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

Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 704 38.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 221 12.1%

  • Liberal Democrat

    Votes: 297 16.2%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 144 7.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 36 2.0%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 46 2.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 48 2.6%

  • Don't care I have no intension of voting.

    Votes: 334 18.3%
  • Total voters
    1,830
Status
Not open for further replies.
dangerstat said:
I apologize it's been a few years since I graduated.



I don't disagree with you on the problem being excessive government spending. I do disagree with how you adjust that expenditure whilst keeping the economy going. I honestly think that cutting now, will push us back into a recession.

In reality the size of the civil service hasn't "exploded" as the conservatives would have you believe. It's actually been the stable. There's about the same number at the start of the Labour victories till now
Click to expand...

The civil service is only a small part of the public sector though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1515144/Public-sector-jobs-at-record-6m-under-Labour.html

It is the public sector as a whole that has grown massively under labour, but the contribution of the public sector to the country's wealth has not, suggesting that the fiscal multiplier on this spending is very low.
 
Dolph said:
The civil service is only a small part of the public sector though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1515144/Public-sector-jobs-at-record-6m-under-Labour.html

It is the public sector as a whole that has grown massively under labour, but the contribution of the public sector to the country's wealth has not, suggesting that the fiscal multiplier on this spending is very low.
Click to expand...

Labour is all about higher taxes, bigger public sector (not saying it is right or wrong, but saying it's kind of what you vote for with them).

It's not all about making dosh. Some of it will be to ensure '83 year old Mrs Miggins' gets a new hip without having to wait for 7 months, even if it is more expensive doing it that way.
 
britboy4321 said:
Labour is all about higher taxes, bigger public sector (not saying it is right or wrong, but saying it's kind of what you vote for with them).

It's not all about making dosh. Some of it will be to ensure '83 year old Mrs Miggins' gets a new hip without having to wait for 7 months, even if it is more expensive doing it that way.
Click to expand...

And that is their biggest flaw, because without a solid, wealth generating economy, the rest of it is simple unsustainable... As we are currently seeing.

Labour hid the decline in the wealth generating economy with non-wealth generating public spending (note, it is possible for public spending to be wealth generating) since 2002, and we're now seeing the consequences of that.

Incidentally, 83 year old Mrs Miggins will be waiting longer under Labour as the overall wait for treatment on the NHS has risen, not dropped, when looked at honestly, rather than looking at specific problem areas in isolation. (Example Source)
 
Normally we do have a solid, wealth generating economy.

When we don't, we need to critically keep the spending going (using debt if necessary) until we're back to having a solid, wealth generating economy, then make cuts as required to get the debt back down to something reasonable. This is what all countries have done. They're not all wrong. No-one in any country has said 'On the brink of recession? Let's take money out of our economy' (apart from the tories). Otherwise, take the money out of the economy when still fragile, and obviously more businesses are going to hit the wall, causing more wealth to be lost :(

What you don't do is stop the money flowing when we're IN, or only just out of the recession (at 0.1% economic growth) - otherwise you're likely to totally bugger everything. You wait until the economy is back being stable. Taking money out of an economy that is teetering on the edge is madness. Give them a chance. Give them a year to try and get back into normality, it's WORTH paying one more year's interest to have the best chance of missing a double-dip (or worse, depression). More recession or depression will cost us a LOT MORE than 1 year's interest payments on the debt the tories want to save .. it's too much risk ..

Why risk all for one measly year's interest? That's all Labour are saying .. now is the worst time possible (except maybe 8 months ago) to take money OUT of the economy ..
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
And that is their biggest flaw, because without a solid, wealth generating economy, the rest of it is simple unsustainable... As we are currently seeing.

Labour hid the decline in the wealth generating economy with non-wealth generating public spending (note, it is possible for public spending to be wealth generating) since 2002, and we're now seeing the consequences of that.

Incidentally, 83 year old Mrs Miggins will be waiting longer under Labour as the overall wait for treatment on the NHS has risen, not dropped, when looked at honestly, rather than looking at specific problem areas in isolation. (Example Source)
Click to expand...
Citation needed ;)
 
britboy4321 said:
Normally we do have a solid, wealth generating economy.
Click to expand...

We do, but hiding the ebb and flow of it is a recipe for disaster... As shown by our current state.

