going to get flooded and the result was, gold was driven down to it's lowest price, it is even proven in the link you posted, thank you.  The second blunder was selling the gold via auction this enabled big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply. Proof of this is that auction price in the morning depressed the afternoon sales.  I Wonder what was said in that meeting with Goldman Sachs and the Treasury.

Gold in the vault is an asset, cobwebs in the corner are not, what don't you understand about finance.

The link about Brown was a comical addition, I base my thoughts on Brown through family members who are Scottish (Labour), living in Scotland and Scottish customers living in Lincolnshire.  I haven't met anyone or spoken to anyone who is Scottish that had a kind word to say about Gordon Brown.  

Peter Hambro who is a leading figure in the London gold market exposed exactly what Brown did and why he did it and that the British public had been sold well short.

Who gave Brown the authorisation to sell public gold.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have supported the yanks but I can tell you from experience it wouldn't have been to the extent Blair went.  I also know the costs involved with operations. it costs over £30k a day to keep a Sentry aircraft (plane with a big smartie on it) in the air for a day, it costs around £650k to £1.2m for a 2-4 week exercise consisting of equipment with around 50 - 80 personnel.

I previously stated that Blair cost the UK tax payers billions and I am proved right with your link, thank you again.

Afghanistan cost UK tax payers over £37 billion
Iraq cost UK tax payers around £10 billion

The cost will creep up because of war widows pensions and disability pensions from those conflicts isn't included.

I have never voted Conservative, I have always voted Labour even at ward level. The country is in so much debt I am scared shitless and very little scares me.

The best way to get a problem solved is a workplace is to give it to the laziest person, they'll usually find the easiest and cheapest solution. If you have a financial problem you don't give it to someone bangs his head with one hand then throws the gold up in the air with the other.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, February 2, 2015, 5:46pm; Reply: 21
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.  :-/


As I was reading this I was thinking why on earth if you can put forward such a creditable reasoned argument, why can't someone from the opposition??

Maybe though this is why everyone is so disillusioned with the current state of affairs...there seems to be no credible, outstanding individual politicians with the nous or the balls to try and get the public onside and to work for the good of the country and its electorate, rather than just keeping to the party line
Posted by: barralad, February 2, 2015, 7:36pm; Reply: 22
Quoted from Marinerz93
When Gordon Brown announced the sale of 400 tonnes of public gold he went against protocol and announced the sale in advance.  This meant the market knew it was going to get flooded and the result was, gold was driven down to it's lowest price, it is even proven in the link you posted, thank you.  The second blunder was selling the gold via auction this enabled big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply. Proof of this is that auction price in the morning depressed the afternoon sales.  I Wonder what was said in that meeting with Goldman Sachs and the Treasury.

Gold in the vault is an asset, cobwebs in the corner are not, what don't you understand about finance.

The link about Brown was a comical addition, I base my thoughts on Brown through family members who are Scottish (Labour), living in Scotland and Scottish customers living in Lincolnshire.  I haven't met anyone or spoken to anyone who is Scottish that had a kind word to say about Gordon Brown.  

Peter Hambro who is a leading figure in the London gold market exposed exactly what Brown did and why he did it and that the British public had been sold well short.

Who gave Brown the authorisation to sell public gold.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have supported the yanks but I can tell you from experience it wouldn't have been to the extent Blair went.  I also know the costs involved with operations. it costs over £30k a day to keep a Sentry aircraft (plane with a big smartie on it) in the air for a day, it costs around £650k to £1.2m for a 2-4 week exercise consisting of equipment with around 50 - 80 personnel.

I previously stated that Blair cost the UK tax payers billions and I am proved right with your link, thank you again.

Afghanistan cost UK tax payers over £37 billion
Iraq cost UK tax payers around £10 billion

The cost will creep up because of war widows pensions and disability pensions from those conflicts isn't included.

I have never voted Conservative, I have always voted Labour even at ward level. The country is in so much debt I am scared shitless and very little scares me.

The best way to get a problem solved is a workplace is to give it to the laziest person, they'll usually find the easiest and cheapest solution. If you have a financial problem you don't give it to someone bangs his head with one hand then throws the gold up in the air with the other.


Whatever the good and bad about Brown's sale of gold! (Always my favourite Spandau Ballet song) it pales into insignificance against the Tories sale of utilities, B.T. under the Evil One and latterly the Post Office at a price far below the "market value"....

Every P.M. since WW2 has seen fit to take us into various conflicts. I'm certainly no defender of Blair but he did at least by virtue of The Good Friday Agreement end the troubles in N. Ireland whatever you may think of the terms. For me only Harold Wilson has stood up to the Yanks-refusing to make a concrete offer to join them in the Vietnam War (Now THAT would have been a disaster!!)
Posted by: Maringer, February 2, 2015, 8:09pm; Reply: 23
Quoted from Marinerz93
When Gordon Brown announced the sale of 400 tonnes of public gold he went against protocol and announced the sale in advance.  This meant the market knew it was going to get flooded and the result was, gold was driven down to it's lowest price, it is even proven in the link you posted, thank you.  The second blunder was selling the gold via auction this enabled big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply. Proof of this is that auction price in the morning depressed the afternoon sales.  I Wonder what was said in that meeting with Goldman Sachs and the Treasury.

Gold in the vault is an asset, cobwebs in the corner are not, what don't you understand about finance.

The link about Brown was a comical addition, I base my thoughts on Brown through family members who are Scottish (Labour), living in Scotland and Scottish customers living in Lincolnshire.  I haven't met anyone or spoken to anyone who is Scottish that had a kind word to say about Gordon Brown.  

Peter Hambro who is a leading figure in the London gold market exposed exactly what Brown did and why he did it and that the British public had been sold well short.

Who gave Brown the authorisation to sell public gold.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have supported the yanks but I can tell you from experience it wouldn't have been to the extent Blair went.  I also know the costs involved with operations. it costs over £30k a day to keep a Sentry aircraft (plane with a big smartie on it) in the air for a day, it costs around £650k to £1.2m for a 2-4 week exercise consisting of equipment with around 50 - 80 personnel.

I previously stated that Blair cost the UK tax payers billions and I am proved right with your link, thank you again.

Afghanistan cost UK tax payers over £37 billion
Iraq cost UK tax payers around £10 billion

The cost will creep up because of war widows pensions and disability pensions from those conflicts isn't included.

I have never voted Conservative, I have always voted Labour even at ward level. The country is in so much debt I am scared shitless and very little scares me.

The best way to get a problem solved is a workplace is to give it to the laziest person, they'll usually find the easiest and cheapest solution. If you have a financial problem you don't give it to someone bangs his head with one hand then throws the gold up in the air with the other.


I'd heard rumours about the Goldman Sachs stuff. Here's the 'best' source I've found for them:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

A blog from a few years ago which talks about rumours regarding the sale. Rumours and hearsay. Nothing more. You've convinced yourself that there was definitely something dodgy going on behind the scenes when there is absolutely no evidence that this was the case. The way in which the gold was sold was mildly convoluted but, in the grand scheme of things, it made little real difference to the price received at that time. Here is what the BoE says about the sales:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/forex/reserves/goldsales.aspx

The money received from selling the gold was invested in interest-bearing foreign currency assets. Not frittered away on quangos or whatever. In other words, something which generated a return instead of sitting there inertly and costing money to store. No conspiracy there, that I can see. If you want to argue it was a bad decision, that's your choice, but I'd argue it was just unlucky timing. Do you really think that if there was a shred of evidence of malfeasance by Brown and his government, the Tories wouldn't have been jumping up and down making hay about it? If there was any truth about the sale secretly bailing out US banks, it would have gleefully been pointed out that he hadn't learned the lessons when the financial crisis came around in 2008. No, I don't believe it.

You ask who gave Brown the authorisation to sell the gold? Pretty obviously, the First Lord of the Treasury! The same as who gave Ted Heath authorisation to sell a load of gold off 30 years earlier!

As regards Brown's apparent unpopularity in Scotland, if this is the case, how did the generally unpopular Labour government manage to increase their proportion of the vote there by 2.5% in 2010? And why was it seen as a big boost to the 'No' campaign for him to begin making appearances before the independence referendum last year?

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't a fan of Brown as a Prime Minister (not decisive enough most of the time and second-guessing himself from the off), but your narrative that he was a terrible, wasteful Chancellor who did nothing right is simply not true. In fact, he actually made a pretty good fist of it went everything went mammaries-up in 2008 and his actions helped to form a consensus of sorts amongst the various G7 countries which led to some stimulus to alleviate some of the worst effects of the recession. Politically, on the other hand, he wasn't well-equipped to be a Prime Minister.

As the figures I've linked to have shown, he didn't overspend enormously (as the Tories would have you believe), and he wasn't the cause of the recession (as the disingenuous Tories would have you believe). In comparison to Osborne, a staggeringly cynical and incompetent Chancellor, he wasn't too bad.

It must be said, I'm pretty amazed that you think that the Conservatives wouldn't have entered the same wars as the Labour government and to the same extent. In the 2003 Commons motion about military action in Iraq, 139 Labour MPs voted against the war in comparison to just 15 Conservatives! The current Conservative-led government voted for airstrikes in Libya and was defeated in their relatively recent motion for military action in Syria. Just why would you think they wouldn't have followed the Yanks in the same way that Blair and Co did?

Don't worry about the debt. It's not important at the moment, despite what Osborne and the media would have you think. The cost of government borrowing is incredibly low at the moment and it set to stay that way for a good time yet so it is more important to get a proper recovery going rather than cutting back on the size of the state further which the Conservatives apparently plan to do (though they still claim to be planning further tax cuts - strange, eh?). Increased tax receipts from a recovery will reduce the deficit and once the recovery has kicked in, then we can then think about perhaps paying off some of the debt.

Oh, if you ever hear any politician comparing the UK to Greece, you know they are a devious lying fornicator. We aren't going to run out of money - Sterling is a fiat currency which we control so we can literally print more money to pay off debts as necessary. All the bullshit about "the nation's credit card is maxxed out" is utter nonsense. Greece don't have control their own currency and that is why they are screwed. As long as we have people willing to buy bonds (and they are still queueing up), we're not in any serious trouble.

Japan's debt to GDP ratio is over 200% and they still have low costs of borrowing so we're not at a level where we need to worry as yet. As the past has shown, high debt levels can be paid down relatively easily (and inflated away) in good times so getting a proper recovery is the most important thing.
Posted by: Maringer, February 2, 2015, 8:43pm; Reply: 24
Quoted from FishOutOfWater


As I was reading this I was thinking why on earth if you can put forward such a creditable reasoned argument, why can't someone from the opposition??



You and me both, mate.

Balls has a First Class degree in PPE (specialising in economics) from Oxford University, studied and taught economics at Harvard University in the US and worked (briefly) as a leader writer in the Financial Times before starting his political career.

Osborne has a degree in Modern History and never worked anywhere but Conservative Central Office before he became an MP.

Ed Miliband graduated from Oxford in Politics and Economics but subsequently studied at the LSE and left with a M.Sc in economics.

So the question is, why do the two Eds let Osborne get away with some of the nonsense he spouts and why haven't they pointed out that the claims about the economic failings of the previous Labour government are mostly untrue?

Beats me.
Posted by: Southwark Mariner, February 3, 2015, 1:10am; Reply: 25
I'd like the Conservative Party to win, mostly because the other parties appear to me to have no idea. My prediction? I think they will win. I just worry it will be a very poor majority or even worse, they have to form a coalition.

One point I'd like to make is how Cod Almighty seems to be politically weighted. I'd really rather they stuck to GTFC and football. I know John Fenty has decided to join the local politicians but Cod Almighty has a definite Labour swing that is mirrored throughout Grimsby. Nationally, Labour were in power for 13 years during one of the greatest economic growth periods the country had experienced, and yet Grimsby did not - in my eyes - benefit at all. Also, what has a Labour Council done for Grimsby? The crazy paving?

Why there is such weighting on who is in power does confuse me. I read a few history books and everything happening today has happened before. Politicians wanting to stay in power, people ill suited for the job selected because of connections rather than ability. It seems to me who is in post rather than their politics is more important.

I have a friend that once told me about a band called the Mariana Trench. When asked why they were called so, he said "because they're so deep". I find every political party today very shallow. They're not overly concerned about the Party line, more so about winning votes. Why should I vote for Lib Dem, Labour, Conservative when it's likely they're going to end up in a coalition, making concessions and not actually doing what I voted for. The system is broken when everything is a compromise and nothing coalesces towards the national interest.

.
Posted by: Southwark Mariner, February 3, 2015, 2:00am; Reply: 26
Quoted from Maringer


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.


Fitch Ratings gave out many warnings about Icelandic Banks...the same banks our Glorious local authority had deposited in.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/26/uk-local-government-icelandic-deposits
Posted by: Maringer, February 3, 2015, 8:15am; Reply: 27
Quoted from Southwark Mariner
I'd like the Conservative Party to win, mostly because the other parties appear to me to have no idea. My prediction? I think they will win. I just worry it will be a very poor majority or even worse, they have to form a coalition.

One point I'd like to make is how Cod Almighty seems to be politically weighted. I'd really rather they stuck to GTFC and football. I know John Fenty has decided to join the local politicians but Cod Almighty has a definite Labour swing that is mirrored throughout Grimsby. Nationally, Labour were in power for 13 years during one of the greatest economic growth periods the country had experienced, and yet Grimsby did not - in my eyes - benefit at all. Also, what has a Labour Council done for Grimsby? The crazy paving?

Why there is such weighting on who is in power does confuse me. I read a few history books and everything happening today has happened before. Politicians wanting to stay in power, people ill suited for the job selected because of connections rather than ability. It seems to me who is in post rather than their politics is more important.

I have a friend that once told me about a band called the Mariana Trench. When asked why they were called so, he said "because they're so deep". I find every political party today very shallow. They're not overly concerned about the Party line, more so about winning votes. Why should I vote for Lib Dem, Labour, Conservative when it's likely they're going to end up in a coalition, making concessions and not actually doing what I voted for. The system is broken when everything is a compromise and nothing coalesces towards the national interest.



You are, of course, welcome to vote for whoever you like.

What I'm interested in is why you think the Conservatives have any idea. As my other posts in this thread have noted, Osborne has been a catastrophically bad Chancellor, an appalling failure even on his own terms. Somehow (and I'd argue it is with the collusion of the ranks of the right-wing media and the ineptitude of the BBC), he's persuaded the public he's doing a good job! Here's a good article pointing out the pertinent facts from that well-known left-wing paper, the Telegraph  ;) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11268104/George-Osborne-fails-economics-wins-politics.html

Of anyone in government, Osborne is the living embodiment of your comment about, "people ill suited for the job selected because of connections rather than ability". He's never had a job anywhere, but started working at Conservative Central Office pretty much immediately after graduating. I just can't imagine why you would want him back in power?

Regarding your comments about the 'New' Labour government not achieving much, they actually did a decent job in many respects though, as with all governments, failed in others. Bear in mind that the New Labour bunch are basically very centrist and not really left-wing at all, as is noticeable by people like Milburn and McBride openly criticising Miliband and Balls this close to the election - it's almost as if they want the Conservatives to win! New Labour continued many of the policies of the previous Conservative government and their failure to deal with issues such as proper banking regulation (along with the rest of the world), led to the financial crisis in 2008. The worrying thing is that regulation is still too lax as Brown didn't have the guts to bring in proper legislation and Cameron/Osborne have no interest in doing so. The economic crisis was caused entirely by the financial sector and they've got away pretty much scot-free. Nothing whatsoever was done to try and approach the problems of rising economic inequality, either.
Posted by: Maringer, February 3, 2015, 8:25am; Reply: 28
Quoted from Southwark Mariner


Fitch Ratings gave out many warnings about Icelandic Banks...the same banks our Glorious local authority had deposited in.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/26/uk-local-government-icelandic-deposits


It was, indeed, incompetence by the N.E. Lincolnshire council (a Conservative/LibDem coalition at the time) which led to these losses, as it was clear that the Icelandic banks couldn't possibly stay liquid following the events in the banking sector which began in 2007. But you've rather missed my point. Things started to head south in 2007 and continued to worsen throughout 2008, but nobody saw the problems coming before then, especially the rating agencies who were actively complicit by award 'AAA' ratings to all sorts of complex equities which turned out to be almost worthless. Rating agencies are required to some extent, but the sheer incompetence of the Big Three in the lead up to the Great Recession was just breathtaking. It's amazing anybody pays them any attention today.
Posted by: barralad, February 3, 2015, 9:19am; Reply: 29
Best thread on here by a country mile....
Posted by: pizzzza, February 3, 2015, 12:22pm; Reply: 30
I've never taken more than a passing interest in politics and this thread sums up why, it's flipping boring. Yes, I vote and will continue to do so but at then end of the day - you don't get who you vote for, you get who everyone else votes for.
Posted by: Maringer, February 3, 2015, 1:31pm; Reply: 31
Erm, no. You get whoever wins the most votes and your votes counts for just as much as anyone else's.

