General Election 2019 thread (17 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

This is something I don’t get. The type of people who have the mentality to do something as decent as being a teacher should be judged negatively on the same mentality because of where it’s led them politically. Doesn’t the fact that teachers tend to be left thinking and the fact that contribute something positive to society say something positive about socialism?

Compare that to your average capitalist whether that be the traders that gamble and lose your pension, invent things like endowment mortgages, disaster capitalist, all things that the working man end up paying for while the people behind them waltz of into the sunset with a big fat bonus, they all tend to be right wing. Unless you’re one of those guys why would you want to be on their side?

We need both. I wouldn’t want most teachers running my company and I certainly wouldn’t want my CEO teaching my kids.

So what do you think if Gordon Brown killing off final salary pension schemes for the private sector?

Savers could have lost £230bn in Brown’s pensions raid

How about leaving the UK skint by overspending and wasting many billions on schemes that were scrapped.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...-New-Labour-spend-too-much-in-government.html

I was hit by the first, personally not a fan obviously but probably needed doing.

And he didn’t “leave the U.K. skint” as stated previously. You can cherry pick one off decisions on each side but the data is clear that on average we have more growth and pay off more debt under Labour than Tories historically.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Corbyn asked Boris for comment on the C4 Despatches investigation into secret meetings with the American pharmaceutical industry during PMQ. Boris predictably changed the subject.

 

[shmmeee]

Not directly related to the GE but not worthy of a thread. Thought this was great from Obama about “call out culture” and wokeness:

 

[Astute]

We need both. I wouldn’t want most teachers running my company and I certainly wouldn’t want my CEO teaching my kids.



I was hit by the first, personally not a fan obviously but probably needed doing.

And he didn’t “leave the U.K. skint” as stated previously. You can cherry pick one off decisions on each side but the data is clear that on average we have more growth and pay off more debt under Labour than Tories historically.

People's futures needed changing through lack of money in retirement so they need to rely on government help in retirement? Nearly as badly wrong as you saying we pay debt off under Labour.

Think about it. Labour come in and give people what they need. But they do too much to quickly and we can't afford it. The Tories get back in and then start austerity to pay off the debt left by Labour.

Government debt under labour 1997-2010 | Economics Help

National debt was well on the way down when Bliar took over in 97. He took it easy until the second election. Then the pensions got hit to try and keep national debt from spiralling. They continued to spend when the recession hit. At today's rate the public deficit went from 7.8 billion to 145 billion a year.

We can go into it in depth if you like.

 

[shmmeee]

People's futures needed changing through lack of money in retirement so they need to rely on government help in retirement? Nearly as badly wrong as you saying we pay debt off under Labour.

Think about it. Labour come in and give people what they need. But they do too much to quickly and we can't afford it. The Tories get back in and then start austerity to pay off the debt left by Labour.

Government debt under labour 1997-2010 | Economics Help

National debt was well on the way down when Bliar took over in 97. He took it easy until the second election. Then the pensions got hit to try and keep national debt from spiralling. They continued to spend when the recession hit. At today's rate the public deficit went from 7.8 billion to 145 billion a year.

We can go into it in depth if you like.

You should spend during a recession. Otherwise you deepen the recession. The time for austerity is when the private sector can pick up the slack.

Tax cuts are also spending, but don’t put money in the right places. Generally giving the rich money ends up off shore and not invested in economic activity since returns are greater in rentier activity like property ownership. Spending money on say education and the NHS increases the people locally with money to spend which increases the local economy.

The idea that government spending is like household spending is incorrect. The economy is an ecosystem and starving it doesn’t lead to growth. This is basic economics and was universally accepted until Thatcher got in with her fringe Chicago school ideas.

I’d also look at National assets. Tories like to give away things to their mates. Just like spending on an asset isn’t the same as day to day spending, giving away assets hurts the overall finances.

And again, look at the data. Labour run more surpluses and pay off more debt.

Your claim that all Tory spending is Labours fault and all Labour spending is Labours fault is a novel one though.

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

People's futures needed changing through lack of money in retirement so they need to rely on government help in retirement? Nearly as badly wrong as you saying we pay debt off under Labour.

Think about it. Labour come in and give people what they need. But they do too much to quickly and we can't afford it. The Tories get back in and then start austerity to pay off the debt left by Labour.

Government debt under labour 1997-2010 | Economics Help

National debt was well on the way down when Bliar took over in 97. He took it easy until the second election. Then the pensions got hit to try and keep national debt from spiralling. They continued to spend when the recession hit. At today's rate the public deficit went from 7.8 billion to 145 billion a year.

We can go into it in depth if you like.

They can’t see the truth,Just soiling their pants while looking up at the hammer and sickle.
While McDonnell and McClusky smoke their big fat Havana cigars on the beach in beautiful socialist and stable Venezuela laughing at their comrades!!!

 

[shmmeee]

They can’t see the truth,Just soiling their pants while looking up at the hammer and sickle.
While McDonnell and McClusky smoke their big fat Havana cigars on the beach in beautiful socialist and stable Venezuela laughing at their comrades!!!

You OK mate? Need us to call someone?

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

You OK mate? Need us to call someone?

I remember the 70’s and labour will take us back there.

 

[shmmeee]

I remember the 70’s and labour will take us back there.

OK buddy

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I remember the 70’s and labour will take us back there.

Don't worry the Tories have taken us back to the 1870s

 

[clint van damme]

I remember the 70’s and labour will take us back there.

How many people died from austerity in the 70s?
How many homeless people were there in the 70s?
How many people used food banks in the 70s?

 

[Astute]

You should spend during a recession. Otherwise you deepen the recession. The time for austerity is when the private sector can pick up the slack.

Tax cuts are also spending, but don’t put money in the right places. Generally giving the rich money ends up off shore and not invested in economic activity since returns are greater in rentier activity like property ownership. Spending money on say education and the NHS increases the people locally with money to spend which increases the local economy.

The idea that government spending is like household spending is incorrect. The economy is an ecosystem and starving it doesn’t lead to growth. This is basic economics and was universally accepted until Thatcher got in with her fringe Chicago school ideas.

I’d also look at National assets. Tories like to give away things to their mates. Just like spending on an asset isn’t the same as day to day spending, giving away assets hurts the overall finances.

And again, look at the data. Labour run more surpluses and pay off more debt.

Your claim that all Tory spending is Labours fault and all Labour spending is Labours fault is a novel one though.

They were seriously spending before the recession. And it continued after it started.

 

[shmmeee]

They were seriously spending before the recession. And it continued after it started.

Ive already said he possibly overspent in the couple of years beforehand, but again my point isn’t about cherry picked decisions. Do you want me to go through all the Tory overspending? Billions in tax cuts? Handing over social housing to buy votes? Spending on expensive private involvement in public services?

Taken as a whole Labour are better for the national finances than the Tories and even if you don’t accept that, there’s certainly no truth to the “labour bankrupt the country” meme you seem to subscribe to.

 

[Astute]

Your claim that all Tory spending is Labours fault and all Labour spending is Labours fault is a novel one though.

So I said the Tories cutting everything too much is the fault of Labour?

Labour spend too much. The Tories cut too much. Labour spends as it goes to those who need it unless it was Bliar who was more like a Tory. The Tories cut too much as they want to take the tax burden off the rich.

Which part would you like to twist or question this time?

 

[Skybluefaz]

Leaving the eu is going to waste Billions, drop gdp by 6% over 10 years. Tory.

 

[Astute]

Ive already said he possibly overspent in the couple of years beforehand, but again my point isn’t about cherry picked decisions. Do you want me to go through all the Tory overspending? Billions in tax cuts? Handing over social housing to buy votes? Spending on expensive private involvement in public services?

Taken as a whole Labour are better for the national finances than the Tories and even if you don’t accept that, there’s certainly no truth to the “labour bankrupt the country” meme you seem to subscribe to.

No. I stick to the truth.

So Labour didn't escalate the social housing selloff?

Already showed what Bliar did to the NHS when Fern said it was the Tories.

Now you say that the best thing to do is spend your way out of a recession. It is if you want inflation to run away.

 

[shmmeee]

No. I stick to the truth.

So Labour didn't escalate the social housing selloff?

Already showed what Bliar did to the NHS when Fern said it was the Tories.

Now you say that the best thing to do is spend your way out of a recession. It is if you want inflation to run away.