When we don't, we need to critically keep the spending going (using debt if necessary) until we're back to having a solid, wealth generating economy, then make cuts as required to get the debt back down to something reasonable.
Click to expand...

I agree, the flaw is that Labour were running debt spending during the good times meaning that we entered recession with a high deficit to start with.

Add to that the fact that labour have squandered much of their borrowing on low multiplier spending (such as the massive amounts pumped into the NHS for no real gain) rather than high multiplier spending (such as infrastructure investment) and we've got nothing to show for Labour's profligacy apart from a massive interest bill.

What you don't do is stop the money flowing when we're IN, or only just out of the recession (at 0.1% economic growth) - otherwise you're likely to totally bugger everything. You wait until the economy is back being stable. Taking money out of an economy that is teetering on the edge is madness. Give them a chance. Give them a year to try and get back into normality, it's WORTH paying one more year's interest to have the best chance of missing a double-dip (or worse, depression).
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the biggest risk to the economy is the debt itself, and the potential loss of market confidence that WILL result in massive cuts (ala greece, or the UK in the 70s) that will be forced onto us.

Why risk all for one measly year's interest? That's all Labour are saying ..
Click to expand...

And Labour have such a good economic record we should listen to them? On the contrary, every time we've had to have a dramatic restructure of state spending it has been because Labour has brought the country to the brink with inappropriate spending practices.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-fiscal-policy-effects.html

If you really need one ;) Head down to the graph titled 'Uk public spending and the economic cycle'

Have you provided yours yet?
Click to expand...

I was asking for a source on the waiting times (which you added whilst I was quoting your post ;)). You asked me for two sources and I provided you with exactly how I calculated the figures :D. On the waiting times data the article in, of all things, the mail you quote I feel is misleading. Basic cross sectional analysis of publicly data (http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes) seems to suggest otherwise. If you want to provide a statistical analysis of those results over time supporting your reference please do so.

In this thread thus far you have quote the Mail and a GCSE / Alevel revision site. Can you not quote reputable sources?

On the chart did you come across a latin term "ceteris paribus" in the your learning of economics? You can't use a graph of government spending and economic cycles out of context. If you want to, apply a multivariate time series model to the data that chart uses and include other significant variables and you'll see the correlation between government spending and GDP growth look rather different.
 
"I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home."


I don't actually see anything wrong with that... but it is a gray area. When does a B+B stop becoming the landlord's home?
 
Dolph said:
Tories in allowing freedom shocker?
Click to expand...

How do you think those gays felt? What about their freedom? They booked a B&B only to turn up and have their business declined because they are gay. Perhaps they should be legally required to state that they are gay before making a booking but personally I don't think that's right.
 
scorza said:
How do you think those gays felt? What about their freedom? They booked a B&B only to turn up and have their business declined because they are gay. Perhaps they should be legally required to state that they are gay before making a booking but personally I don't think that's right.
Click to expand...

At what point does the right not to be discriminated against override the right not to be discriminated against?

We're talking about a private contractual arrangement, not a provision of state, hence two sets of rights to balance (the rights of the seller and the rights of the buyer).

I'd be happy to require the seller to state the terms of sale up front however (and indeed probably wouldn't use an establishment that sets such rules myself even though they don't impact me), but I won't discriminate against a property owner to prevent discrimination against another.
 
I’m going for the last option here – having never voted at all in my adult life, I really can’t see me doing it any time soon.

I haven’t followed any of the mainstream or obscure parties, so I honestly cannot say who has what policies, only what I have picked up from the news, which I appreciate is probably not impartial.

I can’t explain why I have never voted, I guess it’s because I have always convinced myself that regardless of whoever is in power, we’ll all be getting a bum deal from them, and as the months and years roll on; none of their pre-elected policies will have materialised.

So, until a worthwhile party (in my eyes) comes along, I shall retain my vote.
 
StewartMG said:
Love those Ashes to Ashes billboards.
Click to expand...


Labour-campaign-pos_346243d.jpg


Then the tories hit back with

82107197.jpg
 
I'm so glad you're here Rob, you're an exceptionally good meter for what the purely populist voter is feeling at any given moment. You also let us know whether a particular campaign slogan is working. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom