The election 2015

[BennyB]

Can't believe anyone in their right mind would vote for Milliband,

Exactly. I still think (and hope) the Tories might scrape in though, with the help of the Lib Dems and possibly the DUP.

Couldn't believe the other night when he refused to admit the last Labour govt overspent. The man's fcuking retarded.

 

[tiggers1972]

Every time I see him Benny I think he's on day release.

 

[Warbler]

Exactly. I still think (and hope) the Tories might scrape in though, with the help of the Lib Dems and possibly the DUP.

Cameron's nightmare scenario is a small Tory majority (which is what I think he'll get) even though he ought to be 6 or 7 pts clear.

Could the DUP and Liberals work in a coalition? urm...... I think he'd be better off calling another election inside 3 months than trying that stunt.

Basically this whole thing is coming down to the voters of just two constituencies. Sheffield Hallam with Inverness & Nairn. If Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander lose their seats (not impossible) the Liberals will fall under Vince Cable and Tim Farron who much more naturally align with Labour (along with the rank and file party). David Laws would probably leave, but so be it. Under these circunstances the SNP could potentially be by-passed as clearly they couldn't support the Tories and hope to retain a shred of credibility.

If the Tories get a small majority though, then Cameron is in trouble (and I think he knows it). He has about 20 certifiable back benchers who are UKIP in everything but name (indeed, two of them were honest enough to leave in the last parliament). Cameron, I'm sure, would much rather govern with the liberals than become a hostage to his own 'swivel eyed loons and closet racists'. Cameron watched what happened to John Major and he'd be set up to go the same way. I suspect his declaration that he won't look to serve a full term is right!

 

[gigilo]

You folks should get what we have up here in Jockland - an alternative to Tory bum-raping and Milliband. Oh ****, that's right you have - the BNP. I mean UKIP.

Tory bum raping:lol::lol: all harmless fun at the Bullingdon boys club!!

 

[gigilo]

Cameron's nightmare scenario is a small Tory majority (which is what I think he'll get) even though he ought to be 6 or 7 pts clear.

Could the DUP and Liberals work in a coalition? urm...... I think he'd be better off calling another election inside 3 months than trying that stunt.

Basically this whole thing is coming down to the voters of just two constituencies. Sheffield Hallam with Inverness & Nairn. If Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander lose their seats (not impossible) the Liberals will fall under Vince Cable and Tim Farron who much more naturally align with Labour (along with the rank and file party). David Laws would probably leave, but so be it. Under these circunstances the SNP could potentially be by-passed as clearly they couldn't support the Tories and hope to retain a shred of credibility.

If the Tories get a small majority though, then Cameron is in trouble (and I think he knows it). He has about 20 certifiable back benchers who are UKIP in everything but name (indeed, two of them were honest enough to leave in the last parliament). Cameron, I'm sure, would much rather govern with the liberals than become a hostage to his own 'swivel eyed loons and closet racists'. Cameron watched what happened to John Major and he'd be set up to go the same way. I suspect his declaration that he won't look to serve a full term is right!

Lots of tactical voting will pull back roughly 20 seats off the tories so makes it an highly unlikely for majority,although I got evens at +285 for them,the only way I can see them getting less than 285 is if the liberals vote labour in even more marginal which isn't impossible.Either way I can't lose they win me large chunk or fall short of 285 seats sh!t hits the fan!

 

[Desperate Dan]

There is a valid school of thought that the economic crash of 2008 was because of the banking crisis and the then government did not over-spend. A view backed today by a senior civil servant at the Treasury at the time ( stands back and awaits furious diatribes against civil servants...) and many distinguished economists (stands back and awaits furious diatribe against economists...). I can`t say I`m in any way qualified to judge but I think it`s rather silly to merely abuse Milliband`s argument instead of explaining why and how they did over-spend. Abuse is no substitute for reasoned argument or explanation,...IMHO, of course.