Basic Keynesian economics says that. Not me.

If the government reduces demand then growth suffers. This isn’t rocket science.

 

[Astute]

I remember the 70’s and labour will take us back there.

So do I. Rubbish piled up on street corners. Electric switched off. Was told it was like the blitz. Workers on 3 day weeks.

 

[Astute]

Basic Keynesian economics says that. Not me.

If the government reduces demand then growth suffers. This isn’t rocket science.

The economy shouldn't be government based. It runs up debt. It isn't rocket science.

And how about the other points you have handily ignored?

 

[shmmeee]

So do I. Rubbish piled up on street corners. Electric switched off. Was told it was like the blitz. Workers on 3 day weeks.

Do you think we have the same union power and mass employment now as we had in the 70s? Or for that matter the oil prices.

If not why are you making this analogy?

 

[shmmeee]

The economy shouldn't be government based. It runs up debt. It isn't rocket science.

Who said anything about “government based” (whatever that means)?

Standard mixed market economy.

And again, just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. Across the world social democratic governments do just fine. Ranting about the 70s and Venezuela just makes you look like a crank.

Do you see anyone claiming the Tories want us to be like Syria or any other failed state?

 

[Astute]

Do you think we have the same union power and mass employment now as we had in the 70s? Or for that matter the oil prices.

If not why are you making this analogy?

So the Tories have everything the same?

Of course not. But one rule for one and a different rule for the other.

 

[Astute]

Who said anything about “government based” (whatever that means)?

Standard mixed market economy.

You said government spending. So what did you mean?

And how about them points you ignored?

 

[shmmeee]

You said government spending. So what did you mean?

I meant government spending. The government is best placed to weather an economic storm. It borrows money at cheaper rates and can target it in a way the free market can’t.

A good government provides the platform for growth for private industry, it doesn’t just fuck off. Read some Mariana Mazzucato.

Question: where do you think money the government spends goes? Into a big pit?

 

[shmmeee]

So the Tories have everything the same?

Of course not. But one rule for one and a different rule for the other.

What are you on about?

If you’re worried about a return to the 70s I’d have thought you’d have the slightest idea how it happened is all.

Not even sure why you’re bringing the Tories in, same as what??

 

[Grendel]

Im just going to leave this here. Figures from 2016, it’s only got worse for the Tories since then. Any notion that Labour is either worse for the debt, or responsible for the *global* financial crash is beyond ludicrous.

View attachment 13336View attachment 13337

In fact, Browns response was hailed around the world as leading the response and avoiding further disaster: Nobel winner Paul Krugman: How Gordon saved the world | This is Money

Of course you wouldn’t know either of those things if you only read the Mail or watched BBC.

As for not spending it wisely, I’d rather reducing child poverty and improving public services than lining the pockets of billionaires (or garden bridge designers).

Why do you keep peddling this tripe?

 

[shmmeee]

You said government spending. So what did you mean?

And how about them points you ignored?

To be honest I’m very aware that this thread is becoming the shmmeee and astute show, but as you asked:



Yes social housing sales continued under Blair (though at much lower levels) and I don’t agree with that, though this is a GE thread and Blair isn’t up for election. Are you seriously telling me Corbyn is as anti-social housing or for a private NHS?

Corbyns election was a direct backlash in the party against Blairism.

It seems one minute you’re scared we will be the next Venezuela and the next that we’ll have Blairism. Which is it?

You jumped onto a post about Labours overall economic record and are now bouncing around desperately trying to find something else.

For the record: it is my belief that politics is a pendulum that should never swing too far either way. For the last 40 years we’ve been swinging towards individualism and we need to swing back. Even if Corbyn wanted to take us back to the 70s (and he doesn’t the economic thinking is far more modern - again read Mazzucato) he literally couldn’t undo the last 40 years in one shot.

 

[Astute]

To be honest I’m very aware that this thread is becoming the shmmeee and astute show, but as you asked:

View attachment 13340

Yes social housing sales continued under Blair (though at much lower levels) and I don’t agree with that, though this is a GE thread and Blair isn’t up for election. Are you seriously telling me Corbyn is as anti-social housing or for a private NHS?

Corbyns election was a direct backlash in the party against Blairism.

