May 4, 201015 yr It’s not ideal, but we do need a Conservative government to get a grip on the country’s finances before we go into meltdown. A double dip recession is a much lesser evil than the road to ruin Gordon Brown is taking us on. Can you imagine having to be bailed out by the IMF? It’d make Black Wednesday look insignificant. I’m afraid we need short term pain for medium/long term gain. Cameron must get a majority.
May 4, 201015 yr A double dip recession is a LESSER evil than some vague 'road to ruin' accusation? Do you have any idea how much social damage that would cause to this country? Brown is going to make cuts. Just not this year. Cameron is the ONLY leader in the Western world advocating cuts at this time (Greece aside, although they've been forced to do so).
May 4, 201015 yr It’s not ideal, but we do need a Conservative government to get a grip on the country’s finances before we go into meltdown. A double dip recession is a much lesser evil than the road to ruin Gordon Brown is taking us on. Can you imagine having to be bailed out by the IMF? It’d make Black Wednesday look insignificant. I’m afraid we need short term pain for medium/long term gain. Cameron must get a majority. It's a global recession though. I see nothing concrete that Cameron has offered ... he is just all 'hot air'. Brown is by far ideal ... but I'd rather him than a wet lettuce like Cameron (he even looks like a wimp!) Besides ... if/when the Conservatives get in ... there'll be the old 'it'll take us at least five years to get out of the mess the previous government left the country in' ... allowing the moon-faced one a further term. So if/when they get in .... you're looking at 10 years (minimum) not five. And possibly in the second term ... 'Dave' will appoint his old mucker Gary as Chancellor! A total change is needed and I'd rather have a hung parliament where all three parties have to get their heads together. We keep being told that a hung parliament is bad for us ... but as far as I see it ... everything else over the last 30 odd years has failed. Norma Edited May 4, 201015 yr by Norma_Snockers
May 4, 201015 yr It’s not ideal, but we do need a Conservative government to get a grip on the country’s finances before we go into meltdown. A double dip recession is a much lesser evil than the road to ruin Gordon Brown is taking us on. Can you imagine having to be bailed out by the IMF? It’d make Black Wednesday look insignificant. I’m afraid we need short term pain for medium/long term gain. Cameron must get a majority. Regardless of what should happen now, I presume you agree that a stimulus programme was necessary when the recession first started in late 2008? If you do, then how can you trust the economic judgement of Cameron and Osborne, when they wanted to cut even then? Let's not forget, one of the reasons the national debt is so high is because the Thatcher and Major left schools and hospitals in such a mess that it took a lot of money to get them up to a decent standard. Edited May 4, 201015 yr by Danny
May 4, 201015 yr Latest YouGov / Sun poll: Con: 35% Lab: 30% Lib Dem: 24% Fieldwork 3-4 May 2010; sample 1,461
May 4, 201015 yr Latest YouGov / Sun poll: Con: 35% Lab: 30% Lib Dem: 24% Fieldwork 3-4 May 2010; sample 1,461 :o Surely this has to be a rogue!
May 4, 201015 yr LOL. The Sun are running scared. That's either a rogue or YouGov have been slipped a backhander to manipulate the sample.
May 4, 201015 yr A double dip recession is a LESSER evil than some vague 'road to ruin' accusation? Do you have any idea how much social damage that would cause to this country? Brown is going to make cuts. Just not this year. Cameron is the ONLY leader in the Western world advocating cuts at this time (Greece aside, although they've been forced to do so). You, really, really, really, don't understand economics do you if you think Brown's policies are more beneficial to the UK than Camerons plans. If the IMF come in to bail out the UK we are already completely f***ing screwed far more than a double dip recession ever will be. By doing nothing NOW, it will mean the following: Problems of National Debt 1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high. In 2008 Debt interest payments were £31 billion a year (est 2.5% of GDP). In 2009, they were £35 billion (similar to defence budget - 5.2% of GDP). Public sector debt interest payments is already the 4th highest department after social security, health and education. If nothing is done about it this year in an emergency budget by whoever takes power in June until the next annual budget - then Public Sector Debt interest payments will rise to 3rd place in 2011/12. 2. Higher Taxes in the future. By not taking action now, it will mean the amount we have to pay back in the future will increase, because we are doing nothing now, so that we have to pay a greater proportion in taxes back later. Whilst with interest rates being so low, it is logical to cut (pay back) the debt as soon as possible, and not wait for interest rates to rise, when we will have to pay more back. 3. Crowding out of private sector investment / spending. It is argued by virtually all Economists that if government borrowing increases, it will cause crowding out of the private sector. If the private sector buy bonds it means the private sector has less funds for private sector investment. Also, if borrowing increases, interest rates may rise. Higher interest rates also reduce private sector spending and investment. Furthermore, as is full evidence in the UK today, public sector workers are getting paid significantly more than their private sector counterparts, working in a more secure job environment, with superior final salary/early retirement pension schemes, and with significantly less productivity. Remember the private sector pays for the public sector via taxes. It goes without saying this is an unsustainable as well as very unhealthy business model. 