Nick
Administrator
Then every body applauded?
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (93 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Oh god here we go again, deficit spending is automatically inflationary.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Politics is just going to be volatile as fuck now.
winning such a high portion of seats on such a low percentage of vote is precarious AF.
Starmer is going to have to deliver something in his first term or there could be an equally big shock next time round.
He’s lucky the right wing vote split so much and will hope that it remains that way.
winning such a high portion of seats on such a low percentage of vote is precarious AF.
Starmer is going to have to deliver something in his first term or there could be an equally big shock next time round.
He’s lucky the right wing vote split so much and will hope that it remains that way.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Just looking at the list of Conservative MPs and they're not exactly overflowing with options for the next leader.
Do they go down the Braverman / Badenoch batshit crazy route, IMO an absolute gift to Labour; an old hand with the danger they're linked in voters minds to the shitshow we've just got rid off; the unthinkable folding in of Reform and Farage or is there a new name waiting in the wings?
Do they go down the Braverman / Badenoch batshit crazy route, IMO an absolute gift to Labour; an old hand with the danger they're linked in voters minds to the shitshow we've just got rid off; the unthinkable folding in of Reform and Farage or is there a new name waiting in the wings?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Facile, trite and ridiculous response.
Nick
Administrator
Well it is the usual case that get shown to be incorrect then go on about something else and try and use words to act superior.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
No, but printing money is.
The costs of servicing public sector debt is already £40-odd billion so good luck with bold public spending plans.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
There was a piece on this on BBC news a few weeks ago that I tried to find but couldn't, it backs this up in showing that the vast majority of immigration is people on work visas or overseas students, the issue is net migration which was at something like 0.5 million, unless you have the infrastructure in place to handle that influx it will create the environment for Farage to exploit.Friends is this correct
Mike Jones tell us how Mike? And I assume the illegal immigrants are anyone that comes on a boat or hides under or in a lorry or a van?
For the last records we have ye dec 23 immigration in total was 1.2m of which
85%’of whom have come from non-eu countries
The vast majority are coming to work and bring their families
Most numerous sectors are health and social care
Why do people come to the UK? To work
www.gov.uk
29000 of that figure were people in small boats!!!! 29000 out of 1.2m or 0.02%
Further about just shy of 70% asylum claims are accepted
So what do you mean illegal immigration? Just the boats or what areas of health and social care are you going to not deliver?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And that's government's fault for not spending the cash economic immigrants generate.
Or, look another way, how bad would it be without that net contribution? Who would we blame without it?
People need to understand the vote share. It’s being used by some to knock Labour and it’s just copium.
Obviously, goes without saying, but the headline number is the number of seats. That’s literally all that matters.
Labour could have had a far higher vote share and won fewer seats. What use is 10,000 extra votes in a safe constituency? Instead they focused their campaigning on marginal and swing seats, and weren’t bothered about losing votes in safe seats.
It was a very efficient and very effective campaign. Exactly what was needed. And clearly it worked.
In 2017 Labour won a big vote share and lost because they were just increasing the lead in safe seats. This campaign has been far more efficient.
Obviously, goes without saying, but the headline number is the number of seats. That’s literally all that matters.
Labour could have had a far higher vote share and won fewer seats. What use is 10,000 extra votes in a safe constituency? Instead they focused their campaigning on marginal and swing seats, and weren’t bothered about losing votes in safe seats.
It was a very efficient and very effective campaign. Exactly what was needed. And clearly it worked.
In 2017 Labour won a big vote share and lost because they were just increasing the lead in safe seats. This campaign has been far more efficient.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Whilst we are busy arguing about what school your MP went to, some of the independent winners are slipping under the radar. I say slipping under the radar, it has come as almost no surprise to me that no one on here has bothered to mention them.
www.theguardian.com
Senior Labour figures admit stance on Gaza cost party seats
Wes Streeting says it is clear Middle East crisis was real issue for some voters after wins for several independents
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The net benefit is about £3.3bn - you’re not getting much with that.
Again, that’s without spending the money on the infrastructure to keep up with levels. What does that look like then?
There’s a reason GDP per capita is going down steadily since net migration has picked up.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's looking at the risk going forward. Our system often looks at what can happen next time and, if Labour either don't impress, engage, or show some demonstrable progress they'll be out. The cuchion is what protects and without that your base is more built on sand - look at northern seats for example, which are by no means endorsing Labour as they used to.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
Whilst the thesis behind it is vaguely correct, it’s rather interesting how many large economies managed to pull off extensive QE programmes over the last 10-15 years whilst rates remained at sub-1% and inflation was under control. Would have been fantastic to invest some of that money rather than wanking it away on tax cuts (Covid-aside).
