1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: General Election 2019 voting intention - Nov 15th - 30th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 15, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Brexit

    15 vote(s)
    2.9%
  2. Conservative

    148 vote(s)
    28.8%
  3. DUP

    2 vote(s)
    0.4%
  4. Green

    3 vote(s)
    0.6%
  5. Labour

    137 vote(s)
    26.7%
  6. Liberal Democrats

    161 vote(s)
    31.3%
  7. Plaid Cymru

    3 vote(s)
    0.6%
  8. Sinn Fein

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  9. SNP

    20 vote(s)
    3.9%
  10. TIG

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  11. UKIP

    2 vote(s)
    0.4%
  12. Other party

    5 vote(s)
    1.0%
  13. Independant

    2 vote(s)
    0.4%
  14. Spoil ballot

    14 vote(s)
    2.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 47,094

    Nothing to do with bluster, the other poster is literally comparing different things and you've then popped in and seem to believe at face value that the Tories have therefore spent 250 billion on Brexit.

    Firstly the comparison of the BoE essentially printing money to buy securities (that literally already exist on the secondary market) and that can be sold back later vs a potential future government issuing new securities (and thereby increasing public debt) in order to spend money on say the waspi women's 60 billion pension bill is flawed.

    It's then gone from that to you popping in with a hot take of "the Tories" spending 250 billion on Brexit. They haven't, it's a ridiculous notion. The BoE, an independent entity has increased money supply via QE and has some more securities (gilts) in its possession, at some point they can/will be sold back to the market too.

    A government raising money for public spending by issuing new securities (i.e. via the primary market - gilt auctions) is adding to public debt, they're issuing debt that they will have to pay the interest charges for (the coupon rate) and that they'll eventually have to pay the principle back too, either through future taxation if some future government actually runs a surplus or through issuing new debt to service the old debt.

    QE doesn't increase public debt and isn't used for public spending it is fairly neutral with regards to public debt (it technically actually helps as it helps keeps yields low), it increases money supply in order to encourage economic growth by encouraging lending and investment - it is a tool used by central banks. Issuing new debt, literally, involves issuing new debt... it is something governments do when they want to spend more money than they have available from taxation (i.e. running a deficit) - something that is quite commonplace at the moment.

    Highlighting that the central bank spent X amount via its QE program and trying to make some direct comparison to increasing public spending is just silliness... they're different things as I keep on saying - why conflate the two?
     
  2. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 47,094

    Well you're not really adding anything now other than throwing in an ad hominem argument. I did ask earlier on what, specifically, you were referring to re: labour (thinking you might have been referring to their 2015 idea) but it then turned out you were literally trying to compare increased public spending via additional borrowing with QE. Since then it's just been some passive aggressive ad hominem replies.

    Trying to claim it is just some semantic differences is frankly ridiculous here when you've literally decided to compare different things as I've actually taken he time to explain.

    I don't expect some posters to grasp it but I had thought you were a bit better than that.
     
  3. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,456

    Location: Cornwall

    I refer you to your post of some three posts previous or so, where you called a few of us in this thread 'mindless'.

    You're either totally lacking in self-awareness or just doing it for the lols.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 47,094

    I didn't specify anyone and it was just meant as a light hearted comment... I apologise if you're offended but some of the posts that get thrown in do seem to be particularly mindless - often people with a grudge just jumping in to have their say even if they've not bothered following what has been said - people just quoting stuff and throwing in a one liner for example... you weren't the only one to reply.

    Your reply wasn't a one liner but you framed this as "the Tories" finding 250 billion "for Brexit costs" - which is a dubious take. If you want to look at actual public spending on Brexit and criticise that then fine, but trying to frame QE in that way is silly - its the BoE (a neutral entity) fulfilling their role and stimulating the economy it isn't the same as adding to public debt.

    I'm going to sound like a stuck record now but it is conflating different things.

    This isn't even the brexit thread but some people seem to have such an issue with Brexit that they'll try and bring it into every conversation. This stemmed from me criticising Labour's public spending as likely containing the more egregious lies in reply to a post about both sides apparently being a bit dubious re: how they're budgeted. Instead I get quoted and presented with some convoluted argument that tries to conflate some QE in the aftermath of the Brexit vote with future public spending plans that haven't been budgeted for.
     
  5. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,352

    Location: Essex

    This is the fundamental problem. You're trying to pretend that because under QE it is Central Banks who purchase the bonds rather than private shareholders, that it exempts the government in power from culpability as though that somehow excuses the huge cost associated with your pro-Brexit position.

    The fact that you're so desperate to keep the conversation focused around the difference between where and when government (or corporate) bonds are sold/spent/issued, as opposed to what that actually means to an economy, is indicative of precisely that.