4. The debt problem will only get worse as an ageing population places greater strain on the UK’s pension liabilities. Many Western OECD economies are facing an unwelcome population projection. As the baby boomer generation starts to retire (around 2016), the dependency ratio (number of people not working to number of people working) is forecast to rise. This ageing population is exacerbated by declining birth rates which is reducing the number of working age adults. Some countries are affected more than others. UK Dependency ratio is forecast to rise from: 0.34 to 0.65 by 2040. The government will be faced with higher spending commitments and lower tax receipts. If the government doesn't radically change policy, national debt is likely to increase. Furthermore, the government will not be borrowing to finance sustainable investment but making transfer payments which don't boost productivity. All the above lead to the following scenarios for Governments to use to resolve the problem: With prospect of higher spending and relatively lower tax receipts, the government may have to consider some politically unpopular policies. 1. Raise retirement age to reflect longer life spans. In 1950, average life expectancy was 75. It is now 86. But a higher retirement age will not be welcomed by people who have been planning and expecting to retire at 65. Governments may delay implementation of higher pension age for several years. 2. Higher tax rates. Increasing income tax to pay for an ageing population hardly inspires. The argument is higher tax rates will reduce productivity and deter people working. The impact of higher taxes on labour productivity is less than many claim, but, it would still be an unwelcome development 3. Cut spending. Making people pay for private health care and private nursing homes is one solution. But, it would inevitably require an extensive and unpopular means tested scheme to decide who can't afford. It won't please children seeing a fall in their inheritance levels. 4. Immigration. Immigration of young workers will be one of the easiest solutions to the demographic time bomb. But, immigration is equally unpopular. Plus it has an adverse affect on the existing infrastructure so that it's benefits are to a degree neutralised to the extent that if it is not managed correctly with a monitoring of the skills and personal brought into the country it can have a detrimental impact. Negative impact on Exchange Rate * A rapid increase in national debt means the government have to borrow more from the private sector (which as already mentioned above is being squeezed by the burden of supporting an unsustainable public sector.) If markets have 100% confidence in the UK's ability to repay debt - foreigners will be happy to buy some of our debt (through buying bonds and gilts). * If markets start to worry borrowing is getting too high / unmanageable, then investors will not be keen to hold UK government bonds. They will invest abroad i.e. many sterling assets will be sold. This will reduce demand for sterling on foreign exchange markets and cause a depreciation. Basically when investing (especially in turbulent times) it makes sense to invest in the safest countries. If markets start to price in a risk of debt default, it will be more more difficult for that country to attract capital flows. This is exactly what has happened to Greece because they did not take action before it was too late leading to their credit rating being downgraded raising the cost of future government borrowing even further to near unacceptable levels; at the moment the markets are now putting pressure on Portugal & Spain; with the UK & Italy next in the line of fire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10097072.stm But here are the killer reasons why I'm changing my vote from Labour to the Conservatives at this election: Key fact 1: "Labour have doubled the debt. Having inherited a debt of just £351 billion, Labour have more than doubled this to £858 billion. On the Government’s own figures the debt is set to continue to soar to £1.4 trillion by 2015, meaning every person will owe £23,000 - the highest forecast in the EU with the exception of Greece (who now have the EU to bail them out), Portugal & Spain. (ONS, Public Sector Finances; and HM Treasury, Budget 2010)." Key fact 2: "Unemployment higher than in 1997. Unemployment and youth unemployment are both higher than in 1997, while the employment rate is lower than when Labour came to power. Whilst those skivving bast*rds on incapacity benefit have risen from 934K in 1997 to 2.6million under Labour in 2010" Key fact 3: "Competitiveness falling. Britain has fallen from 7th in 1997 to 13th in the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness league table (World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, September 2009)." Key fact 4: " Police officer numbers are already being cut. Thirteen police forces have cut police officer numbers in the last five years (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, Fifth report of Session 2009-10, 19 January 2010). A leaked report for the Home Office, co-written by Mark Rowley, the Chief Constable of Surrey, has raised the prospect of 28,000 police officers being replaced by civilian workers to save money (The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2010). And