UK Election

Usher

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
932
Reaction score
107
Location
Scotland
I think this is the work of the media with the way they demonised the SNP.

The thing Labour did not do was to dilute the hellfire and damnation chucked in the SNP's direction. They did not have to support them to be more civil and measured in their approach. And I think that was their big loss.
 

eyeblink

Barbara says hi
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
893
Location
Aldershot, UK
With the last seat declared (St Ives, always one of the last to come in because of ballot boxes being transported from the Isles of Scilly, and another LibDem loss), the Conservatives end up with 331 which is an overall majority of six, or a bit more if you discount the Sinn Fein MPs.

It does feel like 1992 again, and that was an election I stayed up to watch the results come in for as well.
 

aliwood

Penmonkey Contrarian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
8,581
Reaction score
1,563
Location
UK Cantina
Website
truckloadofart.wordpress.com
It does feel like 1992 again, and that was an election I stayed up to watch the results come in for as well.

You know my gran doesn't watch England play football because they always lose when she does. Maybe we should apply the same rule. :D

Now watching my local council results come in. They've been counting since midday and have only announced three wards so far. Must be a higher turnout than normal.
 

eyeblink

Barbara says hi
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
6,358
Reaction score
893
Location
Aldershot, UK
You know my gran doesn't watch England play football because they always lose when she does. Maybe we should apply the same rule. :D

But then 1997 wouldn't have happened... I stayed up for that one too!
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
Happy to say our Labour MP of 28 years has retained his seat (he also gives them hell down at Westminster :D).
 

aliwood

Penmonkey Contrarian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
8,581
Reaction score
1,563
Location
UK Cantina
Website
truckloadofart.wordpress.com
But then 1997 wouldn't have happened... I stayed up for that one too!

Actually, so did I. I went to bed early in 1992, Labour were ahead at that point. When I woke up, the world had changed. I got a big shock because I believed the BBC exit poll forecasting a labour win.

Can't wait to see how opinion polling changes after this. There must have been some real cockups somewhere. I do wonder if they were constantly reinforcing their own assumptions.

So my choice for parliament lost, my choice for mayor has just lost by 256 votes. If you are any of my three choices for the council I wouldn't get your hopes up. :D
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
It's quite funny in a depressing way looking at the map of where I live. It's one little red island in a sea of blue.......

sigh.
 

Usher

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
932
Reaction score
107
Location
Scotland
I've actually got to get on a boat or drive for 4+ hours to get anything other than SNP.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
LOL! No, I'm in Birmingham. Surrounded by Coventry, Warwick, Worcestershire, Herefordshire.... there's basically us and the Black Country in red. That's it in the middle.
 

PeteMC

@PeteMC666
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
367
Location
UK
Website
talonwraith.wordpress.com
Oh right - I'm in Norwich North, there's one tiny red spec under us on the map in the Deep Blue Sea of Norfolk.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Let's put those "Tory cuts" into context.

The Government can only spend the money that it raises through taxes or borrows. Right now, we are far too much compared to tax income, which in turn is leading to growing levels of Government debt. National debt stands at around £1.5 trillion - about the same as consumer debt on credit cards, loans and overdrafts. We are currently spending around £43 billion a year on interest repayments.

That gives us a choice about whether to reduce spending or carry on borrowing in order to spend more. Borrowing to spend might sound more attractive to the voters, but it's only delaying the inevitable. All that borrowing has to be paid back. and with interest. This means that the "borrow to spend" tactic costs more in the long run - in effect saddling our children with this generation's debt.

This meant that the choice at the election boiled down to:

Tories - painful austerity now to reduce debts more quickly.
Labour - slightly less painful austerity to reduce the debts a bit more slowly
Lib Dems - a bit like labour
UKIP - blame it all on Johnny Foreigner
SNP - spend, spend, spend whether it is by borrowing or giving more of the UK's money to Scotland.

The good thing about Thursday's outcome is that some of the electorate seem to have a reasonable understanding on how public finances work. The bad thing is that a large proportion of people still don't.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
The good thing about Thursday's outcome is that some of the electorate seem to have a reasonable understanding on how public finances work. The bad thing is that a large proportion of people still don't.

You've just described how household finances work. You demonstrate little understanding of public finances. If you did, you would have mentioned that the main way to reduce debt is through growth.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
I've been working in Government finance for 30 years, including 13 years as a policy civil servant in Whitehall.