It seems one minute you’re scared we will be the next Venezuela and the next that we’ll have Blairism. Which is it?

You jumped onto a post about Labours overall economic record and are now bouncing around desperately trying to find something else.

For the record: it is my belief that politics is a pendulum that should never swing too far either way. For the last 40 years we’ve been swinging towards individualism and we need to swing back. Even if Corbyn wanted to take us back to the 70s (and he doesn’t the economic thinking is far more modern - again read Mazzucato) he literally couldn’t undo the last 40 years in one shot.

This is the shhmmmeeee show. And each time I point out where you are wring and you can't deny it you just ignore my replies.

Well here is another one for you to twist or ignore

Labour’s claim of being the party of council housing is in tatters | Coffee House

 

[CCFCSteve]

I meant government spending. The government is best placed to weather an economic storm. It borrows money at cheaper rates and can target it in a way the free market can’t.

A good government provides the platform for growth for private industry, it doesn’t just fuck off. Read some Mariana Mazzucato.

Question: where do you think money the government spends goes? Into a big pit?

You can’t have it both ways though Shmmeee ie the worldwide financial crisis wasn’t the government at the times fault but the government trying sort the mess out following it is to blame for not dealing with it correctly ?! They were unusual and extreme times. Also you say that the government should spend big during recessions (to pick up the slack) and yet labour were spending big for 13 years pre financial crisis during times of strong economic growth ?!!

The fact is if the Coalition government hadn’t take certain steps the cost of borrowing would’ve shot up. The fairer question is when in the recovery should the Tories starting increasing spending. I personally think Hammond was way too cautious, especially in relation to infrastructure projects and should have done more earlier.

I can handle a balanced view ie labour had to improve public services in the early years of Blair government but then also didn’t control spending between 2002 and 2008 leaving us with nothing to play with when the crisis hit, or the Tories needed to make cuts in 2010 to retain a semblance of control over public finances but could’ve maybe have ended ‘austerity’ earlier but to keep such a one sided bias actually weakens some good/sensible points

Ps Check out the cuts that Ireland and Greece had to make post financial crisis....that’s austerity ! From memory Ireland’s public sector workers had an immediate 7%-10% pay cut ! Bizarrely, it could be argued that by taking more drastic/immediate action, meant they bounced back out of recession a lot quicker/better than we did.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I decided last night that I had to vote labour as I couldn’t vote for Johnson

 

[shmmeee]

Classic compassionate Conservatives.

You can’t have it both ways though Shmmeee ie the worldwide financial crisis wasn’t the government at the times fault but the government trying sort the mess out following it is to blame for not dealing with it correctly ?! They were unusual and extreme times. Also you say that the government should spend big during recessions (to pick up the slack) and yet labour were spending big for 13 years pre financial crisis during times of strong economic growth ?!!

The fact is if the Coalition government hadn’t take certain steps the cost of borrowing would’ve shot up. The fairer question is when in the recovery should the Tories starting increasing spending. I personally think Hammond was way too cautious, especially in relation to infrastructure projects and should have done more earlier.

I can handle a balanced view ie labour had to improve public services in the early years of Blair government but then also didn’t control spending between 2002 and 2008 leaving us with nothing to play with when the crisis hit, or the Tories needed to make cuts in 2010 to retain a semblance of control over public finances but could’ve maybe have ended ‘austerity’ earlier but to keep such a one sided bias actually weakens some good/sensible points

Ps Check out the cuts that Ireland and Greece had to make post financial crisis....that’s austerity ! From memory Ireland’s public sector workers had an immediate 7%-10% pay cut ! Bizarrely, it could be argued that by taking more drastic/immediate action, meant they bounced back out of recession a lot quicker/better than we did.

We had one of the slowest recoveries post crash thanks to the Tory mismanagement of the economy IIRC.

I’m not sure what the conflict between saying Labour didn’t cause the sub-prime crisis and the Tories didn’t handle the aftermath well is TBH, can you expand?

 

[Philosoraptor]

It was a call down of both Blair and Brown but coupled with EU vote in general it is a call down of neoliberalism in general.

One thing these votes tell us from the Labour leadership contest and the EU referendum in general is the majority of the public and a huge percentage of the Labour grassroots folks now want a different path to take.

