| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
 Cameron is the best of the bunch by a long way imo, the only issue that could be a stumbling block is how they handle certain policies in which they were attacked by Labour, however in the most important one for me, the Economy, they seem to be the leading candidate by a mile. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
For instance : http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/how-much-has-austerity-cost-so-far.html | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On May 06 2015 19:18 corumjhaelen wrote: Lol, their record is like, abysmal. Unless you believe the goal is not growth, well being or job, but cutting spending. For instance : http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/how-much-has-austerity-cost-so-far.html You realise cutting spending and debt is one of the things they have absolutely failed on, its all rhetoric about savage tory cuts http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9349572/deal-with-the-debt-george-osborne-youve-hardly-even-started/ | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
As the outgoing Labour Treasury Minister put it with brutal candour, 'there is no money' . Since day one Conservatives had nothing to work with and have put us back on the right track, the main thing is it is not finished yet imo so they need another 5 years to completely turn it back round and keep us moving forward. More people in work in England than ever before and the deficit has halved since labour and making it 10%+ and we are growing as proven with stats. This is thanks to Conservatives economy strategy. Everything is irrelevant in politics if you do not have the money to change anything, UK need money thus it needs a strong economy. England has sold so much of its talent and business over the decades its time we stop doing this and start re structuring our country to be a forefront not a trade point. However they did mess some things up, they seem to be totally on the fence with the EU, they have no idea how to tackle immigration it seems as well as that is something they didn't deliver on in the 5 years in which they said they would. No one is perfect though :D | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Gordon Brown: "there will be no return to boom and bust" Ed Miliband: "we didn't overspend" (if it wasn't important it would be amusing, re: Pandemona's quote) Hopefully next election I can afford to vote on my social/civic beliefs | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Ed Milliband and Ed Balls or David Cameron and George Osborne | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On May 06 2015 19:45 Pandemona wrote: Yeah that kinda sums it up, who do you trust more with your country; Ed Milliband and Ed Balls or David Cameron and George Osborne Add in Alex Salmond with Balls and Miliband because they won't have a majority without the SNP. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 19:41 marvellosity wrote: Tories do so much stupid shit, but as a straight choice between them and Labour managing the economy... Gordon Brown: "there will be no return to boom and bust" Ed Miliband: "we didn't overspend" (if it wasn't important it would be amusing, re: Pandemona's quote) Hopefully next election I can afford to vote on my social/civic beliefs They didn't, but never mind the facts as long as we can cry "the deficit ! profligacy ! irresponsible leftists" It's ok though, the Labour also wants to cut the deficit no matter what. I'd still trust Miliband more than proven idiots like Osborn/Cameron any day. A bit of a reasonnable pov : http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/09/bubblethink.html | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 19:54 corumjhaelen wrote: They didn't, but never mind the facts as long as we can cry "the deficit ! profligacy ! irresponsible leftists" It's ok though, the Labour also wants to cut the deficit no matter what. I'd still trust Miliband more than proven idiots like Osborn/Cameron any day. A bit of a reasonnable pov : http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/09/bubblethink.html yes, they did they were running a significant deficit while the UK was at the height of its boom cycle that doesn't work | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Edit : not that Labour policy didn't suck. For very different reasons though. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 21:05 corumjhaelen wrote: Deficit so significant (how is that defined lol) that the pressure on UK debt was simply unbearable, as demonstrated by the horrible conditions under which UK had to borrow. Makes sense. Edit : not that Labour policy didn't suck. For very different reasons though. What's that got to do with anything? Strawman much? The government was riding high on record tax receipts, it could easily afford to both sustain + raise spending without running any sort of deficit, it was completely unnecessary. And the deficit they were running left us no slack whatsoever when the crash hit. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 21:22 marvellosity wrote: What's that got to do with anything? Strawman much? The government was riding high on record tax receipts, it could easily afford to both sustain + raise spending without running any sort of deficit, it was completely unnecessary. And the deficit they were running left us no slack whatsoever when the crash hit. So in what sense was the deficit so significant ? In the sense of the bolded sentence ? But then, why is this sentence true ? I can hardly see any serious case being made for that, because precisely, there was absolutely no pressure on the debt... | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 21:27 corumjhaelen wrote: So in what sense was the deficit so significant ? In the sense of the bolded sentence ? But then, why is this sentence true ? I can hardly see any serious case being made for that, because precisely, there was absolutely no pressure on the debt... We get very good rates but we also pay £40bn+ a year just on the interest on our debts, a number that continues to rise A number that could and should be a lot lower, and it could have been if our spending was actually reasonable 2002-2008 or so The fact we could (and still can) afford to borrow, doesn't mean we should have | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 21:48 marvellosity wrote: And yet somehow you've still not managed to counter the argument that it was unnecessary to run a budget deficit on the back of record tax receipts. I think we're done ^^ Unnecessary, certainly, but that doesn't mean anything (you seem very fond of those words), bad policy, that remains to be proven, not as bad as what Cameron/Osborne did after, there is no doubt about it. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
You originally tried to argue with me that Labour didn't overspend, but there can be no agreement as running the deficit they did on the back of record tax receipts is a pretty good definition for overspending as far as I'm concerned. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
I had this conversation with a tory-voting friend last year. He was sure that the tories always did better with the economy. I looked up some basic numbers and what I noticed was that both parties improve the economy when they are first elected, then at some point it goes to shit and the other party gets into power, then they improve the economy... It's just a cycle. I know nothing about politics but I could probably predict the election winner two years in advance just by looking at how gdp growth is trending. At the present time we are growing or at least stable so the current government will remain in power, then when growth really slows the other party will get in. It has happened every single time for the last 40 years. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:06 hzflank wrote: IMO, the economy is too complicated for anyone to say for sure whether the tories have done well or not. What people instead do is just see what they want to see, ie you usually vote tory so you think that they did well with the economy. I had this conversation with a tory-voting friend last year. He was sure that the tories always did better with the economy. I looked up some basic numbers and what I noticed was that both parties improve the economy when they are first elected, then at some point it goes to shit and the other party gets into power, then they improve the economy... It's just a cycle. I know nothing about politics but I could probably predict the election winner two years in advance just by looking at how gdp growth is trending. At the present time we are growing or at least stable so the current government will remain in power, then when growth really slows the other party will get in. It has happened every single time for the last 40 years. I agree with your first sentence, it is quite hard to tell. I think our economy was pretty stable + growing when Labour won in 1997, I think the country had just had enough of the Tories, mainly. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
