He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation.
Not to get into a Labour/Tory slanging match but the next generation can just add that to the payments on all the Conservative-initiated PFI projects we're still paying off. Remember those? 'We can't afford this hospital, so we'll get a businessman to build it now, then pay it off for the next 20 years, with lots of interest'. Gordon Brown wasn't the only one passing the tab off onto future generations.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I agree 100% but trying to tie this issue in exclusively with Labour is foolhardy.
EDIT: When I say I agree, I mean with Klive's statement about taking the budget deficit lightly.
EDIT 2: There's also a huge danger when the economists get involved of making an election entirely about economics. Very dodgy. Economists' science is completely amoral. There should be some mention of the social policies each party plans to implement.
In fact, no offense but the starting OP is fairly drastically lacking so much information to make the conversation interesting. Putting in some manifesto statements concerning how each party will deal with foreign policy, immigration, education, the NHS, policing, disabilities, welfare and taxes would be a good start.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I've changed my other post to the 50% figure. I was talking about public finances obviously.
However, Brown must also take some responsibility for household debt too. Encouraging huge numbers to University, taking money from the pension funds and not regulating bank lending all contribute to household debt.
On April 20 2010 21:03 sc4k wrote: I agree 100% but trying to tie this issue in exclusively with Labour is foolhardy.
EDIT: When I say I agree, I mean with Klive's statement about taking the budget deficit lightly.
Of course you are right the problem is a long term issue which both parties must take responsibilty for. The only reason I focused on Labour is I don't know much about what the Tories did. I'm a first time voter and I wasn't aware of politics when the Tories were in power. The only thing I can see are the effects of 13 years of Labour and it's not good. Whether the Tories would have been any better is a different question.
On April 20 2010 21:03 sc4k wrote: EDIT 2: There's also a huge danger when the economists get involved of making an election entirely about economics. Very dodgy. Economists' science is completely amoral. There should be some mention of the social policies each party plans to implement.
In fact, no offense but the starting OP is fairly drastically lacking so much information to make the conversation interesting. Putting in some manifesto statements concerning how each party will deal with foreign policy, immigration, education, the NHS, policing, disabilities, welfare and taxes would be a good start.
Yeah you're right I should have added more information. I didn't really know how this thread would turn out. The point of the OP was to discuss the Liberals and the massive effect the TV debate had; since it's an interesting topic everyone can get involved in. I guess there's more than enough UK people on TL to start a large debate on party politics, I didn't initally expect this.
Edit: What's quite ironic I guess is that we've barely talked about the Liberals at all, even though they are now at 30% of the vote xD
The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I've changed my other post to the 50% figure. I was talking about public finances obviously.
However, Brown must also take some responsibility for household debt too. Encouraging huge numbers to University, taking money from the pension funds and not regulating bank lending all contribute to household debt.
Actually I agree that there is a relation between government economic policy and household debt, although the topic is a complex one. However, all the main parties subscribe to the general economic paradigm that has led to this particular situation. (As do the main parties in pretty much all the developed nations, erroneously in my view)
If you want a club to beat the current Labour Government with you will find many of them but the one you seem to want to use also smacks the other main parties equally well.
I have my own views on the issue of excessive private debt but as I said the topic is a complex one.
I will point out, however, that the public deficits which seem to so concern people are themselves a function of de-leveraging in the private economy. As households and private companies try to reduce their debt this impacts aggregate demand in the economy which naturally forces public deficits up. Reducing debt -> lower spending -> reduced aggregate demand -> lower tax revenues and higher welfare payments -> rising government deficits. Unfortunately these natural relations appear to be of no interest to a mainstream media whose duty it should be to appropriately inform the electorate on these important matters.
I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting. But sensationalist, zero-effort media has so much more effect with the dumbass people. It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things- like specific mistakes in language people make or trying to pin down MPs on issues that are extremely complex and looking for a yes/no answer so the idiot public can get some bitesized politics.
Although Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is pretty hench
On April 20 2010 21:14 sc4k wrote: The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job.