Some for of proportional representation would be better than first past the post and would improve politics, IMO, as politicians would then have to actually work together to try and improve things instead of coming in and changing everything around every ten years or so. Unfortunately, this was too easily rejected by voters in this country when given the choice so we're stuck with what we've got for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: grimsby pete, February 3, 2015, 3:07pm; Reply: 32
I am thinking of forming a new party,

It will be called the OAP PARTY,

Pensions will be doubled and entrance to all sporting events will be free,

You will go to the top of any waiting list at the hospital,

You will get 3 weeks holiday free of charge every year,

All party members must be OAP'S,

You youngsters will not be left out,

You just have to wait until you are an OAP,

Before you receive any benefits. :)

All this will be paid by a mansion tax,

Plus a tax on Fish + chips, ( all Grimbians and meggies will be exempt from paying this tax ) ;D
Posted by: Biccys, February 3, 2015, 3:48pm; Reply: 33
Quoted from grimsby pete
I am thinking of forming a new party,

It will be called the OAP PARTY,

Pensions will be doubled and entrance to all sporting events will be free,

You will go to the top of any waiting list at the hospital,

You will get 3 weeks holiday free of charge every year,

All party members must be OAP'S,

You youngsters will not be left out,

You just have to wait until you are an OAP,

Before you receive any benefits. :)

All this will be paid by a mansion tax,

Plus a tax on Fish + chips, ( all Grimbians and meggies will be exempt from paying this tax ) ;D


Ageist.... ;)
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 3, 2015, 8:26pm; Reply: 34
Quoted from Maringer
Erm, no. You get whoever wins the most votes and your votes counts for just as much as anyone else's.

Some for of proportional representation would be better than first past the post and would improve politics, IMO, as politicians would then have to actually work together to try and improve things instead of coming in and changing everything around every ten years or so. Unfortunately, this was too easily rejected by voters in this country when given the choice so we're stuck with what we've got for the foreseeable future.


You have given some good counter arguments in our debate and some points I don't agree with but it doesn't mean that we are poles apart, pardon the pun, if anything I feel I have moved back towards Labour.  I consider the posts between us as healthy and as with politicians people can sway judgements by how and what they write.

I don't trust politicians in general because of the countless failed promises made each and every general election. The problem today is the media, who backs the media and what they want you to know. I try and get my information from a variety of sources and somewhere in between there is the truth.  It's well known that your average politician believes the general public are morons.

Sadly George Carlin for me, calls it as it is, although American it can be mirrored here in the UK.

[youtube]efKguI0NFek[/youtube]
Posted by: Maringer, February 3, 2015, 10:53pm; Reply: 35
Carlin is quite funny, but it's pretty clear that Brand has been ripping off his stuff about not bothering to vote.  ;)

We're not nearly as bad as the US in this country just yet, but the importance of money in getting elected is clearly taking hold. The fact that the Tories have three times as much to spend as Labour means it's an uphill struggle to compete and the attacks from the ranks of the right-wing press have reached absurd proportions already. Worth reading this link which lists the newspaper attacks on Miliband on just the past Sunday and Monday:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/feb/02/ed-miliband-suffers-ferocious-press-onslaught-and-it-will-get-worse

Some of those are so ridiculous, it's like reading the Daily Mash!

In the US, there is a highly-funded left-wing counterpart to the right-wing expenditure, but this is something we lack in this country. I do wonder how many votes will be won just because people believe whatever the billionaire who owns their daily newspaper decides they should be believing.

Good to have a decent discussion, as you note.  :)
Posted by: grimps, February 4, 2015, 8:00pm; Reply: 36
The Tories should get in purely down to the fact that Miliband is still in charge of the Labour party.
Can anyone really see that divvy representing the UK on the World stage ?
Posted by: grimps, February 4, 2015, 8:06pm; Reply: 37
Maringer ? are you a civil servant by chance ? School teacher ?
Posted by: mariner91, February 4, 2015, 8:19pm; Reply: 38
I think the tories will win which is a shame really because if Labour sorted themselves out, it would be there for the taking.
Posted by: Maringer, February 4, 2015, 10:59pm; Reply: 39
Quoted from grimps
Maringer ? are you a civil servant by chance ? School teacher ?


Nope, private sector. Lucky enough to never have been on the dole or to have required any benefits though I did go through University before tuition fees were brought into place. Always paid all my taxes as well, unlike plenty of Conservative donors!  ;)

Miliband is a highly-intelligent, well-educated idealist. Not a 'divvy' (didn't realise we were back in the 1970s schoolyard, incidentally). Unfortunately for Miliband, we've followed the US media overload so it has come to the point where appearance is more important than substance with our politicians. Any slight slip or perceived error is jumped on by the media (which is dominated by the right in this country) and the endless attacks on Miliband by these newspapers, regardless of what he does or says have actually reached the stage where it is becoming comical. Think for a minute. In what world does it make sense that major newspapers such as the Telegraph and Mail can virulently attack Miliband because he has been mildly criticised by the billionaire, Italian, Monaco-based head of Boots for being 'anti-business'? This is the same man who has moved the tax domicile of Boots to Switzerland so they pay less tax - in our country. All well and good for the shareholders of the US holding company that owns Boots but ultimately, that's money being taken out of our public services, schools, hospitals, etc. It's preposterous to think this should be considered a serious news story, but unfortunately, plenty of people who get newspapers believe pretty much everything they read in there and so this sort of stuff is little more than propaganda.

On the other end of the scale to Miliband, you've got David Cameron who talks disingenuous nonsense much of the time but he's very slick (former PR man) and rarely gets called out on it. Here's one rare occasion when he was taken to task by the UK Statistics Authority for, well, lying about the deficit, in a party political broadcast:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims

Now, Cameron may look like the sort of patrician politician that some in this country apparently like and he's still relatively popular (well, unpopular, but less unpopular than Miliband!), but don't you think the Prime Minister shouldn't be deliberately lying in his political broadcasts? I certainly do, but it appears they haven't learned their lesson (or just don't care) so are still lying about the deficit:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/shamefully-david-cameron-is-now-misleading-voters-about-the-deficit/

So, the choices for the power would seem to be between somebody who is slightly awkward in media terms, but sincere and (it would seem) pretty honest. This is the one under endless attack by the ranks of the media controlled by right-wing billionaires.

Alternatively, you can go with the slick and assured option - but only if blatant dishonesty and economic incompetence doesn't matter to you.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 4, 2015, 11:58pm; Reply: 40
Quoted from Maringer
Erm, no. You get whoever wins the most votes and your votes counts for just as much as anyone else's.

Some for of proportional representation would be better than first past the post and would improve politics, IMO, as politicians would then have to actually work together to try and improve things instead of coming in and changing everything around every ten years or so. Unfortunately, this was too easily rejected by voters in this country when given the choice so we're stuck with what we've got for the foreseeable future.


Like you, I always feel sorry for the Germans and all those Nordic folk who have to put up with coalition governments because of PR. Their countries are in tatters. Talk about Broken Britain.  ;)
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 5, 2015, 12:00am; Reply: 41
Quoted from Southwark Mariner


Fitch Ratings gave out many warnings about Icelandic Banks...the same banks our Glorious local authority had deposited in.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/26/uk-local-government-icelandic-deposits


Ah. The people who said you can trust all those sub-prime mortgage backed securities. The wisdom of the free market eh?

* other credit ratings agencies who will tell you that 2 and 2 is 10 are also available.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 5, 2015, 12:01am; Reply: 42
PS, Maringer for Chancellor!
Posted by: grimsby pete, February 5, 2015, 9:40am; Reply: 43
Regarding Milliband,

Labour only had two brothers to choose from,

AND

They chose the wrong one. ;D
Posted by: Maringer, February 5, 2015, 10:18am; Reply: 44
Depends on your viewpoint, I suppose.

David M was basically Blair-lite and 'New Labour' to the core whereas the Unions (I assume) helped Ed get elected as he was considered to be a bit more left-wing, though not by overly much. After a quiet first few years (which still baffles me), it does appear that the two Eds are moving marginally to the left and have finally begun to call out some of the Tory lies, but even they are still planning further austerity when the economy is nowhere near recovered from the last recession. Bad macroeconomics, but not as bad as dreadful as that of Osborne and Co.

You're probably correct that in the modern era, David would have been the better choice as he's more photogenic and doesn't have a slight speech impediment in the way that Ed does (both of the Eds, in fact!). There probably wouldn't have been too much difference between the policies of the two but David studied political science, not economics, so you know you would get more of the Blairite shtick leaning to the right of centre.
Posted by: HackneyHaddock, February 6, 2015, 12:29am; Reply: 45
I've always been a Tory supporter and have even been a local election candidate (not in North East Lincs!), and have friends in all parties, so I'll try to be objective:

On the prediction, I think it's likely we'll have a minority government, with me slightly leaning towards the Tories being the largest party but a lot will depend on how UKIP and the SNP do.  Locally, UKIP will run Labour close in Great Grimsby but ultimately lose (I would vote Labour if I lived in Grimsby as the UKIP candidate is a racist nutter) and Martin Vickers will hang on in Cleethorpes but have a majority in the hundreds rather than thousands.

I'm not going to get into all the trading of insults and "my party's better than yours" stuff, but I do think this election campaign is going to be one of the dirtiest and most infantile I can remember.  With dodgy statistics and weasel-language, with nonentities talking down to the country; it's going to be a long four months.  

It's a shame really, because there are some good MPs on all sides:  Tom Watson, Simon Danczuk, Dan Jarvis and Frank Field are all decent Labour MPs who are far too independently-minded for Miliband's cabinet which seems to be of the left rather than the centre.  Similarly on the Coalition side, Sarah Wollaston, Zac Goldsmith, Steve Baker and Julian Huppert are all far better than many of the stuffed suits in the cabinet.
Posted by: Maringer, February 6, 2015, 8:27am; Reply: 46
If we do see a minority government (of whatever stripe), it's unlikely to last too long. Read some stats the other day which surprised me in that we have actually had ruling coalitions for 26 years out of the past century (including 18 years in peace time) whereas minority governments have only lasted a total of 6 years in this period. I suppose that a formal coalition gives more stability than informal alliances which would have to be worked out by minority governments.

One thing I would say, is that I wonder if our political and media system these days actually allows a successful coalition to take place - the Tories and LibDems have been briefing against each other in the press practically from the point the coalition was formed and now they are both scrabbling to claim credit for anything positive which has occurred over the past 5 years (which ain't much!). Hardly the basis for the formation of trust required to govern successfully.

I expect it's always been the same with political parties in that some MPs, regardless of their political affiliation, are capable and diligent workers for their consitutencies and I think Vickers seems a decent bloke (I live in Cleethorpes). However, despite this, I'd never vote for him because his presence in Westminster would be an enabler for Cameron and Osborne to continue their damage. I'm not sure I'd classify Zac Goldsmith as a good example, however. He's known for his love of everything 'green' and is an environmental campaigner which is laudable. However, his vast wealth came from his inheritance (from his complete excrement of a father) and was registered as a non-dom for his entire life until he had to drop the status when he stood for parliament. During this time, he would have avoided paying millions in taxes. Quite legal, but is this really the sort of person we want in parliament? Apparently, it also looks as though he fiddled his election expenditure to 'avoid' going over the limit:

http://www.channel4.com/news/questions-over-zac-goldsmiths-election-expenses

Reading that report, it looks to me as though he used his wealth to gain an unfair advantage in the last election. Hardly laudable.

Anyway, this aside, when you consider that there are plenty of decent and capable backbench MPs, it makes it all the more depressing to think that you end up with incompetent idealogues such as Gove, Duncan Smith and Lansley running major departments in Westminter. Here's the latest report on the member-up which was the top-down reorganisation of the NHS under Lansley:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145600

Note that the Conservative Election manifesto in 2010 didn't even mention any plans for such a major reorganisation, which makes me wonder what they might do if they got into power again this time? If you don't tell voters about major policies which you are planning, how can you possibly be trusted again?

I suppose that many of the people at the top of the political parties find themselves there as much by their ambition and connections as for any competence or ability. You could probably pick a more capable cabinet from the backbenches of either of the major parties than you actually get in the real world!

As an aside, I got doorstepped by my local Labour candidate the other weekend, (relatively) early on the Saturday morning - first time I've been doorstepped that I can recall in living in my house for 12 years. He seemed a decent chap and we had a brief chat - he works in financial/economic publishing and like me, he couldn't understand why the two Eds hadn't pointed out Osborne's various lies about the economy! Seems a decent chap and (like Vickers), it is good to see he has lived locally for many years. From my viewpoint, it was also good to see him putting the legwork in as well, though the Labour Party don't really have much choice as they only have a third of the money to spend on the election that the Conservatives do, thanks to their wealthy buddies in the city. This is the sort of point that the two Eds should have been hammering away at for the past year or two, but it seems they are only now making an effort to do so. Almost as though they've been asleep at the wheel.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-hedge-fund-superrich-donated-19m-to-tory-party-10024548.html
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 6, 2015, 5:19pm; Reply: 47
I hope and pray who ever gets in regardless of manner between Labour and Conservatives that none of them do a deal with the SNP.
Posted by: grimps, February 6, 2015, 6:51pm; Reply: 48
I've just been watching on the news the Labour party supporters who look like they're in cahoots with the South Yorkshire police  trying to silence UKIP in Rotherham.
When will they learn eh ?  ;)
Posted by: Maringer, February 6, 2015, 10:56pm; Reply: 49
In cahoots with the police? Are you sure it wasn't immigrants?  ;)

Anyway, I see that Mr. Toad blames an evil alliance of the SWP, Greens and former Labour councillors for this protest which was apparently funded by some union or other. Just an everyday protest, from what I've seen. It wasn't violent or anything so why all the moaning?

The police should just have let him have his walkabout. Now that would have made amusing viewing, Farage roaming the streets followed by a noisy group of protestors!
Posted by: Hagrid, February 8, 2015, 2:14pm; Reply: 50
First time voting in an election for me, hope UKIP get nothing, think it'll be a labour-lib dem coalition but to be honest i really dont care, they are all the bloody same ( thats how it appears to people my age group)
Posted by: Maringer, February 9, 2015, 11:45am; Reply: 51
Well, they very most certainly aren't all the bloody same. The Conservative plans are going to continue the increasing rate of austerity which will mostly be loaded on the younger population (as has most of the austerity enacted so far). On the other hand, Osborne has extended his Pensioner bonds scheme which is nothing more than a bribe to older voters with a bit of cash put to one side. Just a transfer of money from the state to wealthy pensioners which is going to cost the country more than 9 times as much as borrowing the same amount on the bonds market would do and it will also mean that the banks have less money invested from the pensioners as well meaning they will have less money to lend.

Yet another economically inane yet politically cynical policy by probably the worst Chancellor this country has ever seen.
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, February 10, 2015, 12:20pm; Reply: 52
I see the Forest Green Rovers man Vince is backing Labour.
Quoted from Ecotricity website | 10th February 2015
Ecotricity backs 'Green Labour'

Britain’s leading green energy company, Ecotricity, is donating £250,000 to the Labour Party’s election campaign.

Ecotricity founder Dale Vince said: “We’re putting our money where our hearts are – and that’s the care of the environment. We’ve watched the coalition government systematically undermine not just the renewable energy industry in Britain but the whole green economy and by de facto – efforts to combat climate change. We feel compelled to act and to speak out.

“In 2012, Britain’s green economy generated £128 billion, that was 8% of all GDP and a third of all growth in GDP that year - while the country was struggling to get out of recession.
Full read here >> >> [url=http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/news-archive/2015/ecotricity-backs-green-labour]http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/news-archive/2015/ecotricity-backs-green-labour[/url]
Posted by: Maringer, February 10, 2015, 1:10pm; Reply: 53
Meh. Using lots of 'Green' energy isn't workable with current technology (energy storage is still much too expensive to make a large move to renewables feasible), so Vince has got rich on large subsidies from the British government. Good business sense from him though and he obviously believes in what he's doing.

If he thinks that Labour are more likely to keep these subsidies going, you can understand why he is backing them. That said, I'm not really sure that the policies as announced of the LibDems/Conservatives are all that much different? Obviously, the Tories are more pro-fracking, so perhaps that's one major difference, but it is only gas backup which makes any use of renewables feasible so you wouldn't think that would necessarily be the reason.

Personally, I'd rather we embarked on a sensible Nuclear build programme which didn't have us relying on the French to build and maintain power stations for us at preposterously inflated rates. A much better idea to get the Chinese to build them (they are using US designs) and then operate them ourselves, but I think we're locked in with the French now.

Of course, the fact that EDF, who we are paying to build and operate these new Nuclear power stations for us are entirely owned by the French state might be an indication that having your utilities in state hands isn't quite the disaster that Thatcherites would have you believe.  :-/
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 12, 2015, 11:34pm; Reply: 54
Here's a little thought for anyone who thinks austerity is a good idea when the economy is still in the doldrums.

If the amount you still have left on your mortgage is roughly 80% of your income but you can easily afford to meet your payments, would your children thank you for leaving them the house paid off, but them having gone to a crappy school and got poor grades. Or would they rather you invested the money in the best education you could afford, or some critical treatment not available on the NHS, and leave them with the house and the debt when you die?

With a healthy dose of inflation the debt will become less and less of a burden, but they'll be better off having had a better education and even better able to afford the debt. And still have the house as an asset.

Osborne's plans are the economics of the mad-house.
Posted by: grimsby pete, February 13, 2015, 11:20am; Reply: 55
Some papers are reporting than inflation will fall below zero,

I am not the brightest of people,

BUT

Isn't that DEFLATION ?
Posted by: Maringer, February 13, 2015, 11:23am; Reply: 56
For those who are interested, here's good article which explains the whole 'Austerity Con' which the media and many politicians have bought into:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

Pretty long but interesting for those who are bothered. Future generations will look back with incredulity at the wrong-headed and foolish policies enacted following this most recent recession.
Posted by: cmackenzie4, February 13, 2015, 11:23am; Reply: 57
I predict we will get lied to and sold down the river!
Posted by: Marinerz93, February 13, 2015, 3:46pm; Reply: 58
Quoted from cmackenzie4
I predict we will get lied to and sold down the river!


How is that any different from previous elections Chris  ;)
Posted by: KingstonMariner, February 14, 2015, 1:17am; Reply: 59
Quoted from Maringer
For those who are interested, here's good article which explains the whole 'Austerity Con' which the media and many politicians have bought into:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con

Pretty long but interesting for those who are bothered. Future generations will look back with incredulity at the wrong-headed and foolish policies enacted following this most recent recession.