just four out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales say they plan to maintain current staffing levels (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, January 2010, Appendix A)." Key fact 5: "Total net migration to the UK, the difference between immigration and emigration, increased from 48,000 in 1997 to 163,000 in 2008. The 2008 figure was lower than the preceding years as a result of record emigration. The inflow of people coming to the UK actually increased despite the recession, from 574,000 in 2007 to 590,000 in 2008. This represents a continuation of the level of immigration seen since 2004 (Office of National Statistics, Long-Term International Migration Tables, 1991-latest, 2008 first release, table 2.06; Office of National Statistics, News Release: Emigration reaches record high in 2008, 26 November 2009)." P.S. to LibDem Clegg supporters - In the third and final debate your man was factually incorrect to state that the current net rate of EU citizens coming into this country was 80% in 2009. It was actually just 39% acoording to the Office of National Statistics. Therefore, making Cameron's figure of 600,000 mathematically correct. Which the LibDem leader accused Cameron of being incorrect about. But where did David Cameron get that figure from in the first place - well guess who: f-MVeAYQSN4
May 4, 201015 yr Latest YouGov / Sun poll: Con: 35% Lab: 30% Lib Dem: 24% Fieldwork 3-4 May 2010; sample 1,461 To a degree a Rogue poll, but then again maybe the LibDem Wheel of Misfortune http://www.wheelofmisfortune.co.uk/ is hitting home; along with a couple of points Clegg made in the third debate (on Immigration - see earlier post; and criticising David Cameron on not revealing what measures they would take if elected; then when the Tories did on Sunday, he accused them of being arrogant and presumptious on Monday, which is what others could say of Clegg and co saying they are the second most popular party in the polls) :lol:
May 4, 201015 yr You, really, really, really, don't understand economics do you if you think Brown's policies are more beneficial to the UK than Camerons plans. If the IMF come in to bail out the UK we are already completely f***ing screwed far more than a double dip recession ever will be. By doing nothing NOW, it will mean the following: Problems of National Debt 1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high. In 2008 Debt interest payments were £31 billion a year (est 2.5% of GDP). In 2009, they were £35 billion (similar to defence budget - 5.2% of GDP). Public sector debt interest payments is already the 4th highest department after social security, health and education. If nothing is done about it this year in an emergency budget by whoever takes power in June until the next annual budget - then Public Sector Debt interest payments will rise to 3rd place in 2011/12. 2. Higher Taxes in the future. By not taking action now, it will mean the amount we have to pay back in the future will increase, because we are doing nothing now, so that we have to pay a greater proportion in taxes back later. Whilst with interest rates being so low, it is logical to cut (pay back) the debt as soon as possible, and not wait for interest rates to rise, when we will have to pay more back. 3. Crowding out of private sector investment / spending. It is argued by virtually all Economists that if government borrowing increases, it will cause crowding out of the private sector. If the private sector buy bonds it means the private sector has less funds for private sector investment. Also, if borrowing increases, interest rates may rise. Higher interest rates also reduce private sector spending and investment. Furthermore, as is full evidence in the UK today, public sector workers are getting paid significantly more than their private sector counterparts, working in a more secure job environment, with superior final salary/early retirement pension schemes, and with significantly less productivity. Remember the private sector pays for the public sector via taxes. It goes without saying this is an unsustainable as well as very unhealthy business model. 4. The debt problem will only get worse as an ageing population places greater strain on the UK’s pension liabilities. Many Western OECD economies are facing an unwelcome population projection. As the baby boomer generation starts to retire (around 2016), the dependency ratio (number of people not working to number of people working) is forecast to rise. This ageing population is exacerbated by declining birth rates which is reducing the number of working age adults. Some countries are affected more than others. UK Dependency ratio is forecast to rise from: 0.34 to 0.65 by 2040. The government will be faced with higher spending commitments and lower tax receipts. If the government doesn't radically change policy, national debt is likely to increase. Furthermore, the government will not be borrowing to finance sustainable investment but making transfer payments which don't boost productivity. All the above lead to the following scenarios for Governments to use to resolve the problem: With prospect of higher spending and relatively lower tax receipts, the government may have to consider some politically unpopular policies. 1. Raise retirement age to reflect longer life spans. In 1950, average life expectancy was 75. It is now 86. But a higher retirement age will not be welcomed by people who have been planning and expecting to retire at 65. Governments may delay implementation of higher pension age for several years. 