Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Hatter The Mad]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the deficit was only increased relative to our increase in GDP? I'm not sure about that, but I'm fairly certain I've read it from a reliable source. The sale of the gold doesn't need any further discussion, ridiculous is the word of the day.

Nope - it increased ahead of our GDP growth - almost 5% between 2001 and 2007.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I wonder if Gordon feels a pang of guilt when he sees cash4gold adverts on the telly ?

 

[dirtydog]

I wonder if Gordon feels a pang of guilt when he sees cash4gold adverts on the telly ?

I get the impression he has an utterly unshakable belief in his own rightness on every issue, regardless of all facts to the contrary.

 

[robgmun]

I get the impression he has an utterly unshakable belief in his own rightness on every issue, regardless of all facts to the contrary.

I would stick BritBoy in the same catagory

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I get the impression he has an utterly unshakable belief in his own rightness on every issue, regardless of all facts to the contrary.

From the books I have read, me too

 

[Naffa]

Sounds rather like Blair, doesn't it?

"I know that I am right"...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Sounds rather like Blair, doesn't it?

"I know that I am right"...

No, worse, because Blair didn't suround himself solely with like-minded people, and didn't seek to do stupid stuff like promote Ed Balls to Chancellor, just because Ed is Gordon's closest friend in the cabinet.

Don't forget that - Brown was going to replace the chancellor who had so far taken us through the recession with his mate, just because.

Thankfully Brown is too weak to get rid of Darling, who is actually a comparatively good chancellor and fairly honest person. He only isn't a good chancellor and is a dishonest person when Brown has a large say in the chancellor's affairs - i.e. the PBR lies and stupid policies, the VAT cut, the deficit under-projections. It is easy to tell when Brown has had heavy influence in Darling's work because Darling looks uncomfortable, having to step out of his usual quiet and self-deprecating manner and into some false Brownism.

Shortly after the attempted coup, Darling went on Marr and told more (but not all) truth about planned Government cuts.

Brown had to be arm wrestled by the chancellor to let him get on with his job. It is disgraceful.

And this is the guy you want to vote for, naffa?

Following the attempted coup, cabinet members marched into Brown's office demanding concessions that pertain to each individual's agenda, in exchange for public support.

And this is the underhanded, selfish cabinet personality you want to vote for, naffa?

 

[Naffa]

And this is the underhanded, selfish cabinet personality you want to vote for, naffa?

Yeah, it is. I sided with Darling on a lot of the things him and Brown disagreed on, the main one being VAT, which I think should have raised to 20%. Are you not going to mention David Cameron and George Osborne? George Osborne being Cameron's mate, gets appointed chancellor, doesn't that worry you as well?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Yeah, it is. I sided with Darling on a lot of the things him and Brown disagreed on, the main one being VAT, which I think should have raised to 20%. Are you not going to mention David Cameron and George Osborne? George Osborne being Cameron's mate, gets appointed chancellor, doesn't that worry you as well?

No, it doesn't. Osborne will have been one of the longest serving shadow chancellors before he takes office. Perhaps he was given this roll because Cameron trusts him, but I have no doubt that Osborne is one of the sharpest and more intelligent of Cameron's top bods.

The only other option was Ken Clarke, but Cameron could not risk feeding the "argh Thatcher, argh 1980s hell etc" trolls.

Ed Balls has no chancellery experience, has not shown himself to be particularly sharp or clever. He is an appalling orator.

I do not think you can come the two, but I do understand what you're trying to say. I just do not yet believe that Cameron is 'Brown' on that same level, and would be willing to throw out experience in favour of surrounding himself with poodles.

 

[britboy4321]

Naffa -- be wary -- Hatter the Mad doesn't actually know what 'public services' means (he thinks the government paying off the national debt is 'a public service'! Seriously -- don't believe me, ask him!), or what the technical term a government 'putting money into the economy' actually means .

As I found to my chargrin, don't presume he knows anything. Basically work from the bottom up until you find a level. I made assumptions about his knowledge which caused all sorts of problems.

In short, I wouldn't presume he knows what the 'Exchequer', or 'An MP' is, for example. Just tread carefully, explain things as you go -- and all will be cool ... otherwise you'll bounce off the walls with him on surprisingly simple concepts, for 4 pages.

Just would hate to see you wasting your time that's all. Basically -- never forget you're on the internet with the internet kiddies now.

 

[RDM]

Well, the thing I always come back to is the fact he'd be blind if it wasn't for the NHS.

Which could easily be parralled with David Cameron's experience with the NHS due to his late disabled son?

His father was a minister for the church and his grandfather was a timber merchant, a fairly normal standard of living like the majority of the UK.

Yet the man himself has done nothing but politics? Hardly representative of the majority of the UK. Regardless you seem to be suggesting that because you are not in a situation you cannot empathise with it. If that is the case then should anyone run the country as they would not be able to empathise with large chunks of it having never experienced it.

Absolutely, the absolute biggest failing of this government is that we weren't set up to ride the recession, I couldn't agree more (sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, in that you thought it was the biggest failing, we can agree that it was a big fail though ).

It is between that and the slow erosion of personal freedom which irritate me more.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the deficit was only increased relative to our increase in GDP? I'm not sure about that, but I'm fairly certain I've read it from a reliable source. The sale of the gold doesn't need any further discussion, ridiculous is the word of the day.

Even if it had (which it seems it hasn't) it should have been going down while the economy was booming. So we have proven economic incompetence and you still wonder why people would vote for others?

 

[dirtydog]

Naffa -- be wary -- Hatter the Mad doesn't actually know what 'public services' are, or what the technical term a government 'putting money into the economy' actually means .