Good article. That chart showing the size of the current deficit is revealing. Why the intercourse haven't the Eds drawn attention to this God only knows. The deficit only ballooned when the recession struck and the recession happened because of the banking crisis. And the banking crisis was so bad because the banks had been allowed to do what they wanted, with little or no regulation. Which is just what the Conservatives wanted.

Posted by: Rodley Mariner, February 16, 2015, 12:33pm; Reply: 60
I've got a horrible feeling we'll end up with a Tory majority. I think the average man in the street still swallows the narrative of profligate Labour chucking money around and the Tories taking the difficult decisions to get things back on an even keel. I think a high percentage of floating voters will, with that in mind, decide voting Tory is the 'safe' option. I also think a lot of those indicating a instinct to vote for UKIP will actually go Tory when it comes to a General Election. Labour are also going to do pretty abysmally in Scotland. For these reasons I think the Tory vote will actually be greater than opinion polls are suggesting and I think they'll have a small majority. God help us all then.
Posted by: mariner91, February 16, 2015, 4:17pm; Reply: 61
Quoted from Rodley Mariner
I've got a horrible feeling we'll end up with a Tory majority. I think the average man in the street still swallows the narrative of profligate Labour chucking money around and the Tories taking the difficult decisions to get things back on an even keel. I think a high percentage of floating voters will, with that in mind, decide voting Tory is the 'safe' option. I also think a lot of those indicating a instinct to vote for UKIP will actually go Tory when it comes to a General Election. Labour are also going to do pretty abysmally in Scotland. For these reasons I think the Tory vote will actually be greater than opinion polls are suggesting and I think they'll have a small majority. God help us all then.


Definitely. One of my friends works in the City doing some sort of financial stuff (all sounds boring to me) and he actually believes that the Tories have a better plan for the economy despite the obvious that cuts during a recession go against one of the most basic rules in economics. It's worrying that someone who should have some knowledge of economics believes their rhetoric because if he does, as you said, what does the average man on the street think? Probably what the Tories tell them.
Posted by: Maringer, February 16, 2015, 4:48pm; Reply: 62
Bear in mind that the Tories policies tend to ensure that more money is heading to workers in the City, so it would probably be in your friend's best interests to have another Conservative government. Screw the rest of us, of course.

Don't rule out the influence of groupthink, either. Working in the City, your friend is almost certainly surrounded by public schoolboys whose families will never have voted anything but Conservative. His bosses are quite possibly donors to the Tories, he probably reads the FT, whose leader writers have been bizarrely pro-Tory in recent years (and damn the actual underlying economics). Surrounded by all this, he probably just believes what everyone else around him thinks and facts just don't matter.

See if you can get him to read that piece in the LRB which I linked to. Would be amusing to hear what he thought about that run-down of economic incompetence by Osborne & co.  ;)
Posted by: jock dock tower, February 17, 2015, 10:36am; Reply: 63
As someone living in Scotland, here's my take on things up here as a committed and passionate believer in Independence.

The SNP will not get anything like 40 seats that some of the media are predicting and it is much more likely that they will get between 20 and 25 seats. Voting during the Independence campaign rose to over 85%, but that won't happen again as Westminster is seen by many as a non issue up here now that the argument for Independence as defeated.

There is still a sizeable rump vote though that will vote SNP, who have probably never voted for them before, because although Independence was defeated, there is much more chance of resurrecting the argument if the SNP can hold the balance of power somehow, and use their leverage for much greater autonomy - to such a point that a break up of the UK would become inevitable. Look at Labour over the last couple of weeks though, and you can see changes in the way they are arguing certain things, especially on big business and tax evasion, and that is down to the fact that they have to portray themselves as a much more left of centre party than they really are in order to try and fight off the very genuine SNP threat.

Nobody will win a majority, and even with the tax evasion arguments going on now being an absolute gift for Labour, the public will still somehow believe that the Tories with their free market determines everything approach makes them more competent with handling the economy. Why is that? Because the right wing press tell them so, and they fall hook, line and sinker for it.

Will I be voting SNP? No, I still have it inherent in my nature that I have to use my vote to try and ensure that I don't end up with a Tory MP. The SNP are light years behind in terms of the percentage vote at the last election so I'll be voting Labour - not because I think they're capable of real change, but the alternative of a Tory government is simply too scary to comtemplate. The SNP will eventually have major internal strife, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind about that, it's how long they can keep the reins on those who have infiltrated the party and see it as a vehicle for revolutionary change, believe it or not. When yo get the likes of Tommy Sheridan and others advocating voting for them, rather than their own far left groupings, there will be a price to pay in the future. I just hope it's after we get a much better deal in Scotland than the absolute b0ll0cks we've been given with the Vow - which ain't worth tuppence.
Posted by: ginnywings, February 17, 2015, 6:19pm; Reply: 64
Politics and GTFC go hand in hand for me. I used to care passionately about both and now i don't. The best period for me was the late nineties, Labour in power, plenty of work and plenty of money in my pocket. Town playing fantastic football. It's all been downhill ever since.  ;D

Christ, even our major shareholder is a Tory.
Posted by: barralad, February 18, 2015, 9:24am; Reply: 65
Quoted from ginnywings
Politics and GTFC go hand in hand for me. I used to care passionately about both and now i don't. The best period for me was the late nineties, Labour in power, plenty of work and plenty of money in my pocket. Town playing fantastic football. It's all been downhill ever since.  ;D

Christ, even our major shareholder is a Tory.


Spot on......Although 1945-50 sounded good!! (And Town were in the First Division for some of it)
Posted by: grimsby pete, February 18, 2015, 10:48am; Reply: 66
Quoted from barralad


Spot on......Although 1945-50 sounded good!! (And Town were in the First Division for some of it)


AND

Grimsby pete was born.  8)
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, February 22, 2015, 10:17pm; Reply: 67
92, 97, 2001, 2005, 2010 for Grimsby >> [url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/constituency/979/great-grimsby]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/constituency/979/great-grimsby[/url]
Posted by: Maringer, February 23, 2015, 11:12am; Reply: 68
I notice that Mitchell has been running his mouth off again and putting his foot in it with some really stupid comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31574817

Just shows how far past it he is (and has been for some years, IMO). I bet the Labour candidate in Grimsby can't believe that he seems to be actively making it more difficult for her to win!  :-/
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, March 3, 2015, 12:56pm; Reply: 69
I would vote for Michael Sheen given a chance. So spot on, so vociferous, so angry, so passionate and so incredibly Welsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLMYgb7xs38
Posted by: Maringer, March 4, 2015, 11:07am; Reply: 70
I agree with pretty much all of Sheen's views, but note that he has lived in Los Angeles for the past 5 years so is unlikely to be paying taxes over here.

Fair enough, he's living there to be near his daughter, not to try and avoid taxes but, as with Sean Connery, if you're going to be strongly commenting on the political situation in a country I think you really ought to be living there.

Other than that, good on him!
Posted by: grimsby pete, March 4, 2015, 5:18pm; Reply: 71
I think when we get nearer to the election,

We should all predict how many seats will be won by each party,

No prize just a bit of fun.

It will be interesting to see how close we get.
Posted by: Maringer, March 5, 2015, 8:01am; Reply: 72
Don't think I could do that, Pete. Though not a gambler, I do have the odd flutter on rare occasions, but I make a point of not betting on a football match in which I have an interest. Trying to predict the number of seats to be won in the election would feel just the same!  ;)

I see our glorious leader, Cameron, has added cowardice to his many failings. He obviously realises that he can get away with bluster, dishonesty and failing to answer questions in PMQs but won't risk a debate even against somebody as unimpressive in the media as Miliband. Still, when you look at the Tory's appalling record over the past 5 years, you can see how easy it would be to eviscerate Cameron in a debate so it's probably the best option for him. I really do hope that the Labour party arrange to have somebody in a chicken suit following Cameron around during the campaign. That would be really funny.  :)
Posted by: psgmariner, March 6, 2015, 11:40am; Reply: 73
Good Grauniad article on Grimsby here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/06/grimsby-glory-days-election
Posted by: Maringer, March 7, 2015, 9:04am; Reply: 74
Here's an amusing selection of quotes made by Cameron over the past 5 years about pre-election debates. Not showing much consistency is he? The big chicken.

“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” – David Cameron, Sky news, 14 April 2010

“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron, Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010

“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, and when I was behind in the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” – David Cameron, Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010

"I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010

“I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010

“If you want the TV debates to go ahead you have got to do it fairly between the main parties and look, having said I want them, having challenged people to have them and quite right, Sky saying let’s have them, it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it. It will be challenging, it was, but I think I came through them.” – David Cameron, Sky News, 3 May 2010

“On TV debates, I’m in favour of them, I think they’re good and we should go on having them and I will certainly play my part in trying to make that happen.” – David Cameron, Coalition mid term review, 7th Jan 2012

“I think TV debates are good. I enjoyed them last time – particularly the last one.” – David Cameron, Press Association, 10th December 2012

“You know we’ve been going on for years about let’s have these debates and I think it really vindicated having that. I think people will be asking themselves why on earth, what was all the fuss about? Why on earth didn’t we have these things before? We should have done and it’s great they’re underway now and I think we’ll have them in every election in the future and I think that’s a really good thing for our democracy.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014

“Blair pulled out against Major and Major pulled out against Kinnock, Thatcher pulled out against Callaghan. I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
Posted by: grimsby pete, March 7, 2015, 3:50pm; Reply: 75
I do not think for one minute Cameron will not turn up for the other two debates,

He is not that stupid,

Is he ?
Posted by: Maringer, March 7, 2015, 6:20pm; Reply: 76
It is almost certainly in his best interests to be chicken and give them a miss.

The right-wing newspapers (who control 85% of the market) have started to report it as 'standing up' to the TV companies so you can be sure they will continue to support Cameron regardless and continue their ad hominem attacks on Miliband regardless of what he says or does.

Plenty of their readers will continue to believe whatever is printed so Cameron will be better off continuing to dodge the debates rather than risking showing them what a complete bell-end he is in reality!
Posted by: codcheeky, March 8, 2015, 8:48pm; Reply: 77
All a bit embarrassing for Cameron after calling for debates 5 years ago, there is no doubt it will be either him or Milliband next PM, they should have a 2 hour debate in different studios so they cant just shout the other down and be made to answer questions not talk about what the other party may do or has done , the past is gone we need a vision for the future
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, March 8, 2015, 8:52pm; Reply: 78
Funnily I'm just finishing the first volume of the Campbell diaries and it covers Blair not wanting a debate with Major. Feeling then was that they only ever benefit the underdog. The Tories had someone in a chicken suit follow Blair on the campaign trail but it didn't do much damage then obviously.
Posted by: grimsby pete, March 9, 2015, 10:31am; Reply: 79
Its time that leaders of the party answered the questions put to them,

Prime Ministers Questions is a joke, the PM of the day never answers a straight question,

These debates will be the same unless we have a very strong Questioner who will insist

the leaders of each party either answers the question or he turns his mike off,

That would be good don't you think ?
Posted by: Maringer, March 9, 2015, 1:54pm; Reply: 80
I think that the problem with PMQs is that it is really just a relatively informal Q&A session. The PM can't be forced to answer the questions put to him - it is just assumed that he will do so.

This is why you see Cameron dodging questions by either answering a completely different imagined question (often from a script), or putting together some whataboutery and slinging back an insult the other way. No proper debate possible.

I seem to recall that Brown never answered questions at PMQs a lot of the time but I also recall that Cameron once claimed he was going to stop the Punch and Judy aspect of politics when in fact he has made it much, much worse! Never wastes an opportunity (even when there isn't one) to insult his opponents personally which is pretty pathetic.
Posted by: grimsby pete, March 9, 2015, 5:49pm; Reply: 81
I took an interest in PMQ'S since he was first put on the TV,

All of the PM'S up to date just waffle and turn the questions back onto the leader of the opposition,

A complete waste of time,

I hardly watch it now.
Posted by: fishheadphil, April 11, 2015, 7:59pm; Reply: 82
Tories and ukip for me, labour no longer represents the working class indigenous people of Britain, and anyone who questions left wing ideology is racist apparently ! Ed miliband is a communist nincompoop traitor as is ed balls up and the female dog Harman. :🎻
Posted by: WokingMariner, April 13, 2015, 9:34pm; Reply: 83
Lib/Lab/SNP coallition
Posted by: GrimRob, April 14, 2015, 2:10pm; Reply: 84
Not sure who to vote for? You should use this site.

http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/
Posted by: Maringer, April 14, 2015, 3:32pm; Reply: 85
Well, personally, I think you certainly shouldn't vote for a party trying to buy votes by forcing housing associations to sell off what little social housing remains at the cost of billions to the taxpayer!

The latest shambolic policy from a party willing to say anything and do anything to bribe voters into returning them to power.

The endless Tory accusations of Labour profligacy really take the biscuit when all their own major policy claims are completely unfunded or aim to further inflate the property market at the expense of the tax payer.

I just wish that one of the political parties would put some proper investment into building a good number of affordable houses, whether for social housing or the entry level market. Instead, the Tories are aiming to sell off as much as they can and we'll just end up spending more and more filling the pockets of private landlords through housing benefit. Utterly maddening.
Posted by: WHYWONTYOULETMESIGNUP, April 15, 2015, 8:21am; Reply: 86
I'm voting conservative just because I don't want labour, I think there'll be a lot to complain about either way but when the cost of living is down and there's been a few little bits of common sense that have made it to reality just silly little things like Middle lane hoggers getting fines, think does it really get much better from constantly disappointing governments that everyone gets angry about and switches alliegences every 10 years anyway
Posted by: Maringer, April 15, 2015, 9:23am; Reply: 87
Cost of living down - due entirely to the drop in oil prices, so absolutely nothing to do with Osborne's policies. He's been incredibly lucky in this respect because otherwise he would rightfully be toast.

All the previous years of this government saw pay rises well below the rate of inflation so many haven't even got back to the place where we were back in 2008.

The Conservative government took over in the midst of a decent recovery from the crash in 2008 and quickly cut it off due to their ideologically-based plans for austerity. It was only when they (quietly) reduced the level of austerity considerably in 2012 that the recovery resumed but they've still managed to ensure that it is the worst-ever recovery from a recession. Funny that they continue to claim their 'Plan A' has worked when they have been operating a 'Plan B' since 2012!

Austerity was apparently required initially to remove the risk of the UK losing our AAA credit rating. We quickly lost this rating so that didn't work. Then it was necessary to make sure the deficit was eliminated by 2015. The deficit has been cut by a third. They have borrowed a lot more money in 5 years than all Labour governments combined have borrowed, yet they somehow have managed to keep a reputation for balancing the books and have even managed to blame the recession on Labour spending (not even close to being true)! To really take the biscuit, they are now promising all sorts of expenditure and tax cuts without saying how they could be funded and refuse to state where they are going to cut £12 billion from the welfare bill, with pensions (by far the largest part of welfare) to be left untouched.

Before the last election, the Conservative government promised no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Then immediately enacted an expensive top-down reorganisation of the NHS. A million public sector jobs culled and replaced with millions of zero hour part-time jobs which give no job security. A lot of work previously done by the public sector has been outsourced to massive companies who provide a rubbish service and low pay to their workers.

They raised VAT, a regressive tax which has hit the poorest hardest. They cut tax for the wealthiest. Bedroom tax? Further hits to the poorest. Benefit cuts and sanctions? Increasing poverty. We're one of the wealthiest countries in the world but a million people have had to use food banks due to hunger.

With all this (and much more) in mind, I'm absolutely staggered that somebody would vote for the Tories on such a banal basis that they (claim to) plan to implement fines for drivers who hog the middle lane!

Oh well, it's your vote, but I think you must be bonkers.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, April 15, 2015, 1:41pm; Reply: 88
Spot on assessment Maringer...at least someone is speaking some sense

The only thing I would take exception to is where you've stated

To really take the biscuit, they are now promising all sorts of expenditure and tax cuts without saying how they could be funded

Surely you've seen this new source of wealth to allow the Tory boys to "bring back the good life"

[IMG]http://i59.tinypic.com/5wkzs.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 15, 2015, 10:42pm; Reply: 89
The latest daft "ploy" to come from the Tories is a promise to protect people on the minimum wage from tax. They say you won't pay tax if you earn the minimum wage and do 30 hours a week.

Now given that Min Wage is £6.50 an hour if you work 30 hours a week you'll get £195 a week, so less than the tax allowance of £10,500 a year anyway. So what exactly are they offering?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 15, 2015, 10:46pm; Reply: 90
Quoted from fishheadphil
Tories and ukip for me, labour no longer represents the working class indigenous people of Britain, and anyone who questions left wing ideology is racist apparently ! Ed miliband is a communist nincompoop traitor as is ed balls up and the female dog Harman. :🎻


Really? Some would say his problem is not being left wing at all.  As for the traitor claim. How exactly?

As for Labour no longer representing the working class - possibly true, but if that is your beef going to the people who never have and never will represent the working class is not exactly a bright move is it? What next, "My bike is broken so I'll take my saucepan to work."
Posted by: barralad, April 15, 2015, 11:25pm; Reply: 91
[quote=120785]

Really? Some would say his problem is not being left wing at all.  As for the traitor claim. How exactly?

As for Labour no longer representing the working class - possibly true, but if that is your beef going to the people who never have and never will represent the working class is not exactly a bright move is it? What next, "My bike is broken so I'll take my saucepan to work."[/quote]

Without doubt the best line I've read this election campaign!! I've even set up my ticks/crosses facility to give you a great big green tick....
Posted by: grimsby pete, April 16, 2015, 6:13pm; Reply: 92
Your vote is simple really,

If you are a business person you vote Conservative,

If you are the average working Man you vote Labour,

If you are a bit between the two you vote Liberal,

If you are fed up with the above 3 you vote UKIP.