 

[BennyB]

There is a valid school of thought that the economic crash of 2008 was because of the banking crisis and the then government did not over-spend. A view backed today by a senior civil servant at the Treasury at the time ( stands back and awaits furious diatribes against civil servants...) and many distinguished economists (stands back and awaits furious diatribe against economists...). I can`t say I`m in any way qualified to judge but I think it`s rather silly to merely abuse Milliband`s argument instead of explaining why and how they did over-spend. Abuse is no substitute for reasoned argument or explanation,...IMHO, of course.

Labour didn't cause the financial crisis. However, the economic doctrine they subscribe to (Keynsianism) involves the government keeping some money back in boom times so they can inject it to stimulate the economy in harder times. Sadly Brown believed his own rhetoric that he had abolished boom and bust, failed to save during the good times and there was no money left when the crisis hit. It's akin to spending all your household savings on booze and women, then losing your job and saying "hey, it's not my fault I've no money."

Every labour government in history has ended with them shagging the economy.

 

[BennyB]

For the avoidance of doubt, i am a professional economist (cue barrage of abuse)!

 

[Desperate Dan]

Did the first 2 Blair govts leave the economy in a bad way. Benny you are a **********************, economist

 

[Warbler]

About 10 months into coalition's term of office this graph was removed from the ONS website as it didn't fit the narrative that they were spinning about reckelss government spending etc Luckily the Spectator (no labour supporter) had accidentally written an article about it and archived the graph below

Hopefully it gives you some idea of the sheer scale of the tsunami that the banking bailout caused. The fault lay 90% with the bankers, but this is something which the Tories couldn't say of course and they were anxious to sweep the evidence under the carpet before altering the people who they chose to demonise and blame. The amount of money used to continue to refloat banks increased further from when this graph was produced too as schemes like 'borrow to invest' (or whatever it was called?) and Merlin weren't in the figures yet

I'm sure Benny will also confirm that of the four major components of national debt (household, corporate, government & Financial institutions) the government figure was the lowest.

Also, I'll challenge anyone out there to name any leading conservative politician who forewarned about labours economic policy. Not a single one did. Indeed, Osborne was often reduced to complaining that Labour were pinching his ideas. Oh ... I do have the transcript of his infamous speech in Dublin up my sleeve too. For those of you who don't remember it, Osborne went to Dublin and heaped praise on the Irish for their economic management suggesting that they were a best practise model which Britain should learn from, and whom he intended to replicate. 2 years later they were bust

You'd be very brave, or extremely foolish to suggest that the Tories wouldn't have walked right into the very same elephant pit. Labour you'll recall were often accussed of getting too close to big finance, and subjecting them to light touch deregulation, obviously the interventionist Tories wouldn't have done so would they? You'd have to mad to believe otherwise

The way that history has been rewritten is one of the Tories greatest achievements, and especially so given that only 6% of the population (according to a recent survey) know that the national debt is still increasing

 

[clivex]

The usual rubbish

project marlin has nothing to do with this whatsoever. That's first point

many Tories would have opposed labours increased spending before 2008. That would have been entirely natural. Public spending as a % of gdp increased during a boom time (worldwide) which is not good governance at all

there is abolsutely no doubt at all that the deficit would have increased at a faster rate under labour since 2008. They would not have been prepared to cut because UNITE (who give continued strong support to a convicted corrupt mayor in East London it's worth noting) wouldn't have allowed them to do so

last word on this thread but I had to state the bleedin obvious for those that don't quite have the facilities to grasp it

 

[Colin Phillips]

Is this a film review, Clive?

 

[Warbler]

Merlin as I recall Clive was the BoE providing cheap finance to busted banks to relend, but they missed their targets and kept the money (alot of it was spent on rolling over existing debt to protect themselves against default - and that makes it a subsidy in everything but name)

The conservatives didn't lay out any significant criticism of Labour's economic policy which was deregulated and light touch as they'd be asking for. The only notable politician to warn of what was coming was Vince Cable

This is the level of foresight George Osborne had about the gathering crisis (quoted verbatim from 2006) - care to comment on this and convince anyone that Osborne would have done any different?

"Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making. With its vision of a highly-educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy, and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity,Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the right answers to the challenges of the new global economy. That new global economy offers us great challenges, and also great opportunities. Ireland has shown the world that wise economic policy-making can produce outstanding results that surpass all expectations, so that we can meet our potential, achieve our goals,and share rising prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. We in Britain would do well to listen and learn from our Irish neighbours".