2. Higher tax rates. Increasing income tax to pay for an ageing population hardly inspires. The argument is higher tax rates will reduce productivity and deter people working. The impact of higher taxes on labour productivity is less than many claim, but, it would still be an unwelcome development 3. Cut spending. Making people pay for private health care and private nursing homes is one solution. But, it would inevitably require an extensive and unpopular means tested scheme to decide who can't afford. It won't please children seeing a fall in their inheritance levels. 4. Immigration. Immigration of young workers will be one of the easiest solutions to the demographic time bomb. But, immigration is equally unpopular. Plus it has an adverse affect on the existing infrastructure so that it's benefits are to a degree neutralised to the extent that if it is not managed correctly with a monitoring of the skills and personal brought into the country it can have a detrimental impact. Negative impact on Exchange Rate * A rapid increase in national debt means the government have to borrow more from the private sector (which as already mentioned above is being squeezed by the burden of supporting an unsustainable public sector.) If markets have 100% confidence in the UK's ability to repay debt - foreigners will be happy to buy some of our debt (through buying bonds and gilts). * If markets start to worry borrowing is getting too high / unmanageable, then investors will not be keen to hold UK government bonds. They will invest abroad i.e. many sterling assets will be sold. This will reduce demand for sterling on foreign exchange markets and cause a depreciation. Basically when investing (especially in turbulent times) it makes sense to invest in the safest countries. If markets start to price in a risk of debt default, it will be more more difficult for that country to attract capital flows. This is exactly what has happened to Greece because they did not take action before it was too late leading to their credit rating being downgraded raising the cost of future government borrowing even further to near unacceptable levels; at the moment the markets are now putting pressure on Portugal & Spain; with the UK & Italy next in the line of fire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10097072.stm But here are the killer reasons why I'm changing my vote from Labour to the Conservatives at this election: Key fact 1: "Labour have doubled the debt. Having inherited a debt of just £351 billion, Labour have more than doubled this to £858 billion. On the Government’s own figures the debt is set to continue to soar to £1.4 trillion by 2015, meaning every person will owe £23,000 - the highest forecast in the EU with the exception of Greece (who now have the EU to bail them out), Portugal & Spain. (ONS, Public Sector Finances; and HM Treasury, Budget 2010)." Key fact 2: "Unemployment higher than in 1997. Unemployment and youth unemployment are both higher than in 1997, while the employment rate is lower than when Labour came to power. Whilst those skivving bast*rds on incapacity benefit have risen from 934K in 1997 to 2.6million under Labour in 2010" Key fact 3: "Competitiveness falling. Britain has fallen from 7th in 1997 to 13th in the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness league table (World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, September 2009)." Key fact 4: " Police officer numbers are already being cut. Thirteen police forces have cut police officer numbers in the last five years (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, Fifth report of Session 2009-10, 19 January 2010). A leaked report for the Home Office, co-written by Mark Rowley, the Chief Constable of Surrey, has raised the prospect of 28,000 police officers being replaced by civilian workers to save money (The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2010). And just four out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales say they plan to maintain current staffing levels (Home Affairs Select Committee, Police Service Strength, January 2010, Appendix A)." Key fact 5: "Total net migration to the UK, the difference between immigration and emigration, increased from 48,000 in 1997 to 163,000 in 2008. The 2008 figure was lower than the preceding years as a result of record emigration. The inflow of people coming to the UK actually increased despite the recession, from 574,000 in 2007 to 590,000 in 2008. This represents a continuation of the level of immigration seen since 2004 (Office of National Statistics, Long-Term International Migration Tables, 1991-latest, 2008 first release, table 2.06; Office of National Statistics, News Release: Emigration reaches record high in 2008, 26 November 2009)." P.S. to LibDem Clegg supporters - In the third and final debate your man was factually incorrect to state that the current net rate of EU citizens coming into this country was 80% in 2009. It was actually just 39% acoording to the Office of National Statistics. Therefore, making Cameron's figure of 600,000 mathematically correct. Which the LibDem leader accused Cameron of being incorrect about. But where did David Cameron get that figure from in the first place - well guess who: f-MVeAYQSN4 We're not going to need the IMF to bail us out, as Greece have (Most of our debts aren't due for repayment for a good few years, and debt is currently at about 60-something% of GDP, compared to 113% of Greece's GDP), and therefore it makes far more sense to avoid the social trauma of another recession and to actually support the recovery rather than go double dip. Just as many key economists back Brown's approach