Simple  ;D
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, April 17, 2015, 1:24pm; Reply: 93
Quoted from KingstonMariner


Really? Some would say his problem is not being left wing at all.  As for the traitor claim. How exactly?

As for Labour no longer representing the working class - possibly true, but if that is your beef going to the people who never have and never will represent the working class is not exactly a bright move is it? What next, "My bike is broken so I'll take my saucepan to work."


Love that turn of phrase KM....absolutely brilliant  ;D
Posted by: jock dock tower, April 17, 2015, 5:00pm; Reply: 94
Quoted from grimsby pete
Your vote is simple really,

If you are a business person you vote Conservative,

If you are the average working Man you vote Labour,

If you are a bit between the two you vote Liberal,

If you are fed up with the above 3 you vote UKIP.

Simple  ;D


Don't forget us north of the border Peter! I'd also suggest you don't forget wimmin either ;)

Posted by: MarinerWY, April 17, 2015, 5:49pm; Reply: 95
I predict a hung parliament, resulting in a minority Labour government getting legislation voted through on a vote-by-vote basis by the SNP (predominantly), Plaid Cymru, SDLP and last but not least the 1 Green MP which is all they will realistically get.

I would probably prefer a formal coalition between the aforementioned parties, but as long as the Tories are shut out of it and the other parties bring Labour further to the left I am OK with Labour running a minority government. I don't want Tory-lite, I want a real alternative and I think they are starting to get there, I think the others could help them massively along their way.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 18, 2015, 12:11am; Reply: 96
Quoted from barralad
[quote=120785]

Really? Some would say his problem is not being left wing at all.  As for the traitor claim. How exactly?

As for Labour no longer representing the working class - possibly true, but if that is your beef going to the people who never have and never will represent the working class is not exactly a bright move is it? What next, "My bike is broken so I'll take my saucepan to work."[/quote]

Without doubt the best line I've read this election campaign!! I've even set up my ticks/crosses facility to give you a great big green tick....


I thank you!

Can be used or any other pointless or illogical actions or policies. Like saying "we will keep those on the minimum wage out of tax, providing they work no more than 30 hours a week."
Posted by: AdamHaddock, April 19, 2015, 12:04pm; Reply: 97
Just seen that Labour are 6/4 to pinch Clegg's Sheffield Hallam seat (a considerable student population). Would be hilarious if that happened.

Just want to say I'm baffled that UKIP are attracting so much support in Grimsby. I remember working in some of the factories (Headland, Coldwater and a couple on the docks) around 2004 / 2005 when the mini wave of Eastern European immigration happened. Nothing like the numbers people would have you believe and they made up a small fraction of the workforce. A lot of the unemployment back home is as a result of the loss of a lot of manufacturing in the area around the time of the financial crash (and slightly earlier when the owners of some factories realised they could pay less if they moved their operations to other countries) - and the knock on effect of people not having money to spend in the wider economy e.g. pubs, restaurants etc. So I read through some comments on GET articles on facebook where quite a few people genuinely have it in their head that foreigners have caused Grimsby's problems and the answer is to vote for a bunch of conceited Thatcherites, and wonder what dippy planet I'm living on.

And I say that as someone who was briefly a member of UKIP back in the Kilroy era before life experience made me realise my political perceptions were totally the opposite of reality
Posted by: barralad, April 19, 2015, 5:14pm; Reply: 98
Well it's probably no secret that I'm a Labour supporter. Victoria Ayling is turning into a liability for UKIP. Her public performances are weak-not even her own supporters clapped her at the hustings meeting on Friday. Her performance on the Sunday Politics Show today was extremely unengaging. Therein lies UKIPs problem. Very few of their candidates match up to Nigel Farage's interpersonal skills and would be voters are being put off in droves...
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, April 19, 2015, 8:34pm; Reply: 99
Quoted from barralad
Well it's probably no secret that I'm a Labour supporter. Victoria Ayling is turning into a liability for UKIP. Her public performances are weak-not even her own supporters clapped her at the hustings meeting on Friday. Her performance on the Sunday Politics Show today was extremely unengaging. Therein lies UKIPs problem. Very few of their candidates match up to Nigel Farage's interpersonal skills and would be voters are being put off in droves...


I've just watched the Sunday Politics programme on the iplayer. Surely Victoria Ayling can't be a real person.
Posted by: barralad, April 19, 2015, 9:39pm; Reply: 100
Quoted from Manchester Mariner


I've just watched the Sunday Politics programme on the iplayer. Surely Victoria Ayling can't be a real person.


She must have said "It's all slurs" 20 times in that shrill voice of hers. Cannot criticise her for the voice but you'd have thought they'd have given her some training... :-/
Posted by: fivestarfish, April 20, 2015, 3:24pm; Reply: 101
7.5 million people not registered to vote, that's going to kill the left-leaning parties.
Posted by: Maringer, April 20, 2015, 3:53pm; Reply: 102
Quoted from barralad


She must have said "It's all slurs" 20 times in that shrill voice of hers. Cannot criticise her for the voice but you'd have thought they'd have given her some training... :-/


The milk snatcher apparently had vocal coaching to help her change her tone of voice which was originally quite high pitched. Hence the slow, weird drone we all grew to dislike so much.
Posted by: barralad, April 20, 2015, 4:18pm; Reply: 103
Quoted from fivestarfish
7.5 million people not registered to vote, that's going to kill the left-leaning parties.


Not necessarily so...I was on a polling station last year and the number of young people who thought they could just turn up to vote for UKIP was incredible!
Posted by: grimsby pete, April 20, 2015, 6:55pm; Reply: 104
Whether you like UKIP or hate them,

The phrase of using the Australian Points System to curb mass immigration is a good one imo,

I do not hear many voices calling the Australians racists.

Having said that I can not see them getting enough seats to go into a coalition with anybody.
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, April 20, 2015, 10:31pm; Reply: 105
The Political Sunday debate on 19th April 2015; it's on iPlayer for the next month, but I've put it on YouTube, just the 23 minutes concerning Grimsby, onboard the museum Trawler Ross Tiger.

[youtube]9DgtbrRaoao[/youtube]
Quoted Text
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Posted by: barralad, April 20, 2015, 11:44pm; Reply: 106
Quoted from grimsby pete
Whether you like UKIP or hate them,

The phrase of using the Australian Points System to curb mass immigration is a good one imo,

I do not hear many voices calling the Australians racists.

Having said that I can not see them getting enough seats to go into a coalition with anybody.


It's all about opinions Pete but the Australians treatment of the indigenous population (aborigines) has always left me feeling very uncomfortable. Their problem is they have a skills shortage. Ours is that a proportion of our own population don't really like doing the unskilled jobs such as farm labouring/cleaning/chamber maiding/street cleaning etc. etc. UKIP talk as though they still want to allow people with much needed skills in but where are the workers going to come from for those unskilled jobs IF we put a block on general unskilled migration? Any employer when faced with the choice of a willing migrant workforce or people who don't want to work so don't turn up, don't work when they get there etc. etc. is going to choose the former.  A lot of the migrants who come here never claim a single penny in benefit because they have, like a lot of Brits who move abroad, arranged jobs pre-arrival.
Posted by: LH, April 20, 2015, 11:48pm; Reply: 107
Quoted from grimsby pete

I do not hear many voices calling the Australians racists.



;D Really?!
Posted by: AdamHaddock, April 21, 2015, 5:29pm; Reply: 108
Quoted from Nelly GTFC
The Political Sunday debate on 19th April 2015; it's on iPlayer for the next month, but I've put it on YouTube, just the 23 minutes concerning Grimsby, onboard the museum Trawler Ross Tiger.

[youtube]9DgtbrRaoao[/youtube]


That outburst from Ayling at the start was hilarious  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Posted by: barralad, April 21, 2015, 8:16pm; Reply: 109
This election is like no other I've ever come across. Today I've had Tories switching to Labour to keep UKIP out, Lib Dems voting locally for their candidate but Labour in the general election and Labour voters going to UKIP because "They deserve a chance!"
The pollsters are really going to earn their money!!
Posted by: Maringer, April 22, 2015, 8:56am; Reply: 110
Makes you proud to live in the 5th wealthiest country on the planet:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/food-bank-users-uk-low-paid-workers-poverty

:-/

IDS is a cockwomble of the highest order.
Posted by: grimsby pete, April 22, 2015, 10:34am; Reply: 111
We are all in this together,

I wonder how many conservatives have to go to the food banks ?
Posted by: Maringer, April 22, 2015, 10:51am; Reply: 112
Quoted from grimsby pete
We are all in this together,

I wonder how many conservatives have to go to the food banks ?


Very few, I'd imagine. I can't imagine that anybody forced to use a food bank would ever vote Tory unless they were deeply, deeply stupid.

I reckon that some of the loons wielding lots of influence in the Conservative Party at present would probably read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal]A Modest Proposal[/url] as a serious policy document.
Posted by: Town Monkey, April 23, 2015, 1:08pm; Reply: 113
Maringer, A Modest Proposal is nothing short of a road map to future prosperity!   ;)

On a more serious note, for the first time ever I'm genuinely conflicted over which way to vote.  None of the parties really capture my core beliefs.  To illustrate my point, I'm in favour of: personal responsibility, equality of opportunity (irrespective of if you're called Tarquin or not), a smaller state sector focused on core services (but without being able to adequately define them), a genuine safety net for the most vulnerable in society, a more efficient NHS with the focus on doctors and nurses not administrators, lower taxation, thriving business environment, membership of the EU (albeit hopefully a reformed EU) and proper apprenticeships where young people can become masters of their craft.  Oh and sausage rolls, I love sausage rolls!

So, none of the parties actually represent me.  It's more than ever a case of choosing the least worst option.

Oh and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't have many ideas about how we can achieve most of the above.
Posted by: Town Monkey, April 23, 2015, 1:11pm; Reply: 114
Forgot my prediction, Labour minority government propped up by the other left leaning parties.  With the Tories supporting them to get through some of Labour's austerity measures.
Posted by: barralad, April 23, 2015, 4:09pm; Reply: 115
Nowt to do with the General election but I just encountered two patriots in Town dressed as crusaders for St. George's Day. One of them had an EDL footsoldiers flag. Is there a working Grimsby branch of the EDL?
Posted by: jock dock tower, April 23, 2015, 9:34pm; Reply: 116
Probably answers your question barralad. Looks little more than the workings of one guy with few supporters, they're probably all out on the stump for Ayling?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGrimsbyDivisionEdl&ei=F1c5Vb_0A83TaM_ngagC&usg=AFQjCNFVWvno9Xux_0Ep9k3jucKwADGeJQ&bvm=bv.91427555,d.d2s
Posted by: Fcukthescunts, April 23, 2015, 9:57pm; Reply: 117
Not my choice but think Tories will get in with Minority and what little Lib Dems left will support them in exchange for the odd meaningless policy. Had labour had a stronger leader think they would have easily got back in
Posted by: Maringer, April 24, 2015, 7:49am; Reply: 118
Tories plus LibDems aren't likely to be enough to form a coalition. Whether the addition of the DUP and UKIP wingnuts will be enough to form a majority remains in doubt.

Unfortunately, it looks as though the dreadful dishonest and negative campaigning by the Tories is beginning to bear fruit as current polling seems to indicate they will now win the most seats. The propaganda assault by the right-wing dominated media is obviously working which isn't surprising when you consider they have been slinging scare-mongering headlines about Labour (mostly complete nonsense, of course) every day for months. A pity that the BBC just toes the line set by these newspapers rather than carrying out the duties for which it exists and actually reporting impartially. No surprise, really, when you consider that the head of BBC news is a former editor of The Times so has kissed the ring of Murdoch. Nick Robinson, political editor, was head of the Young Conservatives at one stage and Peston's reportage seems to be taken directly from whatever his friends in the City tell him. He even hinted that the UK might become like Greece in the event of another financial crisis the other day which is just utter nonsense!

It's pretty obvious that Cameron and Co will do and say anything to get back into power so expect them to continue to scaremonger with nonsense about the SNP. I think this brings about the likelihood of Scottish independence within the next 5 years or so very much to the fore. Amazing, really, when you consider how much panic there was about the potential for independence last year and now, just a few months later, it looks like they really don't give a excrement.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, April 24, 2015, 9:09am; Reply: 119
I don't know if yoiu have noticed Maringer but on Bet365 there are loads of markets to bet on the election. I haven't bet on it myself but I use it as an alternative to the polls - the bookies aren't stupid and I have as much if not more faith in them to give an accurate reflection on how things stand. Interestingly they have the Tories as favourites to win the most seats at 1/3 but a Labour Minority as favourite to be the next Government at 13/8.

Full odds for the next Government are:

Labour Minority - 13/8
Con Minority - 10/3
Con-LD Coalition - 5/1
Con Majority - 7/1
Lab-LD Coalition - 8/1
Lab-SNP Coalition - 9/1
Lab Majority - 33/1
Con-Lab Coalition - 40/1
Con-UKIP Coalition - 40/1

I personally have a horrible feeling that a lot of UKIP voters will return to the Tories come the election and a lot of undecideds will buy the Tory scare-mongering about the SNP and Labour being untrustworthy with the economy and we might end up with a very, very small Tory majority.
Posted by: jonnyboy82, April 24, 2015, 10:09am; Reply: 120
Thinking labour or ukip to vote for this year but can't help thinking ukip is a Tory party in disguise.
Posted by: Maringer, April 24, 2015, 10:19am; Reply: 121
Thing about the bookies odds is that they are predicated on the bets they receive.

The pollsters say that the Tories may win the most seats by a handful but Labour would still be in a position to form a minority government, punters read these reports and bet accordingly so the odds change to reflect this.

Now, with modern-day techniques, an average of the polls are probably correct so sites which take an average of all the polls such as Electoral Calculus are most likely correct. That said, they haven't used any reasoning for their overall prediction as they are now saying that the stats indicate a Conservative/Nationalist Parties coalition is most likely!

Hmmm. If I was to be cynical, I wonder if the Tories are going to drop any pretense of caring about the Union and plan to offer the SNP another referendum in return for their support in forming a coalition? If they did that and the SNP were will to throw the rest of us under the bus enough to accept in return for protection of the Scottish budget for the next parliament and another referendum, we'd probably see a break up of the Union and the chance for the Tories to try to fix themselves as the dominant party in England. I wouldn't trust those fornicators not to try this. It comes to something when a Conservative PM makes even Thatcher look principled and reasonable!
Posted by: Maringer, April 24, 2015, 10:24am; Reply: 122
UKIP and Labour are at opposite ends of the political scale. UKIP are mostly made up of disgruntled Tories who want to be further to the right. Labour are a centre-left party. If you wouldn't vote for the Tories due to their policies, the only possible reason for voting for UKIP is if you wanted the UK out of Europe.

Pretty much everyone agrees an exit from the EU would be an incredibly risky proposition with no guarantees we'd be able to keep access to the market. Norway is often used as an example of what we could do, but UKIP seem to disregard the fact that if we left we'd still have to pay billions to the EU for this market access (and follow EU employment law, as do the Norwegians) without having any say in the running of it!
Posted by: jonnyboy82, April 24, 2015, 10:34am; Reply: 123
It's the ukip immigration policy that made me stand up and think about them , I like the ideas of an Australian style points system that they propose to deal with immigration.

The Tories are all about the rich so I wouldn't vote for them.

Swinging more towards Labour but that is with a bit of hesitancy.
Posted by: Maringer, April 24, 2015, 10:44am; Reply: 124
Problem is that as EU members, we can't limit immigration like the Aussies. We're signed up to various treaties which agree that we will follow EU laws which we helped to write!

The only way to be able to implement this sort of immigration cap would be an EU exit with all the risks that entails.

One interesting point which often gets overlooked is what would happen to the 2.3 million or so UK expats living in Europe in the event of an EU exit?

I'd imagine plenty of pensioners on the Costas would be screwed. If lots of them are forced back, that's an extra burden on the NHS which is already in trouble though we would at least get their pension expenditure back into our economy.
Posted by: barralad, April 24, 2015, 10:46pm; Reply: 125
Quoted from jonnyboy82
It's the ukip immigration policy that made me stand up and think about them , I like the ideas of an Australian style points system that they propose to deal with immigration.

The Tories are all about the rich so I wouldn't vote for them.

Swinging more towards Labour but that is with a bit of hesitancy.


The Australian system works for them because they have historical skill shortages. (A friend of mine was thinking of emigrating there. He works in computers and even when he decided not to go the firm who were interested in him offered him work to do remotely because we are so far ahead of them in computer know how).
Our problem is that although we have some key area skills shortages our main "need" is for people to do the jobs that for whatever reason our people don't want to do such as land work. UKIP may say that they only want certain skilled people here but they haven't said how they will deal with the shortfall in manual labouring jobs. Before anyone says get the unemployed to fill those jobs-if you were an employer what would you prefer-people from abroad who do the jobs willingly or some of our virtually unemployable misfits of society who wouldn't turn up etc. etc. We are talking a lot of jobs and the slack of unemployed people who genuinely do want to work would soon be taken up. The inconvenient truth is that even in times of prosperity there is a percentage of the workforce who are nothing less than unemployable.
Posted by: barralad, April 24, 2015, 10:50pm; Reply: 126
Quoted from Maringer
Thing about the bookies odds is that they are predicated on the bets they receive.

The pollsters say that the Tories may win the most seats by a handful but Labour would still be in a position to form a minority government, punters read these reports and bet accordingly so the odds change to reflect this.

Now, with modern-day techniques, an average of the polls are probably correct so sites which take an average of all the polls such as Electoral Calculus are most likely correct. That said, they haven't used any reasoning for their overall prediction as they are now saying that the stats indicate a Conservative/Nationalist Parties coalition is most likely!

Hmmm. If I was to be cynical, I wonder if the Tories are going to drop any pretense of caring about the Union and plan to offer the SNP another referendum in return for their support in forming a coalition? If they did that and the SNP were will to throw the rest of us under the bus enough to accept in return for protection of the Scottish budget for the next parliament and another referendum, we'd probably see a break up of the Union and the chance for the Tories to try to fix themselves as the dominant party in England. I wouldn't trust those fornicators not to try this. It comes to something when a Conservative PM makes even Thatcher look principled and reasonable!


Nightmare scenario that mate! However if the polls are to be believed Labour face a virtual wipe out in Scotland and yet it doesn't look like the Tories CAN get enough English seats to get a majority. It is by no means certain that the separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK would signal the unchallenged power of the Tories.
Posted by: Maringer, April 24, 2015, 11:42pm; Reply: 127
Yeah, I realise that an English-only parliament wouldn't guarantee the Tories power in perpetuity (as some commentators seem to think), but they would probably manage to get another 5 years after the next parliament up to the point that the excrement really hit the fan and we have nothing left to sell off. I shudder to think what sort of neoliberal bullshit they could come up with given 10 years to do so.

Labour is, indeed, toast in Scotland. In part due to the fact that they stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in support of the 'No' campaign in the independence referendum (mostly because of the aftermath), but also incompetence and arrogance. Scottish Labour leader Murphy is apparently despised by many Scots and is known for being involved in one of the expenses controversies. They've really copulated it up and some commentators think they will never be able to regain any real level of influence in the country.

As for this election, I'm sort of torn here. If the Tories win more seats than any other party as seems quite possible, I suppose that morally they should have the first dibs at forming a government. On the other hand, the current bunch running the party are devious, mendacious illegitimates who wouldn't care one jot about the truth if it kicked them up the bottom.

It's odd that I really didn't think this bunch of Tories were too bad in the early years of the parliament. Sure, they were incompetent and their economic policy was nonsensical, but at least I thought they believed what they were doing. As time went on, their assumptions were proven incorrect (hence the never-admitted implementation of an economic 'Plan B') but despite this, they continue on the same path and have proven that they will say or do anything to get back into power. In particular, they've continued to misrepresent pretty much everything that led to the last recession in an attempt to blame all ills (including those they created themselves) on the previous Labour government.

I've always been pretty moderate politically but the way in which the majority of the media has acted over the past few year in general and the past few months in particular makes me sort of understand how and why some people become more radical. The personal attacks on Miliband haven't worked so now all the right-wing newspapers have reduced themselves to reissuing spurious Tory propaganda on a daily basis. Most of this is easy to disprove if you search out publicly-available facts and figures. The problem is that most of the electorate have no idea that their newspapers of choice (most of which are owned by wealthy foreign nationals or non-doms) are deliberately trying to pull the wool over their eyes in favour of the owners clear political preference.

Therefore, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that, even if the Tories win the largest number of seats, they really don't have a legitimate claim to being the party of government as it is nothing like a fair playing field so I'd be happy to see a Labour/Nationalist party coalition tell them to go and intercourse themselves.

I can only imagine the hysteria in the right-wing press if (and hopefully when) this occurs. Will lead to the end of the Union in due course I'd imagine, as the attacks on the Scots will be something to behold.
Posted by: codcheeky, April 24, 2015, 11:42pm; Reply: 128
there seems a lot of worry about the defecit which george osbourne wouldn`t exist by 2015
Posted by: Maringer, April 25, 2015, 12:25am; Reply: 129
Let's get the economy back into a proper recovery before worrying about the deficit and reducing the national debt.

We aren't going to run out of money, Sterling is a fiat currency so we can always print more if we need it (QE to help the banks, for example).  We are in no way comparable to Greece (or Italy or any other Eurozone country) as we have our own central bank and set our own monetary policy. The economies of Greece (and Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland) have been particularly shafted by the fact that the ECB is enacting policy which benefits Germany and France, the two strongest Eurozone countries rather than the weakest ones who are really struggling.

The current coalition government inherited an economy in the early stages of recovery and cut it off completely with their austerity and we barely avoided going back into recession. Cumulatively, some estimates reckon that this has cost us over 4% growth over the last parliament. Thousands of pounds per person lost from the economy to stop the debt going up by a few percentage points and this at a time when borrowing costs are incredibly low. When Osborne claims success for getting a couple of percent growth this year, people shouldn't forget what has been lost in previous years.

As a rule of thumb, if you ever see or hear a politician (of any party) or a journalist talk about the "nation's credit card", they are talking utter balderdash because this economically nonsensical.

Edit: Oops. A bit late. A couple of drinks too many so I'd better get off to bed!
Posted by: jock dock tower, April 25, 2015, 10:40am; Reply: 130
Quoted from Maringer
Tories plus LibDems aren't likely to be enough to form a coalition. Whether the addition of the DUP and UKIP wingnuts will be enough to form a majority remains in doubt.

Unfortunately, it looks as though the dreadful dishonest and negative campaigning by the Tories is beginning to bear fruit as current polling seems to indicate they will now win the most seats. The propaganda assault by the right-wing dominated media is obviously working which isn't surprising when you consider they have been slinging scare-mongering headlines about Labour (mostly complete nonsense, of course) every day for months. A pity that the BBC just toes the line set by these newspapers rather than carrying out the duties for which it exists and actually reporting impartially. No surprise, really, when you consider that the head of BBC news is a former editor of The Times so has kissed the ring of Murdoch. Nick Robinson, political editor, was head of the Young Conservatives at one stage and Peston's reportage seems to be taken directly from whatever his friends in the City tell him. He even hinted that the UK might become like Greece in the event of another financial crisis the other day which is just utter nonsense!

It's pretty obvious that Cameron and Co will do and say anything to get back into power so expect them to continue to scaremonger with nonsense about the SNP. I think this brings about the likelihood of Scottish independence within the next 5 years or so very much to the fore. Amazing, really, when you consider how much panic there was about the potential for independence last year and now, just a few months later, it looks like they really don't give a excrement.


You're seeing the kind of media bias and dreadful politicking in this election now that we were subjected to for over a year with the Independence Referendum in Scotland. Only difference now is that it was mainly at Labour's behest in Scotland, where now the boot is on the other foot. I told many folk involved with the Labour Party that it would come back to bite them on the bum, and so it has. They were also warned that the type of negative media they were using in Scotland would be used against them in 2015, but they were so arrogant it was unbelievable.

Of course, things have now changed completely and we are seeing Labour in it's death throes in it's current format in Scotland. Something will arise from the ashes, am sure of that, but it will have to compete with the SNP not the Tories to try and win voters over, and that's when things will get really fruity up here, methinks!

Today, I see on the BBC News, the pathetic excuse for a politician that is Clegg, saying that he would not be part of any kind of set up with Labour if the SNP were any way involved. Well buggermegently, there's a surprise, a politician like him saying he'd have nothing to do with a party that is taking a principled stand over austerity - it's hardly surprising, eh? A bendy politician who craves power at any expense, who I so dearly hope loses his Sheffield Hallam seat, that would be a Portillo moment all over again. The dangerous thing he's doing though is stoking English nationalism at the expense of the whole Scottish nation. Better Together? That's turned out to be the biggest con trick of all time, only better together when we are subjects of Westminster not people who question it's legitimacy.

Am fairly ambivalent about the result to be honest. Would hate to see the Tories back in power because I know who will suffer, again, if they do get back in. On the other hand, you have to accept the democratic will of the people. If they do get back in then withdrawal from the EU will undoubtedly follow, and were that to be the case Scotland will achieve independence by default. If Labour do get back, without a realignment from the bottom up, it will still be very much "as you were" with the wholly unregulated capitalist system we live under.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 25, 2015, 8:34pm; Reply: 131
Quoted from Maringer
UKIP and Labour are at opposite ends of the political scale. UKIP are mostly made up of disgruntled Tories who want to be further to the right. Labour are a centre-left party. If you wouldn't vote for the Tories due to their policies, the only possible reason for voting for UKIP is if you wanted the UK out of Europe.

Pretty much everyone agrees an exit from the EU would be an incredibly risky proposition with no guarantees we'd be able to keep access to the market. Norway is often used as an example of what we could do, but UKIP seem to disregard the fact that if we left we'd still have to pay billions to the EU for this market access (and follow EU employment law, as do the Norwegians) without having any say in the running of it!


This! This is a massively overlooked fact. Norway has to comply with a lot of EU Regs as part of the "free trade" deal is has with the EU. I believe Switzerland does too.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 25, 2015, 8:40pm; Reply: 132
I did say a while back that there was just as much chance of a Tory-SNP coalition as a Labour-SNP one - when Miliband came out and ruled it out.

The media inc the BBC keep reporting the same claims made by the Tories over and over again.

I wouldn't trust the SNP much more than the Conservatives. The SNP only discovered it was a left of centre party when it realised it was the only way to beat Labour in Scotland.  For Labour a coalition with the SNP would be it's own death knell because it would struggle ever to beat the Tories in England. But for the Tories giving SNP what they want would help bring about a near permanent advantage for themselves in a UK without Scotland.

Never trust a nationalist (of any type). Stupid 19th century idea.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 25, 2015, 9:11pm; Reply: 133
Hi Monkey, here's my take on your wishes:



So the final league table is (3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for loss/neutral):

Lib Dem - 7
Tory - 6
Neutral - 6
Lab - 4

Sorry, but Lib Dems are closest for you!
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, April 27, 2015, 3:53pm; Reply: 134
| heard the BBC mention on Breakfast news a letter to the Torygraph from small businesses singing the praises of D&G's plan...not quite what it seems apparently

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDjmB_cWMAAk4rG.png:large

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03281/Small_Business_Let_3281571a.pdf
Posted by: Maringer, April 27, 2015, 4:27pm; Reply: 135
Well, it is exactly what it seems. Another Conservative-organised bit of PR (with another free front-page advertisement provided by the Dreary Torygraph), which is utterly nonsensical in any case. Is it any surprise that they could find 5,000 small businesses run by Conservative Party supporters (you needed to be a member of the Conservative web site to read the original appeal from Brady) backing the Conservatives?

What about the other 99.9% of small business owners? Literally 99.9% - there are over 5 million small businesses in the UK. Utterly pointless.

The issue here is that the BBC aren't reporting it as PR fluff. This morning, for example, BBC Breakfast just reported it as if it was some kind of meaningful event with absolutely no commentary on it at all. Shockingly bad 'journalism' on show there and the BBC web site has barely noted that the whole thing has been organised by the Tories themselves.

Personally, I like Frankie Boyle's suggestion: "I'd like to see the Tories try to get 100 nurses to sign a letter".  ;)
Posted by: barralad, April 27, 2015, 5:03pm; Reply: 136
Ten days campaigning left and in Grimsby I get the feeling that the campaign is hardening into a straight fight between Labour and UKIP. For two days now nobody on the doorstep has mentioned any other of the parties as their voting intention. I think there will be a huge amount of tactical voting one way or the other which makes it very difficult to call....
Posted by: barralad, April 27, 2015, 5:06pm; Reply: 137
Quoted from KingstonMariner


This! This is a massively overlooked fact. Norway has to comply with a lot of EU Regs as part of the "free trade" deal is has with the EU. I believe Switzerland does too.


Try telling it to UKIPpers on the doorstep. All they appear to be worried about is the mass immigration that has affected Grimsby. One woman today described Ayling as "The Wicked Witch of the North" but still said she was voting for her...
Posted by: Maringer, April 27, 2015, 7:16pm; Reply: 138
I suppose that pointing out we haven't had mass immigration into this area wouldn't be worth the effort?
Posted by: barralad, April 27, 2015, 7:48pm; Reply: 139
Quoted from Maringer
I suppose that pointing out we haven't had mass immigration into this area wouldn't be worth the effort?


We have the info at our fingertips but telling them Ayling was "The baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells" (C) Blackadder. wouldn't make any difference!
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, April 27, 2015, 7:56pm; Reply: 140
Quoted from barralad


Try telling it to UKIPpers on the doorstep. All they appear to be worried about is the mass immigration that has affected Grimsby. One woman today described Ayling as "The Wicked Witch of the North" but still said she was voting for her...


I get the impression that UKIP could put up a raving alcoholic sex paedophile and UKIP supporters would still vote for them.
Posted by: psgmariner, April 28, 2015, 11:31am; Reply: 141
Quoted from Manchester Mariner


I get the impression that UKIP could put up a raving alcoholic sex paedophile and UKIP supporters would still vote for them.


Nice. ;)
Posted by: psgmariner, April 28, 2015, 11:33am; Reply: 142
Found this quite interesting:

Find out how powerful your vote is compared to the UK average
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/
Posted by: poomehellt, April 28, 2015, 1:10pm; Reply: 143
In a leaflet posted through my door today, UKIP's Victoria Ayling tells me that "As a local man, I know what a dreadful train service it can be"...I don't care if she's a woman or man, they could have proof read it! Still likely to vote for her/him.
Posted by: Maringer, April 28, 2015, 1:16pm; Reply: 144
Here's an interesting article from today which told me something I hadn't realised. I never liked Thatcher or agreed with pretty much anything she did or believed, but I never thought she was actively corrupt. It appears I was wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/how-margaret-thatcher-and-rupert-murdoch-made-secret-deal

Collusion with Murdoch in the early 1980s to help him take over the Times and Sunday Times. I missed this news when it came out the other year after both Murdoch and Thatcher had spent 30 years denying any meeting took place. When you consider the attacks on Labour spewing forth from Murdoch's papers and media even in the present, it looks as though Thatcher didn't just help herself when selling out to this foreign billionaire. Her worthless heirs such as Cameron and Co are also benefiting, providing they remember to kiss Murdoch's ring. Metaphorically, one hopes.

intercourse, we need a serious change in this country. Unfortunately, even a Labour government wouldn't be able to do much in the current climate as the corrupt establishment is way too strong to deal with at the moment.  :(
Posted by: grimsby pete, April 28, 2015, 5:38pm; Reply: 145
How do you know when a politician is lying ?

His / her lips are moving . ;)
Posted by: barralad, April 28, 2015, 10:01pm; Reply: 146
Quoted from poomehellt
In a leaflet posted through my door today, UKIP's Victoria Ayling tells me that "As a local man, I know what a dreadful train service it can be"...I don't care if she's a woman or man, they could have proof read it! Still likely to vote for her/him.


Victoria Ayling is definitely not "local" (unless you class living in a mansion in the south of the second biggest county in England local) nor probably a user of public transport.
Proof reading would have been a very good idea as the whole leaflet is riddled with mistakes.

I strongly suspect UKIP are on a damage limitation exercise with their candidate. The Economist came to Grimsby and UKIP wheeled out John Stockton to talk to them...

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21649463-coastal-clue-why-economic-recovery-isnt-producing-votes-tories-view
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 28, 2015, 11:44pm; Reply: 147
Quoted from psgmariner
Found this quite interesting:

Find out how powerful your vote is compared to the UK average
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/


Haven't examined the methodology but mine is only worth 0.144 of a vote!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 28, 2015, 11:47pm; Reply: 148
Quoted from barralad


Try telling it to UKIPpers on the doorstep. All they appear to be worried about is the mass immigration that has affected Grimsby. One woman today described Ayling as "The Wicked Witch of the North" but still said she was voting for her...


I know what would put people off UKIP. Tell them that they're not really racist, but are secretly PC.  ;)

I'm hoping that outside places like GY that UKIP's vote holds up - could do without any last minute swings to the Tories.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, April 28, 2015, 11:56pm; Reply: 149
Quoted from Maringer
Well, it is exactly what it seems. Another Conservative-organised bit of PR (with another free front-page advertisement provided by the Dreary Torygraph), which is utterly nonsensical in any case. Is it any surprise that they could find 5,000 small businesses run by Conservative Party supporters (you needed to be a member of the Conservative web site to read the original appeal from Brady) backing the Conservatives?

What about the other 99.9% of small business owners? Literally 99.9% - there are over 5 million small businesses in the UK. Utterly pointless.

The issue here is that the BBC aren't reporting it as PR fluff. This morning, for example, BBC Breakfast just reported it as if it was some kind of meaningful event with absolutely no commentary on it at all. Shockingly bad 'journalism' on show there and the BBC web site has barely noted that the whole thing has been organised by the Tories themselves.

Personally, I like Frankie Boyle's suggestion: "I'd like to see the Tories try to get 100 nurses to sign a letter".  ;)


I've long been used to right wing bias in the press (and Murdoch TV) but it's only in last year or so I've realised how biased the BBC is.

The other day Miliband again ruled out any deal with the SNP. The BBC gave it about as much time as that statement takes to read out. It gave ages of coverage to the Labour policy on rent controls and non-dom taxes - mostly from interested parties (estate agents, accountants) saying why it would be a bad idea, as well as Tory MPs. Yet every day that any rentaquote Tory wants to pop up and say "Lab-SNP coalition will be bad for the country" they give him airtime and with no rebuttal from Labour.

BBC journos are getting as bad as Sun journos.
Posted by: Maringer, April 29, 2015, 6:58am; Reply: 150
James Harding, head of BBC News and Current Affairs. Former editor of The Times from 2007-2012.

A former Murdoch acolyte leading the 'independent' BBC news arm? What could possibly go wrong?  :-/
Posted by: Maringer, April 29, 2015, 7:13am; Reply: 151
Quoted from barralad


Victoria Ayling is definitely not "local" (unless you class living in a mansion in the south of the second biggest county in England local) nor probably a user of public transport.
Proof reading would have been a very good idea as the whole leaflet is riddled with mistakes.

I strongly suspect UKIP are on a damage limitation exercise with their candidate. The Economist came to Grimsby and UKIP wheeled out John Stockton to talk to them...

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21649463-coastal-clue-why-economic-recovery-isnt-producing-votes-tories-view


Reads like propaganda to me.

The problem with that article is that it seems to assume that the wonderful 'recovery' we hear so much of from the Conservative Party actually exists. In actuality, across the country real income per person is still below the levels of 2007. In some areas, people are obviously doing better but it averages out because in other areas such as N.E. Lincs, they aren't seeing any recovery at all. This is why people aren't happy with Osborne's performance. The worst recovery in a century and possibly since the South Sea Bubble.

The article notes that youth unemployment is twice the national average around here but in the same sentence praises Osborne for a surge in jobs!?! If "working-age benefit claims are down by 40%" around here as stated, I wonder how many of those are off the books due to sanctions?

Interesting to read they think that there is going to be £200 million of infrastructure around here. Anybody any idea at all where this money is supposedly being spent?
Posted by: Maringer, April 29, 2015, 7:50am; Reply: 152
If you've got a bit of time, here's an interesting (if long) piece from Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate economist) which points out the truth of the economic 'achievements' of the current government:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Deserved criticism of Labour in there as well for failing to question the Tory austerity programme or to point out it was nonsensically bad policy.
Posted by: grimps, April 29, 2015, 9:28am; Reply: 153
Quoted from Maringer


Reads like propaganda to me.

The problem with that article is that it seems to assume that the wonderful 'recovery' we hear so much of from the Conservative Party actually exists. In actuality, across the country real income per person is still below the levels of 2007. In some areas, people are obviously doing better but it averages out because in other areas such as N.E. Lincs, they aren't seeing any recovery at all. This is why people aren't happy with Osborne's performance. The worst recovery in a century and possibly since the South Sea Bubble.

The article notes that youth unemployment is twice the national average around here but in the same sentence praises Osborne for a surge in jobs!?! If "working-age benefit claims are down by 40%" around here as stated, I wonder how many of those are off the books due to sanctions?

Interesting to read they think that there is going to be £200 million of infrastructure around here. Anybody any idea at all where this money is supposedly being spent?


Well lets give them some credit , after Labour left us in the worst ressession ever we have yet to see anyone starve and not many lose their homes ect
Posted by: Maringer, April 29, 2015, 11:38am; Reply: 154
No, Labour didn't leave us with the 'worst recession ever'. Growth in 2010 when the Tories took over was almost 1.9%, a reasonable enough start to the recovery after a deep recession (which was not caused by the Labour government in any way, shape or form). Unfortunately, the coalition austerity policies nipped this recovery in the bud and almost sent us back into recession. Growth in 2011 was 0.8% and then just 0.2% in 2012. This led to Osborne and Co quietly drop the levels of austerity (without admitting anything!) and 2013 was back up to 1.7% growth. Cumulatively, this failed recovery has cost us at least 5% growth in GDP (using OBR figures) and possibly up to 14%(!):

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-size-of-recent-macro-policy-failure.html

That's at least £1,500 and probably a lot more lost from the economy for every adult and child in the country due to the coalition's austerity. Possibly up to £10,000 per household.

Austerity when the economy is weak is an utterly ridiculous proposition as the Krugman article I linked earlier shows.

Some people have starved to death as well, by the way:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-benefit-cuts-are-already-being--blamed-for-the-deaths-of-three-vulnerable-people-and-there-may-be-60-more-9942735.html

Oh, and record numbers of people have been evicted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26160569

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/13/tenant-evicted-record-levels-benefit-cuts-bedroom-tax

But apart from that, the coalition has been great! Yes, that was sarcasm.
Posted by: Maringer, May 7, 2015, 6:26am; Reply: 155
Hope everyone manages to get out to vote today. Good weather which should help the turnout.

Hopefully, some folk will have read some of the economic stuff I've posted on here over the last few months which shows the perceived wisdom about the economic 'success' of the coalition is utter bunk.

Hopefully, folk will also ignore the scaremongering about the SNP in the right-wing press over the course of the past week or two. For all the dramatic headlines, you may have noted that these articles/editorials have never quite explained how 50-odd SNP MPs could possibly dictate the policies of a parliament of 650 MPs in total. If you also consider that the Labour party have said they won't do any deals with the SNP (a foolish decision, IMO) and that the SNP have said they would never back a Tory government, you can see why these papers have a reason to promote false scare stories.

I'm sure that everyone realises that the various non-dom billionaires who own these newspapers don't have the country's best interest at heart. Another one added to the mix this week as well as The Independent came out in favour of another Conservative/LibDem coalition. This, despite the fact that the majority of their readership are left-leaning! The reason for this change? Well, you'd have to ask the Russian billionaire owner who allegedly got a journalist from the Evening Standard (another one of his papers) to write the editorial instead of the journalists at the Independent itself. So much for his promises not to influence editorial policy! This will mark the death of the newspaper.

If people want to vote Conservative/LibDem/UKIP based on their Social Policy then that is fine with me. I may disagree with pretty much everything the Tories say in this area (much of it easily disprovable if you want to look at actual research), but that's a personal choice. I'd just hate it if some of these parties won votes due to their lies about their economic success when they would actually have struggled to do much worse in this area.
Posted by: grimsby pete, May 7, 2015, 10:19am; Reply: 156
I shall be going  to vote shortly,

I have said before I live in a very strong Conservative area,

So voting for anybody else but conservative is a wasted vote,

So my wife and I will waste our votes on UKIP,

BECAUSE

We both like Nigel. :)

Its different in Grimsby,

Vote for UKIP and you might get UKIP.
Posted by: Town Monkey, May 7, 2015, 11:31am; Reply: 157
Maringer, I've personally found your posts on the economy, in particular, very enlightening.  As always with economics there is never a definitive answer, and other economic commentators have had different views, it seems clear to me that growth was stunted in the early part of the last Parliament.  However, I also think the previous Labour government should have managed spending better during the mid Noughties which would have helped make us more resilient when the global economic crisis hit.  They also made a complete pig's ear of our tax legislation, filling it with rushed and badly drafted clauses and not introducing a GAAR.  

I know which way I'll be voting today but more from a least worst option point of view than any great passion for any of the parties' policies.  

I hope everyone gets out and exercises their democratic right.  Btw, I still think we'll see Miliband in Downing Street but probably not for a week or two while all the back room deals go on. I'm guessing we'll have plenty to debate on that front too.    
Posted by: Town Monkey, May 7, 2015, 11:32am; Reply: 158
Oh and the best part of the Election for me, no more Margaret Hodge!
Posted by: Maringer, May 7, 2015, 1:01pm; Reply: 159
The thing to remember about spending in the mid noughties is that it wasn't really much above trend as the Conservatives would have you believe and, at the time, nobody ever claimed we were in a boom. Not surprising really if you look at the figures because they show that there was no indication whatsoever of a boom because the economy wasn't overheating, other than another usual British housing bubble (one of many). Before the bank crisis in 2008, Osborne had even pledged to match Labour's spending so it is amusing that he has since claimed it was unaffordable! Check out the chart in the post below and you can clearly see that debt levels weren't obviously too high.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-2-labour-profligacy.html

Debt levels were in fact much lower than our economic rivals such as Germany, France, Italy etc. Ultimately, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if government debt had been below 30% of GDP, it wouldn't have made any difference in our ability to borrow as necessary. Our debt is currently around 90% of GDP (and rising), yet borrowing costs are unprecedentedly low.

Brown's problem back then was that he increased expenditure by a few percent of GDP each of these years which would have been fine if the growth forecasts had been met but the forecasts were a little too high. Brown expected growth to be around the same level as the increase in investment which would have kept debt flat, but growth fell slightly behind expectations so debt went up slightly. Note, it was still 5% lower just before the recession than when Labour took over from the Major government! Interestingly enough, just about the only good thing that Osborne has done was to set up the OBR to provide independent forecasts. Of course, he's since dismissed some of the OBR's forecasts if they didn't fit in with his narrative and has refused to allow the OBR to assess the proposed budgets of opposing parties! He's a very political animal and has at various times praised or criticised the IMF depending on whether or not they agree with him!

Anyway, back to the noughties, one point which hasn't been noted so much is that during this period, the Labour government did invest a bit more money in capital expenditure, building much-needed schools and hospitals and the like. Unfortunately, some of this was through PFI which is very wasteful, just an unnecessary transfer of funds from government to the private sector. The investment in infrastructure was much needed as the previous Conservative governments had let things start to fall apart and this at the time (1980s and early 1990s) that we had record oil revenues coming in as well as money from the various privitisations of government assets! One thing that a lot of people don't realise is that the levels of public investment in the UK have been low (under all parties) in comparison to most of the top economies in the world for many years now. Here are figures from 2009:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/reg_glance-2011-en/03/13/13-1.html?itemId=/content/chapter/reg_glance-2011-18-en&_csp_=870ac8d0be3c83a12c30c81a3e1371c2

It has been even lower under the current government, precisely the wrong policy in the recovery from a recession.

Anyway, I'm certainly in agreement that a GAAR would have been a great idea. Following the financial crisis, Brown well and truly bottled setting one of these up and it is clear that the Conservatives would never bring in such a rule. The chance to bring in proper regulation of the financial sector was also missed so we remain open to further crashes once the idiots in the city get back into the swing of things. Let's hope they don't forget what happened back in 2007/2008 too quickly.

For this election, it looks as though Cameron is setting himself up to try and stay in power if they win just a few more seats than Labour. The fact that we are in a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential election has obviously eluded him with the nonsense he has been spouting about legitimacy and Miliband trying to 'con' his way into power. The party which has the confidence of parliament takes power and if he can't pass a Queen's speech but Miliband can then Miliband simply has to become PM.

Wouldn't surprise me if Cameron hangs around for weeks 'squatting' in No. 10 (remember the Sun's headline about Brown 5 years ago?  :)) trying to bluff his way back into power. He really is an odious excrement.
Posted by: LH, May 7, 2015, 10:04pm; Reply: 160
Exit poll out:



excrement :o
Posted by: Hagrid, May 7, 2015, 10:19pm; Reply: 161
Looks like another term of them illegitimates in blue 😩
Posted by: KingstonMariner, May 7, 2015, 10:47pm; Reply: 162
I 'king hope it's wrong.  :(
Posted by: Maringer, May 7, 2015, 10:47pm; Reply: 163
If that exit poll is correct (the YouGov one has different figures), I'd like to know how the intercourse could the Tories possibly win so many seats? Edit: sorry, mistakenly mixed up some figures and didn't realise the LibDems have been almost wiped out in that exit poll.

I can only imagine the bullshit scaremongering and lies from the Tories and their press has had an effect and the acquiescence of the BBC has helped them out a great deal.

Various non-dom billionaires around the country will be rubbing their hands with glee as they've certainly got their money's worth. Tough luck poor folk. Things are about to get lots worse.  :-/

If this is true, the really worrying thing is that the next election will be even worse with the right-wing press doubling down on the excrement-slinging.

End of the Union here we come and, I imagine, an exit from Europe as well. The country is in serious trouble.
Posted by: LH, May 8, 2015, 12:27am; Reply: 164
BBC exit poll suggests that Labour defeat UKIP in Grimsby. Hope that's true because I said I'd move if UKIP won.
Posted by: LH, May 8, 2015, 4:00am; Reply: 165
And they did. Will unpack in the morning.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 7:06am; Reply: 166
Wow, can't believe the Tories might even get a majority!

Can't see any way that the Union can survive following the SNP landslide - Cameron's divisive words on the morning after the independence referendum have done the trick and helped to return him to power but he'll be remembered as the Prime Minister who oversaw the end of the Union.

A British exit from the UK looks to be a real possibility now as well, you'd have to say, unless the Tory press swing against exit when the promised referendum eventually occurs. God on knows how disastrous that could prove to be.

At least UKIP look to have crashed and burned and it's good to see Melanie Onn won in Grimsby as well.

Ugh. The thought of another 5 years listening to bullshit spilling out of the mouths of Cameron, Osborne and some of the other toxic Conservative no-marks turns my stomach.

Quite apt that Nick Clegg should keep his seat on the back of Conservative votes. Says it all really.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 8, 2015, 7:47am; Reply: 167
Quoted from Rodley Mariner
I've got a horrible feeling we'll end up with a Tory majority. I think the average man in the street still swallows the narrative of profligate Labour chucking money around and the Tories taking the difficult decisions to get things back on an even keel. I think a high percentage of floating voters will, with that in mind, decide voting Tory is the 'safe' option. I also think a lot of those indicating a instinct to vote for UKIP will actually go Tory when it comes to a General Election. Labour are also going to do pretty abysmally in Scotland. For these reasons I think the Tory vote will actually be greater than opinion polls are suggesting and I think they'll have a small majority. God help us all then.


£20 on a Tory majority sweetens the pill a bit but only to the extent that a granule of sugar would sweeten a dog turd.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 8:23am; Reply: 168
Can you give me next week's lottery numbers as well?  ;)

As I feared, my stomach flipped when Osborne came on telly earlier.

Crikey, even Ed Balls has just lost his seat! Surprised to see one of the major Labour politicians wasn't in a safer seat than that. Yvette Cooper will probably be one of the major Labour politicians in the next parliament so just get ready for the slings and arrows from the Tory press to begin heading her way.

It will have to be almost a clean sheet in the Labour party next time as they try to pick up the pieces after the next Tory government.
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, May 8, 2015, 8:48am; Reply: 169
Very dissapointing night but I do take some pride that my hometown chose not to elect UKIP.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 9:13am; Reply: 170
A sad day all around. If you think back 5 years to the day things don't get any better! That bloody Burton game...
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 8, 2015, 9:16am; Reply: 171
What odds that we'll have an independent Scotland by 2020? Then we might be stuck with the self-serving elitist male masturbators forever.
Posted by: ginnywings, May 8, 2015, 9:23am; Reply: 172
Fooking gobsmacked to be honest. People fell for the Tory bullsh1t, just like they did under Thatcher. My fear was that Ed Milliband was the next Kinnock and that proves to be true. It also seems to me that the country has no stomach for left wing politics. The only time Labour has looked electable was when they had the Thatcher fanboy Blair in charge and moved away from the left. The Labour party could be out of office for a generation now and may not recover at all. There is only the N.East that is a Labour stronghold this morning and unless the Tories monumentally fook up, the next election is already a foregone conclusion IMO.

The thought of having to watch that waxy faced illegitimate lying through his teeth for the next 5 years is making me feel sick.  :(
Posted by: ginnywings, May 8, 2015, 9:27am; Reply: 173
Quoted from Rodley Mariner
What odds that we'll have an independent Scotland by 2020? Then we might be stuck with the self-serving elitist male masturbators forever.


That is my fear this morning. The only hope for me now is electoral reform as the way things are going, only the Tories will be able to win in a first past the post system if Scotland is cast adrift.
Posted by: mariner91, May 8, 2015, 9:32am; Reply: 174
Quoted from Rodley Mariner
What odds that we'll have an independent Scotland by 2020? Then we might be stuck with the self-serving elitist male masturbators forever.


Yep. Think I might leave when I'm qualified in my profession.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 10:41am; Reply: 175
To be fair, most past Labour governments have been elected with a majority even discounting the Scottish seats. It's a bit of a myth that English votes could only return a Tory/coalition government, though with the lock-in of the right-wing media and an acquiescent BBC, this might now be less true.

I wouldn't be too sure about what will happen the next 5 years. It is amusing that full title of the party is the "Conservative and Unionist Party" yet their anti-Scots rhetoric in recent months has meant that the survival of the Union is almost impossible to comprehend. Whether or not this will happen in the next 5 years, it's hard to say but in the longer term this will be a great upheaval.

We're also likely to have a huge amount of economic instability ahead of us. A Greek exit from the Eurozone seems increasingly likely and that will cause a shitstorm around Europe, possibly leading to a collapse of the EU economy which would hit us very badly. Even worse than this, the current momentum with the promised in/out referendum seems likely to lead to a British exit from the EU which, again, will leave us in all sorts of trouble.

It's going to be another turbulent 5 years, that's for sure. The only question is if the media and Tories will somehow manage to pin the blame on the previous Labour government again!
Posted by: Hagrid, May 8, 2015, 11:22am; Reply: 176
very very worrying, as a 19 year old, Labour is a party I have common fground with, I don't trust Cameron or any of his posh boy cronies, Bad day for the country
Posted by: GrimRob, May 8, 2015, 12:38pm; Reply: 177
Bet on a Tory Majority and Lib Dems to get less than 10 MPs so made some money out of this election. I don't think a majority of any party is right for the country when only 36% of  voters ticked your box though.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 12:48pm; Reply: 178
Unfortunately, I think the ship for a sensible voting system has sailed following the last referendum. I'd be amazed if there was any sort of change in the next 15 years or so.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 1:29pm; Reply: 179
Here's an interesting post-election poll by Ashcroft:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/05/why-did-people-vote-as-they-did-my-post-vote-poll/

Searching through the facts there, a lot of people have clearly bought into the Conservative party narrative about the wider economy. Even though it isn't true.  ;)

Labour shed way too many votes to the Greens and UKIP (and SNP, obviously) whereas the Tory vote held up. Former LibDem voters were all over the place.

One thing which hasn't been discussed is the paradox of voter turnout - the people most likely to vote (the wealthy and the old) are those with least at stake, whilst those least likely to vote (young and poor) have the most at stake.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, May 8, 2015, 2:06pm; Reply: 180
Quoted from GrimRob
Bet on a Tory Majority and Lib Dems to get less than 10 MPs so made some money out of this election. I don't think a majority of any party is right for the country when only 36% of  voters ticked your box though.