:lol: nice one George

Oh I forgot, it was going to be your last word - urm - I think we've heard that enough times to know it won't be

 

[BennyB]

To be fair, Ireland did quite a few things right pre crisis, and have got their house in order fairly quickly afterwards. Their mistake was to succumb to temptation - euro membership allowed them to borrow at interest rates much much lower than would normally be the case - and borrow they did. The low tax, low regulation bit they got right.

 

[clivex]

No Colin. But that's more or less that as I said over there.

I I do believe that labours "mismanagement" is a little overstated but we are where we are. Old quotes are of no interest.

we have a good level of recovery at present and what we do not need is a milliband to suck the energy out of that. Business does despise him and vice versa. His complete lack of interest in or respect for the sector is disturbing and has to be said, at odds with Blair and brown.

 

[Warbler]

As i think you're both conceding, the Tories would have walked into the credit crunch and its full ramifications just as readily, as indeed did the Republicans following a similar policy. The fault line wasn't in the economic policy, but squarely with the banks. The gravity and the figures we were talking about circa 2007/8 would have done for anyone

I'm reminded of an observation made by Admiral Kimmel I think it was? He propehised that the Japanese would successfully attack Pearl Harbour and said he just hoped that when it came, he wasn't on watch, as those who were, will inevitably be blamed, and those who weren't, will be allowed to continue the fight and rewrite history according to their interpretation

As I recall, the coalition went on a spending freeze immediately after taking office and cancelled about a dozen road building programme (subsequently reinstated at a greater cost) they cancelled two loans to Forgemasters I think it was in Sheffield (one of which led to a loss of a contract with India which would have repaid the loan) and they tried to cancel the building of the two aircraft carriers (they've subsequently cancelled the order for the planes, reordered them, cancelled them again, and reordered the original ones). In short, there wasn't actually as much largesse hanging around as they thought they'd find.

 

[clivex]

That sums up why posting on this is a drag and waste of time . I did not "concede" anything because I never said any different. Words in mouth yet again

 

[Warbler]

What you said was

"I do believe that labour's "mismanagement" is a little overstated"

I don't believe my interpretation of what you said (especially as I said "think" and thus invite you to say otherwise) was unfair

So can we perhaps get a yes / no answer from you then.

Do you believe that the Tories would have done anything substantively different circa 2006 - 09, that would have led to the UK escaping the effects of it that we did? I don't recall them putting forward any substantive policy proposals at the time. As I said, they were often caught moaning that Labour were "stealing all our ideas". I suspect that they'd have followed a quasi American policy and ended up in exactly the same place as the Bush adminsitration. At least Gordon Brown (after his initial shock at realising the gravity of it) responded, George Bush gave the impression of never really understanding what was happening and what was needed

With the possible exception of Samantha Cameron and William Hague, I suspect that most Tories know full well deep down, that they'd have ended up in exactly the same position, having pretty well followed exactly the same policies. Certainly they wouldn't have done anything substantive enough to insulate the UK from the wave that what was about to break on us

 

[clivex]

You just talk rubbish

for a start that's an entirely different issue to on going deficit reduction which is what the thread was about

secondly osbourne and the Tories gave full support to Browns plan.

 

[Warbler]

Really?... perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why you feel that you introducing the word 'deficit' for the first and only time on post 36, until you repeated it just now, qualifies the thread to be about

"deficit reduction which is what the thread was about"

If you want a thread about about deficit reduction, start one, however, it should be clear to anyone reading this that the thread is most definitely not restricted to deficit reduction as you seem to be suggetsing

 

[BennyB]

The Tories wouldn't have prevented the crisis, or regulated the banks more heavily. They would have spent less money pre crisis and been in a better position, with less debt and a lower deficit, when the crisis hit.

Brown didn't bother saving for a rainy day as in his arrogance he thought he could control the weather.

 

[clivex]

Really?... perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why you feel that you introducing the word 'deficit' for the first and only time on post 36, until you repeated it just now, qualifies the thread to be about

"deficit reduction which is what the thread was about"

If you want a thread about about deficit reduction, start one, however, it should be clear to anyone reading this that the thread is most definitely not restricted to deficit reduction as you seem to be suggetsing

deficit reduction is what the discussion was about. because you could not cope you attempt to answer it with a completely different point. One that is pretty ridiculous and was blown away

Its either that, tiresome habit of "words in mouth" or 7000 word replies when you are losing it.

just to make it clear one last time. that is why i can no longer be bothered

 

[Warbler]

deficit reduction is what the discussion was about. because you could not cope you attempt to answer it with a completely different point. One that is pretty ridiculous and was blown away

Its either that, tiresome habit of "words in mouth" or 7000 word replies when you are losing it.

just to make it clear one last time. that is why i can no longer be bothered

Not at all

The graphs I produced that sparked your contribution were about 'debt' and the size that the banking bailout made to the loading (there's a clue in there if you look carefully at the title on them Clive - the word "debt" should help you). It was you who then started twisting it round to deficit and tried to side step the issue. I said, you only introduced the word deficit for the first (and only) time on post 36, then have the temerity to tell everyone that the thread should focus on your terms. Of course the two things are functions of each other, but would you care to look at the graph again and explain it and also why you think the ONS removed it from their website 10 months into the coalitions administration. I'm prepared to speculate it was because it didn't fit with the narrative they wanted to present, namely the banks had caused a massive hole to open which the government plugged and that this created the problem. They wanted instead to blame everything on government spending. You might also care to comment on the data that Hinksey produced too which showed that government debt was lower than the other components (not a uniform pattern across the sample by any means). Oh I forgot, you side step what you don't like, and then look to distract and deflect

At least Benny accepts that the Tories would also have crashed into exactly the same problem, and almost certainly have done exactly the same as Labour as there is precious little to no evidence, that they were flashing red warning lights ahead of it. Indeed, if the Daily Mail is to be believed, one of the few politicians who is supposed to have foreseen the extend of the looming credit crunch was Ed Miliband (suspect Stephanie Flanders told him) but there was nothing coming out from the then shadow team at all. As I said, only Vince Cable was sounding the air raid siren. So lets not buy this pathetic attempt to rewrite history that everything would have been hunky dorey if Gideon Osborne were at the helm. It wouldn't, and it's frankly embarrassing to think it would.

Just by way of observation, Osborne blamed everything on labour until he presided over a recession. Then he chose to blame everything on Europe. Can you explain how it is then that an external pressure (the credit crunch) is the fault of the domestic government on watch, and yet another external (the euro crisis) isn't the fault of the government on watch. You can't have it both ways. Either government's are affected by external factors, or they aren't. You can't pick n mix the explanations that you like to fit what you want

The only issue I'd have with Benny's concession is that the sheer scale of it wouldn't have made much difference whether you had a rainy day saving or not. The Daily Mail used to go banging on about the sale of gold (an early bailout of a Goldman's carry trade gone toxic) but the figures we were talking long went past the level where that would have made any difference too

 

[Warbler]

Just for the record. The coalition went in search of the 'spend fest' and cut the following projects worth an estimated £2Bn. That's not to say they saved £2Bn however, as in some cases alternatives were introduced and the programme rebranded under a new name

• tonehenge Visitor Centre: £25m
• Local Authority Leader Boards: £16m
• Sheffield Forgemasters International Limited: £80m
• Roll-out of the Future Jobs Fund: £290m
• Six month offer recruitment subsidies: £30m
• Extension of Young Person's Guarantee to 2011/12: £450m
• Two year Jobseeker's Guarantee: £515m
• Active Challenge Routes - Walk England: £2m
• Dept of Health funding for County Sports Partnerships: £6m
• North Tees and Hartlepool hospital: £450m
• Local Authority Business Growth Initiative: £50m
• Outukumpu: £13m

In addition to these cuts the following capital projects were suspended. It's worth noting that a majority of these programmes were subsequently reintroduced and wouldn't be savings. Perversely, in some instances, they cost more