It's a complete rejection of the last twenty years In politics at the first opportunity where the People were allowed to make a decision.

The problem with this pendulum analogy is that to most people all the main political parties were stuck at the same point so you couldn't tell difference between the parties, and no real choice was offered at elections.

You stopped voting for political ideology and started voting for management teams which also, in my opinion, has lead to a complete fall in turnout in local elections and the 'No' vote in the EU referendum, with people complaining that they are not being listened to.

 

[shmmeee]

It was a call down of both Blair and Brown but coupled with EU vote in general it is a call down of neoliberalism in general.

One thing these votes tell us from the Labour leadership contest and the EU referendum in general is the mqjority of the public and a huge percentage of the Labour grassroots folks now want a different path to take.

It's a complete rejection of the last twenty years In politics at the first opportunity where the People were allowed to make a decision.

The problem with this pendulum analogy is that to most people all the main political parties were stuck at the same point so you couldn't tell difference between the parties, and no real choice was offered at elections.

You stopped voting for political ideology and started voting for management teams which also, in my opinion, has lead to a complete fall in turnout in local elections and the 'No' vote in the EU referendum, with people complaining that they are not being listened to.

Lots of good points.

I think the backlash you speak of is how the pendulum starts to swing the other way. Astutes 70s are the other side of that. The war the one before that.

It’s not about political parties but prevailing orthodoxy. Tories were Keynesian between the war and Thatcher. Labour neoliberal from Thatcher to Corbyn.

 

[Grendel]

Im just going to leave this here. Figures from 2016, it’s only got worse for the Tories since then. Any notion that Labour is either worse for the debt, or responsible for the *global* financial crash is beyond ludicrous.

View attachment 13336View attachment 13337

.

OK lets end this idiocy here and now.

These "calculations" are from a certain Richard Murphy.

Who is Richard Murphy? Well Richard Murphy is the chief economic and taxation advisor of the TUC.

He also describes himself as "the author of Corbynomics" so in other words he is a Labour activist. He is lauded by the Guardian and especially the idiotic Polly Toynbee. These rather poorly illustrated Excel calculations are part of a text of left leaning drivel in an article he concocted to advocate his Corbynomic theories - it has no backing from any independent source.

Murphy is a loose cannon and had form - he was taken apart in a previous libel action and paid substantial damaged to Lord Ashcroft - see here

Tory chief Lord Ashcroft settles website libel claim - Press Gazette

He thinks there is a conspiracy against him and has launched several tirades on social media - he comes across as not the most balanced individual

What I didn’t get to say on Newsnight

He has no credibility on this issue (other than in the Guardian) and the findings have been ridiculed essentially because of the massive level of borrowing that has happened since 2007. It went from £40 billion to £155 billion by the end of the last Labour administration. The next administration - though a coalition one - is then conveniently lumped as Tory in the rather shabby Excel sheet. He offers some vague attempt to "balance" spend but oddly ignores the actual size of the economy and fails to explain the calculation - one wonders why the founder of Corbynomics would be so vague.

The size of the economy is ignored for obvious reasons as it then paints a very different picture - peak levels of borrowing against economy size is most commonly defined by a budget shortfall calculation against GDP and most happened in the post war Labour administration and again in the late 70's and then of course in the dying years of the Blair / Brown administration. In one year alone the Labour 1945 administration borrowed 15% of GDP - none of this is considered in the flawed analysis

I do laugh how a poster can be so condescending yet cites a propaganda piece and just takes it as Gospel. Its a laughable attempt at promoting the left wing think tank and has no basis in fact whatseover

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The economy shouldn't be government based. It runs up debt. It isn't rocket science.

No, it should be a mix. But in troubled times it usually falls upon the public sector to make up the shortfall because the private sector retreats due to fear, heightening the problem. It is a time to invest in infrastructure projects to provide jobs and money into the economy, providing confidence to the private sector to get involved again quicker than they otherwise would. So although it requires more public money initially it isn't required for the same amount of time.

One instance of when the private sector invested during bad times was the Rockefeller Centre. It was a major stimulus during the Great Depression and looked upon very favourably because it gave people jobs and money. But it also let Rockefeller get that building done more quickly and cheaply than if it'd been done during traditional construction booms when times are good due to the high level of unemployment.[/QUOTE]