36% of 66% of those who had the vote...

Effectively more than 75% of people did not vote Tory....

The sad thing is that this state of affairs will be allowed to continue on and on and on

Whatever happened to the electoral reform that as I recall was on the agenda when Blair came to power? Guess they just sucked up the fact that they had a big majority themselves in '97 but now it's coming back to bite everyone on the backside

Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 2:59pm; Reply: 181
Hmmm. Wonder how long it will be before the first pre-election promise is broken?  :P
Posted by: Marinerz93, May 8, 2015, 3:14pm; Reply: 182
Quoted from Maringer
Hmmm. Wonder how long it will be before the first pre-election promise is broken?  :P


At least we will get our strong economy back  ;)
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 8, 2015, 3:17pm; Reply: 183
Quoted from FishOutOfWater


36% of 66% of those who had the vote...

Effectively more than 75% of people did not vote Tory....

The sad thing is that this state of affairs will be allowed to continue on and on and on

Whatever happened to the electoral reform that as I recall was on the agenda when Blair came to power? Guess they just sucked up the fact that they had a big majority themselves in '97 but now it's coming back to bite everyone on the backside



We had a referendum on AV in 2011 and voted against it.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 3:25pm; Reply: 184
A strong economy with Gideon at the helm? If it happens it will be luck rather than judgement.

Just waiting for them to bring out Lord Rose's report on the future of the NHS which was 'put on the back burner' at the end of last year instead of being published. Hmmm.

I wonder if the Tory peer Lord Rose (a retailer - former head of M&S), will suggest that it is best if the NHS remains wholly in state hands?

Ah, well. No point in worrying too much about this sort of crap as there will be plenty of it appearing in the coming months.
Posted by: fishheadphil, May 8, 2015, 4:20pm; Reply: 185
Anythings better than a communist, Marxist,racist,anti-english labour party government, they should stick to being apologists for Muslim peadophile grooming gangs in places like Rotherham Halifax Oldham etc etc this list is endless, at least we won't have to listen to that stupid champagne socialist Russell brands inane rantings, so every cloud etc etc 💩
Posted by: fishheadphil, May 8, 2015, 4:25pm; Reply: 186
Quoted from Hagrid
Looks like another term of them illegitimates in blue 😩


As opposed to the traitors in red? Keep dreaming of your Marxist superstate brother ha ha flipping ha, I can't stop smiling seeing those labour idiots crying, still though you managed to just about keep ukip out of Grimsby for what good that did you.
Posted by: Hagrid, May 8, 2015, 4:28pm; Reply: 187
Quoted from fishheadphil


As opposed to the traitors in red? Keep dreaming of your Marxist superstate brother ha ha flipping ha, I can't stop smiling seeing those labour idiots crying, still though you managed to just about keep ukip out of Grimsby for what good that did you.


touched a nerve have I? no need to be so aggressive towards me for having a political view
Posted by: grimsby pete, May 8, 2015, 4:29pm; Reply: 188
One good thing about the result,

At least the SNP will not be blackmailing a coalition for their support.
Posted by: LH, May 8, 2015, 4:54pm; Reply: 189
Yeah, Russell Brand's inane ranting.
Posted by: poomehellt, May 8, 2015, 5:04pm; Reply: 190
In my view, the SNP's independence for Scotland is very anti-English, which means I'm pleased they didn't get to form a coalition with Labour with their prat of a leader Miliband.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 5:14pm; Reply: 191
Quoted from grimsby pete
One good thing about the result,

At least the SNP will not be blackmailing a coalition for their support.


Pete, you've fallen hook, line and sinker for that particular Tory attack line.

How could the SNP have blackmailed Miliband into coalition when he promised beforehand that he wouldn't go into coalition with them? You're also ignoring the fact that 50-odd MPs cannot blackmail a parliament of 650 MPs. The SNP could never vote against a Labour Queen's Speech/budget/whatever because in doing so, they would fundamentally be backing the Tories and they would never, ever do that (not since 1979, anyway). Not to mention that most of the SNP policies (other than their wish for independence) weren't really that far away from those of Labour. A bit more to the left, but not by a huge amount.

It's all irrelevant now in any case as Labour lost too many of their votes to other parties such as the Greens and UKIP, but the Conservative and media scaremongering about the SNP was always a con job designed to cost Labour votes despite the lack of any real threat.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, May 8, 2015, 5:29pm; Reply: 192
Well we've got 5 years but it's an uphill struggle. So better start the fight back sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 8, 2015, 5:46pm; Reply: 193
It is so depressing how many people seemed to have gone for the negative Tory bullshit about the evil of the SNP and what a Lab-SNP coalition would have meant. Considering Cameron seemed desperate to keep the Union together eight months ago he's done a huge amount to ensure it has no long-term future. The Scottish don't hate the English. They hate the smug, entitled, sneering, condescending English. Who can blame them when the British PM has used them as a political make-weight?
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, May 8, 2015, 6:22pm; Reply: 194
Wonder who the new deputy PM is going to be? Step forward Boris Johnson.

Bleak.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 8, 2015, 6:53pm; Reply: 195
Quoted from Manchester Mariner
Wonder who the new deputy PM is going to be? Step forward Boris Johnson.

Bleak.


Don't worry about the nastiness, just swallow it whole with a big glass of buffoonery.
Posted by: fishheadphil, May 8, 2015, 7:05pm; Reply: 196
Quoted from Hagrid


touched a nerve have I? no need to be so aggressive towards me for having a political view


No not at all, I'm a proud Englishman but to the loony left labour racists this makes me a raging racist? So I'm glad they've been turned over big time, I doubt we will see a labour government for at least 15 - 20 years. When people who have been democratically elected are getting surrounded by the fascist left like farage
and his children did then some things wrong with British people I think? The left seem to think anyone who has a different view to their warped Marxist ideology is somehow a paid up member of the waffen ss !   So yeah the left is finished now so good riddance. The icing on the cake was seeing the traitor Galloway getting it.....priceless.
Posted by: jock dock tower, May 8, 2015, 7:16pm; Reply: 197
I genuinely feel for folk who for one reason or another can not fend for themselves because the Tories will devour them, every bit as much as they did with their useful idiots the Liberal Democrats who enabled them to start the whole process in the first instance.

That apart, I'm over the moon with the result up here. I'm also thinking how it might have panned out had the Labour Party denounced austerity as well? Milliband was, quite simply, a fool. Whenever Dave said "Jump" he said "How high?"

My only fear now is that the Labour Party look inwards and revert to Blairism, they certainly won't move to the left, albeit Scottish labour might be able to do so if they have the balls to ditch Murphy. If they don't they're history.

Watch the rabid Tory backbenchers now take their gloves off and demand that Cameron fights for an exit from the EU. With a thin majority it's the perfect storm for them to flex their muscles, and when the vote does reflect the nation's wishes we'll have then have the perfect opportunity to declare UDI up here ;)

BTW, although I'm delighted with the Scottish result I still have the misfortune to be represented by the only Tory MP FFS.

Was down in Grimsby this week helping my niece who was standing for the Green party in the town. So glad she played a major part in keeping Ayling and UKIP out with her ability to ridicule her over renewables. Grimsby would have been a national laughing stock had Ayling got in.




Posted by: barralad, May 8, 2015, 7:39pm; Reply: 198
Quoted from jock dock tower
I genuinely feel for folk who for one reason or another can not fend for themselves because the Tories will devour them, every bit as much as they did with their useful idiots the Liberal Democrats who enabled them to start the whole process in the first instance.

That apart, I'm over the moon with the result up here. I'm also thinking how it might have panned out had the Labour Party denounced austerity as well? Milliband was, quite simply, a fool. Whenever Dave said "Jump" he said "How high?"

My only fear now is that the Labour Party look inwards and revert to Blairism, they certainly won't move to the left, albeit Scottish labour might be able to do so if they have the balls to ditch Murphy. If they don't they're history.

Watch the rabid Tory backbenchers now take their gloves off and demand that Cameron fights for an exit from the EU. With a thin majority it's the perfect storm for them to flex their muscles, and when the vote does reflect the nation's wishes we'll have then have the perfect opportunity to declare UDI up here ;)

BTW, although I'm delighted with the Scottish result I still have the misfortune to be represented by the only Tory MP FFS.

Was down in Grimsby this week helping my niece who was standing for the Green party in the town. So glad she played a major part in keeping Ayling and UKIP out with her ability to ridicule her over renewables. Grimsby would have been a national laughing stock had Ayling got in.






Hi John. Met Vicky at the count today.Instantly warmed to her. Hope she goes up the pecking order for her party.
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 7:52pm; Reply: 199
Quoted from fishheadphil


No not at all, I'm a proud Englishman but to the loony left labour racists this makes me a raging racist? So I'm glad they've been turned over big time, I doubt we will see a labour government for at least 15 - 20 years. When people who have been democratically elected are getting surrounded by the fascist left like farage
and his children did then some things wrong with British people I think? The left seem to think anyone who has a different view to their warped Marxist ideology is somehow a paid up member of the waffen ss !   So yeah the left is finished now so good riddance. The icing on the cake was seeing the traitor Galloway getting it.....priceless.


I don't think you know what Marxism actually is.
Posted by: kingofthekippers, May 8, 2015, 8:50pm; Reply: 200
I think the reasons for today's result can be summed up like this.

1. There was no appetite for change. You can talk about swallowing 'Tory bullshit' as much as you like but for the man on the Clapham omnibus life may not necessarily be a bowl of cherries but neither is it sackcloth and ashes. When Tony Blair came to power in 97, the momentum for that began back in 1994. Come the election the drive for change was well established - this time there was no such desire and when that happens, people tend to stick with the status quo.

2. Neither party had an outstanding campaign but Labour's was devoid of ideas. As a lifelong Labour voter I struggled to identify with anything the party was shouting about. How that sounded to floating voters is anyone's guess. It appealed to the hard core but to no-one else. We can see that because Labour not only failed to gain seats, it actually lost them.

3. Ed Miliband. I'm afraid it IS about personality and not just about policies. That is nothing new, it goes back to the days of Wilson and Heath. You buy with your eyes and with confidence in the person selling to you and I'm afraid Miliband did not look or sound like a potential prime minister. It was a bad choice by the party, he was never going to do it. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

4. Trust. Whether you like it or not Britain did rack up more governmental debt than any other G8 nation when Labour were last in power and when the global financial crisis hit us, it hit us harder than any other developed nation. As uncomfortable as it may sound Labour needs to apologise for this. Whether you think Labour were at fault or not, it still needs to say sorry because it is now seared in the public consciousness. Sometimes in life you have to apologise for things that aren't neccessarily your fault but until the party does it will remain a very toxic issue for them. In order to move on you sometimes have to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gain.
Posted by: Nelly GTFC, May 8, 2015, 8:50pm; Reply: 201
Local Election results, incase anyones not seen them >> [url=http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Local-election-2015-Live-results-North-East/story-26458018-detail/story.html]http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Local-election-2015-Live-results-North-East/story-26458018-detail/story.html[/url]

No overall control.
Quoted Text
The composition of the 42 seats at the authority is now as follows:

Labour - 20
Conservative - 10
Ukip - 9
Liberal Democrat - 3

Ahead of today's count, the composition of the 42 seats on the council was as follows:
Labour - 19     
Conservative - 10     
Ukip - 8     
Liberal Democrat - 3
Independent Labour - 1     
Vacant - 1     
Posted by: BIGChris, May 8, 2015, 10:32pm; Reply: 202
Don' t normally read the non footy board and even less comment on political matters but there were some very opinionated comments earlier.

The bottom line for me is that I don't think people fell for 'Tory bullshit' more like they felt they had been better off in the last few years than the previous 5 or 6.

A staunch labourite who is a production worker for Youngs, told me quietly ( because he would get lynched by workmates) that he had done well under the coalition, had more money In his. Pocket and that was what mattered to him. I know many others who expressed similar views.

That isn't political scaremongering influenced by the so called Tory press, it was the honest feelings of a working man. I think THAT is why the blue flag is flying higher ( coupled with the fact that in my opinion Miliband has to be the poorest leader of a party for many decades)
Posted by: Maringer, May 8, 2015, 11:41pm; Reply: 203
Quoted from kingofthekippers

4. Trust. Whether you like it or not Britain did rack up more governmental debt than any other G8 nation when Labour were last in power and when the global financial crisis hit us, it hit us harder than any other developed nation. As uncomfortable as it may sound Labour needs to apologise for this. Whether you think Labour were at fault or not, it still needs to say sorry because it is now seared in the public consciousness. Sometimes in life you have to apologise for things that aren't neccessarily your fault but until the party does it will remain a very toxic issue for them. In order to move on you sometimes have to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gain.


Utter, complete and total nonsense. Where do you get your information?

Here's a chart showing historical G7 debt:

[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/12/26/opinion/122611krugman1/122611krugman1-blog480.jpg[/img]

Our national debt was at a lower level than ALL of the other countries in the G7 at the point that the recession hit. Also, don't just look at the general level of debt, look at the gradient. The Brown government wasn't increasing debt at some sort of ludicrous level through ridiculous spending as the Tories and the right-wing press have claimed. Easily disprovable. Look at the figures instead of have a 'gut' feeling. The failure of the two Eds to point out this claptrap still amazes me, mind, so they certainly failed badly in their duties there.

Following the credit crunch and banking crisis in 2007/2008, we entered the deepest recession for years (due to the reliance of our economy on the inflated finance sector) so debt clearly increased greatly after that point. Because that's what happens in a recession. Up until then? Well, debt as percentage of GDP was lower in 2008 when the recession hit than when Labour took power in 1997 and that's after Brown's "spending spree" on Hospitals, Schools infrastructure and the like. (Note: Criticism of Brown's government for some PFI expenditure on Hospitals and so forth is well-placed. By using PFI, they kept some expenditure off the government books to the detriment of future finances. We're only talking a very small amount in proportion to GDP, however).

In 2007, that well-known spendthrift, George Osborne (who has borrowed more money in the past 5 years that every Labour government ever, combined), promised to match Labour's proposed spending levels at the time. Now, why would he have done that if Brown and co were on some sort of unaffordable mind-boggling spending spree?

This is the myth that everyone just 'knows'. Other than the wasteful PFI stuff (which is still tiny in proportion to the rest of the debt), there is not a shred of truth in this story.

Sorry, I'll have to respond to the other points in a different post.
Posted by: Maringer, May 9, 2015, 12:14am; Reply: 204
Quoted from kingofthekippers
I think the reasons for today's result can be summed up like this.

1. There was no appetite for change. You can talk about swallowing 'Tory bullshit' as much as you like but for the man on the Clapham omnibus life may not necessarily be a bowl of cherries but neither is it sackcloth and ashes. When Tony Blair came to power in 97, the momentum for that began back in 1994. Come the election the drive for change was well established - this time there was no such desire and when that happens, people tend to stick with the status quo.

2. Neither party had an outstanding campaign but Labour's was devoid of ideas. As a lifelong Labour voter I struggled to identify with anything the party was shouting about. How that sounded to floating voters is anyone's guess. It appealed to the hard core but to no-one else. We can see that because Labour not only failed to gain seats, it actually lost them.

3. Ed Miliband. I'm afraid it IS about personality and not just about policies. That is nothing new, it goes back to the days of Wilson and Heath. You buy with your eyes and with confidence in the person selling to you and I'm afraid Miliband did not look or sound like a potential prime minister. It was a bad choice by the party, he was never going to do it. You know it, I know it, we all know it.


I certainly don't disagree much with you about point 3, though I'm sad that perceived 'personality' is of such import these days. Miliband came across pretty well over the last few months of the campaign, I thought, but then you have to ask whta was he doing for the previous 4 years? Personally, Cameron turns my stomach. He's a PR man and I simply don't believe a word he says, especially when it is clear he means so little of what he says. A good PR speech for him today saying how he wants to govern for the nation and bring unity, but this is pretty ludicrous when he's spent the past few months demonising the Scots. He'll say anything to get into power and, it seems, a lot of people believe it. Remember when he became leader of the Tories and promised to end "Punch and Judy" politics? Just last week he was claiming that Miliband was trying to 'con' his way into power. The man's been worse than anybody at sneering about and mocking his opponents than any politician I can remember. He's an odious presence.

For your point 2, I don't disagree that they were lackadaisical with their presentation. Poor PR, I suppose. The Conservatives could get away with promising unfunded tax cuts and uncalculated benefit cuts (though I have no idea why people would accept this) due to their forceful yet false narrative that everything wrong in the economy was Labour's fault. It's nonsense, of course, but it was a poor campaign.

Point 1, I disagree with because I think Osborne was incredibly lucky that the economy was slightly on the up from the start of the year. This was absolutely nothing to do with any of his policies (though he still claimed credit!?!) but was because inflation had dropped down to zero pretty much entirely to the drop in oil prices at the same time that very moderate growth returned in 2013. Believe me, Osborne had nothing to do with any drop in oil prices. There is plenty of research that shows voters don't think so much about the past when an election is coming around but how they have done (very) recently and how they expect to do in the near future. Osborne has overseen the weakest recovery from a major recession in over a century due in great part to his policies yet for some reason, lots of people seem to have forgotten the pay cuts and pay freezes alongside inflation of 2 to 4% which is what we have seen for most of the parliament! Put it this way, when Osborne took control of the economy in 2010, he inherited an annual growth was around 2%. In 2011 it was 0.8%. In 2012 it was 0.2%. At that point, he reduced his austerity cuts (which is why he has failed to cut the deficit as originally planned) and this led to a minor recovery but he has never admitted he had deviated from the much mooted 'Plan A', and we've seen a slow recovery since. Annual growth last quarter? 0.3% which isn't far from recession again. By every single measure, Osborne has failed as a chancellor but, thanks to the drop in oil prices and inflation, everyone is feeling slightly better off so he's benefitted.

If people want to vote Tory because they like the policies, I've got not problems whatsoever, though I will almost certainly disagree with their choices. My problems arise because they have voted for a fiction that bears little resemblance to reality.

I can't deny I've felt very tense today because I am seriously, seriously worried what Osborne will do to the economy over the next 5 years. He's been very lucky to be chancellor in a relatively stable period (inherited a mild recovery but has encountered Eurozone worries). The next 5 years looks likely to be much more challenging, especially as his policies are inflating the housing bubble once again, and I fear what he will do if things go really mammaries up in Europe and the Union, as seems quite possible.
Posted by: Maringer, May 9, 2015, 12:18am; Reply: 205
Quoted from BIGChris

A staunch labourite who is a production worker for Youngs, told me quietly ( because he would get lynched by workmates) that he had done well under the coalition, had more money In his. Pocket and that was what mattered to him. I know many others who expressed similar views.

That isn't political scaremongering influenced by the so called Tory press, it was the honest feelings of a working man. I think THAT is why the blue flag is flying higher ( coupled with the fact that in my opinion Miliband has to be the poorest leader of a party for many decades)


He might have had more money in his pocket over the past year or so. Bet he didn't before then when inflation was 3-4%,oil prices were high and wage growth was non-existent:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/04/british-workers-suffered-biggest-real-wage-fall-major-g20-countries

As I note in my previous post above this one, when elections come around, people tend to forget the harder times of a couple of years back and instead remember when things got a bit better.

Bear in mind, real wages still aren't back to 2008 levels, something pretty much unheard of 7 years after any recession over the past century (and possibly earlier ones as well).
Posted by: mariner91, May 9, 2015, 7:42am; Reply: 206
Quoted from fishheadphil


No not at all, I'm a proud Englishman but to the loony left labour racists this makes me a raging racist? So I'm glad they've been turned over big time, I doubt we will see a labour government for at least 15 - 20 years. When people who have been democratically elected are getting surrounded by the fascist left like farage
and his children did then some things wrong with British people I think? The left seem to think anyone who has a different view to their warped Marxist ideology is somehow a paid up member of the waffen ss !   So yeah the left is finished now so good riddance. The icing on the cake was seeing the traitor Galloway getting it.....priceless.


Sit tight and the guys in white coats will be with you very soon.
Posted by: BIGChris, May 9, 2015, 4:31pm; Reply: 207
Quoted from Maringer


He might have had more money in his pocket over the past year or so. Bet he didn't before then when inflation was 3-4%,oil prices were high and wage growth was non-existent:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/04/british-workers-suffered-biggest-real-wage-fall-major-g20-countries

As I note in my previous post above this one, when elections come around, people tend to forget the harder times of a couple of years back and instead remember when things got a bit better.

Bear in mind, real wages still aren't back to 2008 levels, something pretty much unheard of 7 years after any recession over the past century (and possibly earlier ones as well).


I have to say my income has risen over recent years (not to the levels of 10 yrs + ago) and the result shows that enough people feel more comfortable with  their lot to elect a government with a majority. I didnt think that would happen.

Clearly you arent happy with the result but  some are 'content' .

Over recent years our profitability has increased considerably, we are employing more people and many have enjoyed decent income increases to give them more money. As contractors our lads have private medical insurance and pensions. THEY feel things are looking up, working hard and getting rewards for their efforts
Posted by: Maringer, May 9, 2015, 5:52pm; Reply: 208
Well, there are always some who do well, even during and in the immediate aftermath of a recession. However, the majority of people haven't seen any recovery in living standards before the last year or so and this recent improvement is down to the drop in oil prices and inflation which is nothing to do with Osborne's handling of the economy. That's sheer chance which has worked out for him well, but the myth that the economy has been 'fixed' by the government's actions just isn't true.

The recovery from the last recession has been hit badly by Osborne's austerity plan which was just economically incompetent. Making cuts in spending during a recovery goes against all economic theory and as I note in post 204, this cost a lot of growth. This lost growth would have been worth thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) of pounds per person in the economy. This is compounded by the fact that the Eurozone has also been engaging in similar austerity so our main trading partners are struggling as well.

My worry is not just that Osborne's planned but uncosted cuts will cause hardship for the poorest in society (which they will), it is that his cuts will lead us back towards stagnation or even recession. Despite all evidence to the contrary, and there is a lot, Osborne still believes in the 'trickle down' crap that tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses lead to a general improvement in the economy and everyone's lot. That is why he wants to cut £12 billion of benefits which go to the poorest in our society whilst at the same time giving the wealthy £8 billion in tax cuts. This will inevitably lead to greater poverty and social ills whilst the wealthiest get even richer. Economic inequality is bad in a society and the rich are only going to get richer as the poorest get poorer.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Osborne that the poorest spend absolutely all of their income. Cutting the money to these people not only takes money out of their pockets and makes life much harder for them, it takes it out of the economy as a whole. On the other hand, much of the money given to the wealthy through tax cuts will end up as savings or even being spent overseas which doesn't help our economy whatsoever.

My spending is your earnings.

Savings are a good thing when the economy is doing well as you want people to have money to fall back on in hard times so they are less reliant on the state. However, when you're in a weak recovery following a deep recession, savings are absolutely the last thing you want - this is why interest rates have been almost at zero for years, to try and stop people saving money and instead spend to put their money back into the economy.

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time writing about bad economics in the lead up to and the aftermath of the election and I need to do something better with my time so I'll give it a rest soon.

People have voted and many are obviously happy to have elected a Conservative government. I've just tried to show that, if you thought the Conservative government had done well with the economy over the past 5 years, you are misinformed. The economy has done OK - just - despite many of their policies, not because of them. Note that pretty much all of the parties have bought into the austerity nonsense so all deserved criticism for their planned policies, though the Conservatives were worse than Labour and the LibDems. If you think the previous Labour government was especially profligate and this led to the recession or meant we struggled to deal with its effects, you are also misinformed as I have pointed out in earlier posts.

Ultimately, a lot of people will have voted for the Conservatives based on bad information which is very frustrating.

Hope I'm wrong about the way the economy will now head under Osborne, but I'm afraid I don't think I am. In a year or two (or three), if we find ourselves back in recession, just remember what I've said when you hear Osborne blaming external conditions for the tough times we are facing.
Posted by: chaos33, May 9, 2015, 6:07pm; Reply: 209
You've made some superb arguments in these posts mate. I share your fears and concerns and most of all, your frustration.

I fear that, before long, we'll see the end of the union, a forced withdrawal from Europe and a demolished public sector, decimated by cuts that take us beyond the current 1950's size equivalent. With another 5 years of the Tories, ordinary British people and Britain as an entity is in the sh1t.
Posted by: jock dock tower, May 9, 2015, 8:24pm; Reply: 210
However frustrated some folk feel we do have to accept that the public have backed a Tory majority government. Simple, end of. However they came to that position still has me baffled, bit if folk really are happy with the thumping austerity that is to come so be it. £12 billion of cuts to follow very shortly, something the Tories didn't dare talk about suring the election and for good reason, we will lose what we recognise as the Welfare State, and I'm absolutely convinced that the NHS will be completely unrecognisable come 2020 when it's primary purpose is profit not care.

Trade Unions will be completely neutered because the ability to take industrial action will be virtually impossible due to new guidelines on how many must vote for any such action to be legal. With this neutering, collective bargaining will crumble as workers find they can not back up threats of action to try and force the employer back around the negotiating table. As the Unions' weaknesses gather apace, zero hour contracts will probably become the norm. There will be an assault on final salary pension schemes in the public sector, in short working folk are going to get shafted. New rules will be brought in, probably, to make going to an Employment Tribunal even more harder, it will be come an employer's paradise harking back to the pre WW2 years of hire and fire and folk having to doff their caps and eat sh1t to get a days work.

The people have spoken.
Posted by: chaos33, May 9, 2015, 9:19pm; Reply: 211
Sadly I agree.
Posted by: barralad, May 9, 2015, 9:55pm; Reply: 212
Quoted from jock dock tower
However frustrated some folk feel we do have to accept that the public have backed a Tory majority government. Simple, end of. However they came to that position still has me baffled, bit if folk really are happy with the thumping austerity that is to come so be it. £12 billion of cuts to follow very shortly, something the Tories didn't dare talk about suring the election and for good reason, we will lose what we recognise as the Welfare State, and I'm absolutely convinced that the NHS will be completely unrecognisable come 2020 when it's primary purpose is profit not care.

Trade Unions will be completely neutered because the ability to take industrial action will be virtually impossible due to new guidelines on how many must vote for any such action to be legal. With this neutering, collective bargaining will crumble as workers find they can not back up threats of action to try and force the employer back around the negotiating table. As the Unions' weaknesses gather apace, zero hour contracts will probably become the norm. There will be an assault on final salary pension schemes in the public sector, in short working folk are going to get shafted. New rules will be brought in, probably, to make going to an Employment Tribunal even more harder, it will be come an employer's paradise harking back to the pre WW2 years of hire and fire and folk having to doff their caps and eat sh1t to get a days work.

The people have spoken.


In the words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive....You ain't seen nothin'yet.

The only good thing the Lib Dems did in coalition was refuse to back the constituency boundary changes that the Tories wanted to bring in to give them an electoral advantage in England. Sadly, Melanie Onn could be the first and last woman to represent the town at Westminster...
Posted by: Maringer, May 9, 2015, 11:40pm; Reply: 213
Yep, the mention about Unions is very relevant.

The Conservatives plan to pass a law so that over 50% of Union members will have to vote in favour of industrial action for it to be legal.

Their mandate for this? Being returned to government after receiving the vote of a smidgeon over 24% of the electorate. By their own apparent requirements, they aren't fit to govern, an irony which I am sure will be lost on them.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, May 12, 2015, 1:40pm; Reply: 214
Quoted from Maringer
Well, there are always some who do well, even during and in the immediate aftermath of a recession. However, the majority of people haven't seen any recovery in living standards before the last year or so and this recent improvement is down to the drop in oil prices and inflation which is nothing to do with Osborne's handling of the economy. That's sheer chance which has worked out for him well, but the myth that the economy has been 'fixed' by the government's actions just isn't true.

The recovery from the last recession has been hit badly by Osborne's austerity plan which was just economically incompetent. Making cuts in spending during a recovery goes against all economic theory and as I note in post 204, this cost a lot of growth. This lost growth would have been worth thousands (and possibly tens of thousands) of pounds per person in the economy. This is compounded by the fact that the Eurozone has also been engaging in similar austerity so our main trading partners are struggling as well.

My worry is not just that Osborne's planned but uncosted cuts will cause hardship for the poorest in society (which they will), it is that his cuts will lead us back towards stagnation or even recession. Despite all evidence to the contrary, and there is a lot, Osborne still believes in the 'trickle down' crap that tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses lead to a general improvement in the economy and everyone's lot. That is why he wants to cut £12 billion of benefits which go to the poorest in our society whilst at the same time giving the wealthy £8 billion in tax cuts. This will inevitably lead to greater poverty and social ills whilst the wealthiest get even richer. Economic inequality is bad in a society and the rich are only going to get richer as the poorest get poorer.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Osborne that the poorest spend absolutely all of their income. Cutting the money to these people not only takes money out of their pockets and makes life much harder for them, it takes it out of the economy as a whole. On the other hand, much of the money given to the wealthy through tax cuts will end up as savings or even being spent overseas which doesn't help our economy whatsoever.

My spending is your earnings.

Savings are a good thing when the economy is doing well as you want people to have money to fall back on in hard times so they are less reliant on the state. However, when you're in a weak recovery following a deep recession, savings are absolutely the last thing you want - this is why interest rates have been almost at zero for years, to try and stop people saving money and instead spend to put their money back into the economy.

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time writing about bad economics in the lead up to and the aftermath of the election and I need to do something better with my time so I'll give it a rest soon.

People have voted and many are obviously happy to have elected a Conservative government. I've just tried to show that, if you thought the Conservative government had done well with the economy over the past 5 years, you are misinformed. The economy has done OK - just - despite many of their policies, not because of them. Note that pretty much all of the parties have bought into the austerity nonsense so all deserved criticism for their planned policies, though the Conservatives were worse than Labour and the LibDems. If you think the previous Labour government was especially profligate and this led to the recession or meant we struggled to deal with its effects, you are also misinformed as I have pointed out in earlier posts.

Ultimately, a lot of people will have voted for the Conservatives based on bad information which is very frustrating.

Hope I'm wrong about the way the economy will now head under Osborne, but I'm afraid I don't think I am. In a year or two (or three), if we find ourselves back in recession, just remember what I've said when you hear Osborne blaming external conditions for the tough times we are facing.




Maringer

Having followed this thread all the way, can I just say thanks for your input and information

Despite the outcome I think the way you have educated us throughout the process has been first class...

If only there had been someone nationally who could have shared the information in the same way you've done with us, maybe a few of those who took the conservative "don't like change" stance might just have given their choice a bit more thought

Anyway don't know what your day job is but as a political commentator you've really been top drawer - appreciate you giving us a chance to see beyond what most of the media would have you believe
Posted by: Maringer, May 12, 2015, 3:27pm; Reply: 215
Thanks for the kind words.

Over the past couple of years, I've just picked up a lot of this stuff from reading various macroeconomic blogs and for me, it still just beggars belief how the media has completely bought in to the whole Conservative spin about the previous Labour government's expenditure, cause of the recession and the 'success' of the recovery.

On the other hand, it also beggars belief that Balls and Miliband, both highly qualified economists, failed to rebut this narrative from the outset! I just can't understand what on earth their logic behind this stance was but it has certainly all but ended their respective careers in politics as well as giving Osborne the chance to do his worst.

As it stands, Osborne is going to have a hell of a time with things over the next 5 years. The Conservatives promised loads of unfunded giveaways in the lead up to the election under the apparent assumption many could be quietly dropped in the expected coalition government. There is no way all these giveaways can be funded which is clear when you consider that the Tories hadn't even calculated where their promised tax and benefits cuts would materialise from.

I would say it would be quite nice to watch Osborne squirm as he tries to deal with these issues, but the poverty and misery caused by his cuts will rather take the fun out of things.  :-/

As it stands, it could be a very interesting 5 years. The Tories will undoubtedly push through the boundary changes they wanted to implement last time and this is likely to hand them another 40-odd seats in the next election. I note that they have already begun to menace the BBC with reports in the Tory press doing the usual 'quotes' from unnamed senior Tories complaining about bias in the BBC's coverage of the election and a rabidly anti-beeb MP being installed as Culture Secretary. Utter tosh, but it is setting the narrative which should keep the BBC quiet for another 5 years.

Interesting times ahead.
Posted by: Rodley Mariner, May 12, 2015, 6:05pm; Reply: 216
So the new equalities minister voted against gay marriage.........Good news that they're getting rid of zero-hours contracts though and replacing them with 'flexible hours contracts'. Obviously the degree of flex allows for zero hours but you can't expect too much. This is only the start.
Posted by: Maringer, May 13, 2015, 6:56am; Reply: 217
Apparently the new Science Minister is Jo Johnson (brother of Boris). His Dad, Stanley, who is much as a buffoon as Boris (and I assume Jo), has happily proclaimed that this son knows nothing about science!

I realise that the civil service are there to advise Ministers who don't have any knowledge about their brief, but you would think it might be quite a good idea for the Science Minister to have some sort of a clue about science bearing how important it is in the modern world.
Posted by: psgmariner, May 13, 2015, 10:05pm; Reply: 218
Great piece on why Labour are in such a terrible mess

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/what-labour-must-do-is-estrange-its-awful-voters/
Posted by: Maringer, May 13, 2015, 11:52pm; Reply: 219
Just reads as more Tory bile to me. Pretty much what you expect from the Spectator, really, which isn't surprising when you consider it is owned by the Barclay brothers, two shitbags of the highest order. Just read up about their shenanigans trying to destroy the society on Sark for their own gain. A couple of non-doms who went both barrels against the Labour party due to their threat to implement the Leveson recommendations in their entirety.

Anyway, as for the article itself, it was another typically sweeping 'critique' the like of which we've seen from many right-wing publications over the past week. Lumping in big chunks of the Labour support into narrow and false groupings based entirely on some inane comments from one or two people doesn't give an honest reflection of reality - they've won the election but can't stop the spinning.

There is no doubt that it was a terribly negative, disingenuous and divisive campaign by the Tories, and their lackeys in the media were misinforming their readers throughout. Even some prominent American right-wingers have commented on how terrible and biased our press is in comparison to the US. Here's what Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times (so not exactly a leftie) had to say the Sunday before the election:

"Tomorrow's front pages show British press at partisan worst. All pretence of separation between news and opinion gone, even in "qualities"."

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/595714970026962944

The Labour campaign was very poorly run but there is little doubt that many of the electorate voted how they did on the basis of bad information. As I've shown repeatedly earlier in this thread with plenty of evidence linked, most of the narrative in the media about the economy was simply not true, and the hysterical scaremongering about the Scots running the government didn't make any logical sense whatsoever.

Very noticeable how many Blairites have been wringing their hands in both the right-wing and left-wing press saying Labour were too radical and they need to move back to the centre. Utter nonsense. They just need to run a good campaign, get the truth across to the voters and then trust they will make the right decision based on good information.

Who knows, it might still lead to a Conservative government, but it would be nice if most of the electorate actually had access to the proper details when making their choice instead of just relying on thinly-veiled propaganda most of the time.
Print page generated: March 28, 2024, 6:34pm