A14 road: £1.1bn

There had been plans to widen the road between Cambridge and Huntingdon to six lanes. (This one has subsequently been reintroduced and has cost more than the original due to the fact the preparation work had to be done all over again, and appeals had been timed out)
Libraries Modernisation Programme: £12m

Sheffield Retail Quarter: £12m

Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme: £23m

University Enterprise Capital Fund: £25m

Newton Scholarships: £25m

Health Research Support Initiative: £73m
Leeds Holt Park Well-being Centre: £50m

Birmingham Magistrates Court: £94m

Successor Deterrent Extension to Concept Phase Long Lead Items: £66m

Purchase of hardware for design phase of successor to Trident nuclear missile system - to be reviewed as part of the broader Trident "value for money" review.
Search and Rescue Helicopters: £4.6bn



This is hardly economy saving stuff. Their combined total is significantly less than HS2. Indeed, some of these projects cost less than the money that David Cameron has personally cost with his intervention on the aircraft to fly off an aircraft carrier when he's personally cancelled the labour order, placed his own, cancelled that one, and gone back to the original.

This is the list of capital largesse that the coalition uncovered. Well I'm sorry but it doesn't llok like maxing out the credit card to me? It's not like we're seeing evidence of despotic palaces being constructed and statues to Gordon Brown is it?

 

[clivex]

Not at all

The graphs I produced that sparked your contribution were about 'debt' and the size that the banking bailout made to the loading (there's a clue in there if you look carefully at the title on them Clive - the word "debt" should help you). It was you who then started twisting it round to deficit and tried to side step the issue. I said, you only introduced the word deficit for the first (and only) time on post 36, then have the temerity to tell everyone that the thread should focus on your terms. Of course the two things are functions of each other, but would you care to look at the graph again and explain it and also why you think the ONS removed it from their website 10 months into the coalitions administration. I'm prepared to speculate it was because it didn't fit with the narrative they wanted to present, namely the banks had caused a massive hole to open which the government plugged and that this created the problem. They wanted instead to blame everything on government spending. You might also care to comment on the data that Hinksey produced too which showed that government debt was lower than the other components (not a uniform pattern across the sample by any means). Oh I forgot, you side step what you don't like, and then look to distract and deflect

At least Benny accepts that the Tories would also have crashed into exactly the same problem, and almost certainly have done exactly the same as Labour as there is precious little to no evidence, that they were flashing red warning lights ahead of it. Indeed, if the Daily Mail is to be believed, one of the few politicians who is supposed to have foreseen the extend of the looming credit crunch was Ed Miliband (suspect Stephanie Flanders told him) but there was nothing coming out from the then shadow team at all. As I said, only Vince Cable was sounding the air raid siren. So lets not buy this pathetic attempt to rewrite history that everything would have been hunky dorey if Gideon Osborne were at the helm. It wouldn't, and it's frankly embarrassing to think it would.

Just by way of observation, Osborne blamed everything on labour until he presided over a recession. Then he chose to blame everything on Europe. Can you explain how it is then that an external pressure (the credit crunch) is the fault of the domestic government on watch, and yet another external (the euro crisis) isn't the fault of the government on watch. You can't have it both ways. Either government's are affected by external factors, or they aren't. You can't pick n mix the explanations that you like to fit what you want

The only issue I'd have with Benny's concession is that the sheer scale of it wouldn't have made much difference whether you had a rainy day saving or not. The Daily Mail used to go banging on about the sale of gold (an early bailout of a Goldman's carry trade gone toxic) but the figures we were talking long went past the level where that would have made any difference too

frankly you are a time waster

i would reflect a bit that you continual attributing of arguments that I or others have not made and the complete boorishness and wasted time having to counter the same, completely kills the thread and any enthusiasm for continuing (and it was certainly a not to be repeated mistake to engage)

just for the record for anyone else reading this it is pretty clear that I said that the Tories would have done the same at the outse of the crisis because they backed Browns plan. Rightly and contrary to what the troll assumed in an earlier post. It is also pretty clear that they would not have reduced the deficit at such a rate because simply put, they would not have attacked public spending in the same way, which was point of recent posts

I will leave others to reflect but the highlighted quote, which is total crap and Insinuates a point that I have NOT made and never would. It sums up the way you go about things



end of