As I found to my chargrin, don't presume he knows anything. work from the bottom up until you find a level. I made assumptions about his knowledge which caused all sorts of problems


In short, I wouldn't presume he knows what the 'Exchequer', or 'An MP' is, for example. Just tread carefully, explain things as you go -- and all will be cool ... otherwise you'll bounce off the walls with him on mighty simple concepts, for 4 pages!!

Just would hate to see you wasting your time that's all. Basically -- never forget you're on the internet with the internet kiddies now!!

Can you clarify your statement that government debt is not public debt?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

naffa:

Note the initial drop in debt, which was a slide started by the tail-end of the Major government. That is until Labour policies really started to grip, and started exhausting money.

Labour increased our debt (as a % of GDP) by nearly 5% between 1999 and 2007. Unfortunately this chart is not normalised.

As you rightly pointed out, GDP boomed like a nuclear bomb between 2004 and 2007 - making the figures (what appears to be a tiny little increase between the molehill and borowing post-2008) of debt as a % of GDP even more terrifying.

Not forgetting that the added borrowing was coupled with asset sell off, during the biggest tax receipt boom of all time:

No. Labour economics gave us a fake boom. Labour economics essentially (but indirectly) encouraged personal debt on the back of over-inflated house prices by raising taxes throughout the biggest tax receipt boom in history.

The Government continued to rise taxes (particularly from the lower 50% of earners in the country) through fiscal drag (Gordon Brown's greatest weapon of stealth tax), despite the boom.

He got away with it by encouraging personal borrowing on the back of their inflated house prices to feed our increased expectancy and desire for consumption - because, of course, he had "abolished boom and bust" (lololol, is the only retort to that).

The Labour Government had to:

1) Increase the country debt by borrowing more
2) Sell off country assets (such as gold in the Brown Bottom, now almost all owned by India and soon Australia)
3) Increase tax

Despite being the recipient of the largest tax revenues and riding the biggest income boom. Ever.

Although I think it is stupid to look back to history and say "X party did this. A generation on, I won't vote for them for that reason", do you realise that Labour has caused more economic problems to the country than Conservatives have?

 

[Chronictank]

Not a view on the conservative party as a whole, but Cameron seems to be so desperate to get into power he is willing to say and promise anything.
Personally i think they are far more dangerous than people like Brown

 

[Naffa]

I do not think you can come the two, but I do understand what you're trying to say. I just do not yet believe that Cameron is 'Brown' on that same level, and would be willing to throw out experience in favour of surrounding himself with poodles.

It's a fair point, but I don't feel that there's anybody in politics today that I feel I could trust, both to be sincere and competent. I know Brown isn't really what one could call 'angelic', but then, neither is Cameron.

Which could easily be parralled with David Cameron's experience with the NHS due to his late disabled son?

Oh come on, it's not a parallel in the slightest. Cameron has never had to rely on the NHS in his life, he chose to use it (and as much as I hate to say it, possibly even to make a point).

Yet the man himself has done nothing but politics? Hardly representative of the majority of the UK. Regardless you seem to be suggesting that because you are not in a situation you cannot empathise with it. If that is the case then should anyone run the country as they would not be able to empathise with large chunks of it having never experienced it.

A good point, and one of my biggest problems with British politics, lack of experience.

It is between that and the slow erosion of personal freedom which irritate me more.

I've heard a lot of people say things like this, would you care to elaborate? (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just can't think of anything like this in my life, or any of my freedoms being eroded).

Even if it had (which it seems it hasn't) it should have been going down while the economy was booming. So we have proven economic incompetence and you still wonder why people would vote for others?

Economic incompetence comes hand in hand with voting Conservative, or Labour. If you want economic competence, then get Vince Cable into the treasury.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Economic incompetence comes hand in hand with voting Conservative, or Labour. If you want economic competence, then get Vince Cable into the treasury.

If we are going to look back on history (which I hate doing, NuLabLibCon are all essentially the same now), you'll see that Labour historically perform worse economically than any Tory government.

 

[dirtydog]

Economic incompetence comes hand in hand with voting Conservative, or Labour. If you want economic competence, then get Vince Cable into the treasury.

Maybe he'd be better, maybe he wouldn't. We'll never know because the Lib Dems will never win an election, and even in a hung parliament and a LibCon coalition, there's no way the most powerful job in government after the prime minister wouldn't be filled by an MP from the largest party in that government.

 

[RDM]

Oh come on, it's not a parallel in the slightest. Cameron has never had to rely on the NHS in his life, he chose to use it (and as much as I hate to say it, possibly even to make a point).

And that is where I bow out. When you start inventing reasons not to like someone there really isn't any point in discussing it.

 

[Naffa]

And that is where I bow out. When you start inventing reasons not to like someone there really isn't any point in discussing it.

How on earth am I inventing a reason? I quite clearly said that I don't know that he was doing it to make a point, and as such, that assumption wouldn't factor in my opinion as that's all it is, an assumption. The fact still remains that he chose to use the NHS in spite of the fact he could afford the best private healthcare available to him, he did not need to use the NHS.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The fact still remains that he chose to use the NHS in spite of the fact he could afford the best private healthcare available to him, he did not need to use the NHS.

You don't know if he was making a point or not (I doubt he was, the private care bills for his son would have run into the hundreds of thousands a year), so the only sensible position to take is that he was not making a point.

If you cannot prove to me that Cameron is making a point by using the NHS (which he is entitled to, paying huge tax bills each year), then as far as I am concerned he is not just doing it to make a point.

Besides, almost none of the Labour cabinet need to send their kids to state backed schools, but they do (including Brown). Most of the Labour high command don't need to use the NHS, because they can afford otherwise, but they do.