Are you fucking kidding me? Go watch Irwin Schiffs 'How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't' right now. Hell Classical Economists figured this shit out over 600 years ago. You have to invest to grow an Economy, and the only way to invest is to save. This is called a low time preference.
Economics is also not amoral, as I would heartedly recommend some Bastiat. Anyways, if you guys want to implode your whole country through reckless fiscal policy, and emotional tripes, or class envy, be my guest, though I would advise against such actions. Perhaps Britain can look back to their past for the future; ala Bright & Cobden?
Anyways, I wish you blokes the best of luck, but don't be surprised when the house of cards fall down, and they will as this is going to get much worse. Cheers.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
That's right yes. We have a "first past the post" system in areas called constituencies. Each constituency win is an MP in parliament, which is one vote in parliament. There are 646 total seats in parliament so you need 324 to control a majority and govern effectively.
The system is unfair because just "pipping" a seat is just as good as winning it by miles. The Liberals will absolutely smash the vote in the south-west and probably other rural areas but the swing still isn't enough for them to take many seats from Labour heartland in the North or the Conservative strong seats in the South.
When you look at the projections assuming a uniform swing in votes, the results are ridiculous. With current figures of popular votes at 33% Conservative 30% Lib Dem and 28% Labour. Labour would gain 276 seats (the most) The Conservatives would gain 245 seats The Liberals would gain 100 seats
There would then have to be a coalition Government between either Liberal-Labour or Liberal-Conservative since you need a majority to pass laws.
The inherent unfairness of FPTP keeps out minor parties, prevents coalitions and creates artificial landslides. These are all good things. It forces a centralisation of politics and gives Governments the power to enact their legislation without getting tied up by continual rebellions. A coalition Government is a Government nobody voted for with no manifesto whereas a weak Government such as Major's last years is worthless. FPTP is a good thing, it sucks to be the liberals because FPTP is a two party system and they're the third party but that's a price we have to pay.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
The old Liberal Party died down to just a few wackos in the 1920s. Then in the 1980s Labour went really left wing and the sane members of it realised that they'd never win another election if they did that so they broke off to form the Social Democratic Party. Then they unified with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats who are socially liberal but economically socialist. The core of the Lib Dems has always been the defections from Labour rather than the Liberal Party. There aren't official requirements to enter the debate because this is the first time a debate like this has ever happened. But UKIP are not a serious contender in national elections, they have no place there.
On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote: lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice.
Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU.
The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position .
On April 20 2010 21:33 HnR)hT wrote: UKIP or BNP? Our fellow patriots across the pond have some tough decisions.
BNP are anything, but patriots. UKIP though are an interesting bunch. I like Nigel Farage, but UKIP as a whole do not have the radical base philosophy to really rocket the country forward, but they would be mightedly preferrable to the other parties. I am very retiscent on their defense spending plank, which I feel is very detrimental, and as they say, Politicians will always find a use for an Army. I think Elbridge Gerry here is very pertinent :p
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
The old Liberal Party died down to just a few wackos in the 1920s. Then in the 1980s Labour went really left wing and the sane members of it realised that they'd never win another election if they did that so they broke off to form the Social Democratic Party. Then they unified with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats who are socially liberal but economically socialist. The core of the Lib Dems has always been the defections from Labour rather than the Liberal Party. There aren't official requirements to enter the debate because this is the first time a debate like this has ever happened. But UKIP are not a serious contender in national elections, they have no place there.
Quite interesting. Thanks. Well, in regards to the UKIP bit, its a self-perpetuating phenomenan. It is much like the LP and CP here which is hampered by the very process. How do you expect to grow your movement and parties, if you are never included? I would love to see a Presidential Debate here featuring the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, GOP, Dems, Greens & Socialists.
(Latter four all being very similar, and the first two being quite similar, but very contrast to the last four. It would actually show people how fucking insane our system is when the "main" parties are carbon copies of themselves. Not really a two-party system then is it? Why even vote in that case haha)
Also found it hilarious that so called "Democratic" Parties, and their supporters rig the rules to preclude others from debate. Yeah...so democratic.
EPT
.