As for how I’m paying for infrastructure spend, modest tax increases and QE.
Absolutely, I don't disagree with any of that.
It's the notion that it was somehow a terrible result for Labour which I take umbrage with.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
QE has suppressed interest rates and if there was a time to commit to large public spending commitments, it was then.
Alas, interest rates are around 5-6% and because asset prices have ballooned (partly because of QE), historically normal interest rates cause people issues.
At some point, public expenditure will need to be cut, taxes raised or both. Both Tory and Labour went through this election with that delusion.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Cost of servicing debt = a surplus for the private investments, e.g. pensions mostly etc in those debts. It costs the UK government nothing to create the money to pay that interest and it would never ever be unable to pay it.
The UK recorded a budget surplus in 1988 and 1989. Weirdly, the inflation rate in 1990 and 1991 climed to 7% and then 7.5%. The relationship between deficit spending and inflation is exceptionally flimsy. Inflation post the Truss budget was still predominantly down to things that had nothing to do with that budget.
Every single penny the government spends on every single day is 'printed'.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I know the guy that ran against Jess Phillips.
He used to be sound but got shit loads of media attention after getting pushed out of his wheelchair in a cuts protest and turned into a right prick. I'm glad he didn't win even though I really dislike Phillips.
He used to be sound but got shit loads of media attention after getting pushed out of his wheelchair in a cuts protest and turned into a right prick. I'm glad he didn't win even though I really dislike Phillips.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Very good points, but I said printing money is inflationary, not deficit spending.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yes, they'll now lurch even more to the right and become Reform V2. They're fucked.
Nick
Administrator
Haven't you had your local MP come and change your life?Haven't noticed any change yet. Time to get these corrupt lying wankers out of office
Haven't noticed any change yet. Time to get these corrupt lying wankers out of office
Weather is still shit!
Starmer must condemn.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
An effective campaign would not give you the lowest number of votes you've had for 9 years
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The UK government matches all of its 'money printing' with gilt sales
But it would give you as many seats as the last two elections combined.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Am I the only one only just finding out Sunaks gone?!
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You can add SNP collapse to that, on a scale that very few saw coming.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Good news for half of this forum
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Tbf you can't underestimate the impact of
A) tactical voting across country
B) the pro Gaza vote in high Muslim areas
C) low turnout
D) Farage joining Reform
With the massive lead in the polls, its a massive achievement by Labour, it was theirs to lose and they didn't drop the Ming Vase.
A) tactical voting across country
B) the pro Gaza vote in high Muslim areas
C) low turnout
D) Farage joining Reform
With the massive lead in the polls, its a massive achievement by Labour, it was theirs to lose and they didn't drop the Ming Vase.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
You are of course correct, and the strategy team at Labour HQ have done an excellent job on this aspect. It’s a shame we didn’t have that in place in 2017 and we might have been rid of the Tories sooner.
It will however stoke the proportional representation debate when you have numbers of votes returning seats in the way they have.
And Corbyn still got more votes… both times
Everyone’s running massive debt to gdp ratios and will be having the same challenges around servicing the debt as us. Fernando is right, we can print more and then the BoE buy our own guilts (sounds weird just typing it) but this is not without its own issues ie still have to pay interest back and debasement of currency, with some inflation thrown in, which usually leads to higher BoE rates to control inflation…which leads to higher government borrowing costs…and round we go !
There’s a bit of reckoning coming in the west and I really don’t know how it’s all doing to pan out. As I’ve suggested to Fernando, keep an eye/read up on Japan. Might end up ok, might not, only time will tell
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Its perfectly possible to understand how vote share works but also to be interested in the underlying numbers.
Plenty of people suggesting this is a 'bigger' win than Blair yet Labour are nearly 4m votes down on that election despite winning roughly the same number of seats. The numbers do seem to lend some credence to the idea that the state of the current government and the split of the right vote have played a significant part here. It would be foolish of Labour to ignore this as we all know the Conservatives are the masters of reinvention and shedding their baggage.
There's already plenty of people saying Labour can't fix things in one term, but there's always a danger that's all they will get if the Conservatives can find a leader to unite the party while bringing Reform voters back in to the fold. A big ask but not impossible.
And that's before you even get to Corbyn's Labour being an absolute disaster & completely unelectable getting 12,877,918 vote (40%) and 10,269,051 (32.1%) compared to Starmer's Labour being celebrated as the greatest triumph ever seen with 9,686,329 (33.7%)
Of course as ever the votes, and how they correlate to seats, which lead to discussions of how fit for purpose FPTP is. As ever the question of how many of those that didn't vote didn't do so because they felt their vote wouldn't impact anything, how many people stayed at home because they feel none of the parties represent them?