There are several ways to reduce public debt - the main three are increased taxation, reduced spending and economic growth. The parties who were talking sense at the election were balancing all three. Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all produced more or less balanced manifestos that would have worked, although with varying degrees of pain and the length of time taken to reduce the deficit.

The parties who were not talking sense were the ones who either ignored the deficit altogether or who thought that there was only silver bullet, such as economic growth on its own.

Current economic growth in the UK is 0.3% (first quarter 2015, GDP). Even on the most optimistic forecasts for economic growth, there is no way that it will even keep pace with growing pressures on public spending (increased birth rate and an ageing population), let alone reduce the deficit.

Sorry, but the idea that economic growth will reduce the deficit is way out of date.
 

EMaree

a demon for tea
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,655
Reaction score
839
Location
Scotland
Website
www.emmamaree.com
SNP - spend, spend, spend whether it is by borrowing or giving more of the UK's money to Scotland.

I did have a long reply to this, but I'm going to keep it short: I'm honestly really disappointed that you would sum up a party's policies in a way that's not only false, but implies they're taking undeserved "UK" money.

So now it's grubby Scots stealing English money? How very Daily Mail.
 
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
The SNP have repeatedly called for an end to austerity and above inflation increases in spending. They openly campaigned on the basis of winning more money for Scotland. And where is this money going to come from ...?

And no, it isn't all going to come from economic growth or efficiencies. Savings from those factors are already assumed in Government spending forecasts.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. After all, this is how Westminster works. Each narrow-interest party argues for more money in its area, whether this is Plaid arguing for more spending in Wales or the Greens wanting more spending on the environment. The Government's job is to balance all the competing calls for money and deliver the best compromise budget that it can.

The biggest scandal here is the SNP claiming that they are going to end austerity by spending more money. That is not an end to austerity. It is simply deferring and expanding the problem that we are going to face in the future.
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
I did have a long reply to this, but I'm going to keep it short: I'm honestly really disappointed that you would sum up a party's policies in a way that's not only false, but implies they're taking undeserved "UK" money.

So now it's grubby Scots stealing English money? How very Daily Mail.
Is it false though?
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Austerity does work. It has worked in the UK and it would work in Greece if they had implemented it properly (and soon enough). Greece's main problem was that they accumulated too much debt relative to GDP. In other words, spending money that they did not have and relying on unsustainable borrowing to make up the shortfall.

Sounds familiar?

Greece would not be in its current position if it had pursued austerity policies before now.

There is a scholarly debate to be had about the relative value of austerity versus stimulus. But the argument tends to polarise between the two extremes - ie "pure" austerity (not spending money on anything) versus extreme stimulus (spending money like it is going out of fashion). The reality is that when most Governments talk about austerity they really mean a nuanced version, where they reduce spending in some areas but increase it in others. For example, the Conservatives won the election on a manifesto based on cuts in some areas but increases in spending on jobs, housing and infrastructure.

The IMF, after initially criticising the UK, later admitted that its austerity policies had been appropriate.

The elephant in the room is the cost pressure of an increasingly ageing population. It isn't enough just to reduce the deficit to meet the current need to spend - we also need to get ready for an increasingly expensive health service, plus mushrooming social care and pension budgets.
 

Interfaced

Incoming Author
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
117
Reaction score
7
Location
UK
Website
www.futureconscience.com
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
I would recommend reading both sides of the argument. Paul Krugman is a famous opponent of austerity, but there are also equally erudite arguments that austerity does work, such as Blumberg and the IMF:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-07/why-austerity-works-and-fiscal-stimulus-doesn-t

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/austerity-works-says-the-imfs-latest-study-30764623.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/03/12/the-austerity-wars-debunking-paul-krugman/

We have a clear choice here. We can read both sides of the argument and then make our own minds up. Or we can make our minds up and then look for someone saying what we have already decided. I know which makes more sense to me.

Where Krugman has a point is that pure austerity (nothing but cuts) probably doesn't work. There does need to be some financial stimulus. But that is precisely what the UK Government is doing ... and is also what a Labour or Lib-Lab pact would have done. Austerity in some areas of spending is being matched with increased spending in areas that help to boost the economy, such as the Conservative's pledge of £100 billion of investment in infrastructure.

Where Krugman's arguments fall over is that he either ignores or downplays the increasing cost of an ageing population. He is basing his theories on one (disputed) interpretation of the past without looking at the demographic pressures we are facing now.

But while you will find a small number of economists arguing against austerity on principle, you will find very few advocating SNP levels of overspending.