as back Cameron's, so it's not a case of not understanding economics. Holding off for a year is not going to destroy our economy - sure, we incur more interest payments, and higher taxes in the future, but given we've just come out of the most damaging recession since 1921 (indeed, moreso than the Great Depression...) to go into another one would be disastrous for the social fabric of the nation. Do you seriously see there not being riots if a Tory government with the backing of only 30-38% of the populace knowingly makes cuts immediately to send us into another recession? Your point on crowding out is void. The government just embarked upon a huge quantitative easing campaign which gave billions to the banks in order to promote more lending! Again, doing so for another year is unlikely to suck up all of the money available to be borrowed. I agree that the beginning of the retirement of the Boomers is a huge problem, but it is a very difficult issue that I can't see an obvious solution to other than the short-term remedy of increasing the retirement age - means-testing pensions perhaps? I think we definitely need to increase taxes - at least by equalising Capital Gains tax, reducing or removing the entrepreneurial subsidy threshold which has it so that they only pay 10% capital gains on their first £2 million, and restoring Corporation Tax to 33%. Key fact 1: The inference in the Greece/Portugal/Spain fact is an implication that we're in just as bad a fiscal scenario as them. We're not. We're perfectly within our ability to pay back the debt, and the reprivatisation of Northern Rock and the return of the bail out cash will reduce our debts... Key fact 2: Of course it bloody is, we've just been through a recession and business confidence is low! :rolleyes: It would be far more useful to compare the 1997 and 2007 figures. Key fact 3: 'Global competitiveness' judges based on how free market-oriented our policies are. I don't think we should particularly be weeping that we've been overtaken by nations that implement flat tax policies et al. Key fact 4: A sad fact, but I don't see how you think it's a reason to vote Tory, given they'd likely do the same? Key fact 5: This comes as a result of the EU's open borders policy, and despite Cameron's fallacious claims to be able to enforce a cap, there is nothing he can do about it without withdrawing from the EU.
May 4, 201015 yr The YouGov / Sun poll showed a sudden drop in Lib Dem support last week as well. Once Monday's figures dropped out of the sample support was back up again.
May 4, 201015 yr It will be a democratic outrage if David Cameron is our next PM. The Lib Dems and Labour have near-identical outlooks on the economic recovery (even if there are slight policy differences) - and it's almost certain that they together will get more than 50% of the votes, and they'll probably get more than 50% of the seats. The majority of people will have voted for a centre-left government, so that's what we should get.
May 4, 201015 yr There are three words which should put anyone with any sense off from voting Tory - Chancellor George Osborne.
May 4, 201015 yr There are three words which should put anyone with any sense off from voting Tory - Chancellor George Osborne. If this was Facebook i would 'Like' this. Very true
May 5, 201015 yr It will be a democratic outrage if David Cameron is our next PM. The Lib Dems and Labour have near-identical outlooks on the economic recovery (even if there are slight policy differences) - and it's almost certain that they together will get more than 50% of the votes, and they'll probably get more than 50% of the seats. The majority of people will have voted for a centre-left government, so that's what we should get. I suppose that's a problem with a three party system when two of them have the same political views, I suppose. In fact, does anyone know when the last election was where the Tories got more seats than Labour + Lib Dem combined?
May 5, 201015 yr I suppose that's a problem with a three party system when two of them have the same political views, I suppose. In fact, does anyone know when the last election was where the Tories got more seats than Labour + Lib Dem combined? The Tories got an overall majority in 1992, so that was the last time. But they haven't got more VOTES than Labour and the Libs combined since, believe it or not, 1959 (although, in fairness, the two weren't quite so similar then).
May 5, 201015 yr The Tories got an overall majority in 1992, so that was the last time. But they haven't got more VOTES than Labour and the Libs combined since, believe it or not, 1959 (although, in fairness, the two weren't quite so similar then). Yeah, I meant votes :kink: 1959 :o Quite a long time then, if Lab + Lib merged I suppose they'd be almost unbeatable? Still, in essence they're different parties so the whole idea is quite trivial :P
May 5, 201015 yr There are three words which should put anyone with any sense off from voting Tory - Chancellor George Osborne. I think they are the three words which mean there definitely won't be an X next to Conservative on my vote tomorrow.
May 5, 201015 yr Better than late than never. You have until 10PM tomorrow (UK BST) to make your predictions: GENERAL ELECTION PREDICTION GAME Here
May 5, 201015 yr Which household name MP's do you think might get chucked out this election. I remember Michael Portillo & David Mellor losing. So which ones might lose this year, possibly because of the expenses saga. Maybe Jacqui Smith, Ruth Kelly or Hazel Blears, Glenda Jackson, possibly Alistair Darling or Jack Straw.
Create an account or sign in to comment