    I'm not even anti-QE, I'm of the view that it was entirely necessary post financial crisis. I just maintain that there is very little difference between the kind of QE that went on back then and what Labour are proposing now, at least in terms of public fiscal impact. They only key difference being that they believe there will be a return from it, and even though there is a fair amount I disagree with, they're probably right in that regard at least.

    You seem to all of a sudden be hugely hung up on the notion of national debt, as though you view international economics in the same way that you view domestic economics; but if that's genuinely the case, and you view national debt above above all other measures, then surely you would be extremely anti-Conservative given their track record over the last decade would you not?
     
  6. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 47,094

    I'm not trying to pretend anything, you stated off with:

    This was in reply to a comment about Labour's 60 billion additional public spending commitment re: the waspi pensions

    You then still seem to conflate QE with government spending:

    You then conflate the primary and secondary market - I even placed emphasis on this in my posts:

    You're talking about issuing new debt on one hand in order to fund government spending with the BoE buying up existing debt - In that particular case (nationalisation) there is the argument that it is offset by the ownership of a large asset (so long as they don't then trash that asset or run it inefficiently) but their spending plans involve more than nationalisation and it wasn't nationalisation that I commented on, it was uncosted spending and I threw in the waspi women example. There are additional arguments here with regards to how fair this forced trade would really be etc.. but this is rather side stepping your initial objection to what I actually commented on.

    These two posts were also a bit confused:

    You're conflating the sale of new government bonds with the purchase of existing government bonds by the BoE.

    One is to allow for greater public spending on whatever the government of the day wants to spend it on and adds to our national debt the other is carried out by a politically neutral entity, is to stimulate economic growth and doesn't add to our national debt.

    Now this post:

    There you are with the shareholders again - this is more than just infrastructure investment, that's something you brought in not me - this started off with me citing the example of the waspi women, that doesn't involve private share holders receiving newly issued gilts in return for their equity, it involves labour simply needing to increase public spending.

    FYI I'm not averse to state owned companies or entities running some railways or supplying water (in fact a state owned company/taken over by the state did rather well with one railway). I'd be rather more worried about broadband though and I'd be skeptical in some cases about how say a govt owned broadband company would be run etc.. but regardless this was about uncosted spending.

    The infrastructure aspect is arguably "costed" - whether it is done so fairly or not or is a good idea is another matter... but if you're focused on that then you've not only conflated different things re: QE and increased public spending but you've essentially attacked a straw man too as this started with me commenting on uncosted spending whereas you appear to be just focused on infrastructure investment - something you've thrown into this particular back and forth conversation not me.
     
  7. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 6,351

    To be fair, and without accusing you of anything, that exchange, and the sort of people that mindlessly regurgitate that inflammatory rhetoric fed to them by the populists most happy to incite violence is the most likely start to a doorstep assault.

    It was probably not so much that he heard it a lot from other voters, but more that he'd have heard it a lot in the training and guidance he'll have had on how not to get hurt.
     
  8. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 4,180

    So I'll admit I've not read the last 3 pages of discussion but both of you (GordyR&dowie) are right and wrong on some aspects, QE increases the supply of money and it 'adds' to government debt, it does that by effectively releasing money that had at some point in the past been temporarily removed from the system (bond: tied up, bound), it's an accounting trick, a bond takes money that had previously been issued and temporarily removes it from the books, the closest equivalent would be you putting something like £1k into a fixed term savings account so your partner thinks you earn less than you do and doesn't go on a spending spree, you're not actually earning less you've simply moved some money from column A to column B.

    ^^That's^^ What the government did, the BoE is the government in terms of monetary policy and when it used QE (and when it lowers interest rates), it basically shifted things from column B to column A. What Labour are proposing is to do the opposite of that, they'll spend money and use bonds to hopefully negate the inflation that results from an excessive supply, yes they're opposite things but make no mistake they both add to the debt, it's simply that column B (bonds) is hidden debt.
     
  9. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 18,800

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    It doesn't have much to do with that, it's just a waste of time to argue with other party's hardcore supporters. I've been doorstopping for Labour in the past, you have a lot of ground to cover and the main aim is to get your base out and sway a few "don't knows" not get into prolonged arguments with people.
     
  10. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 4,180

    The Conservatives fake news department seems to shows no signs of letting up.
    Is it just me who finds it rather depressing that, going on polling, we're about to elect a government that would make Blair blush when it comes to spin and treating the electorate like idiots.

    Next thing we know they'll be telling us that 3 is 5.
     
  11. LOAM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 20, 2004

    Posts: 11,945

    Location: Nottingham

    Canvassers simply don't waste time on people who don't want to engage in a discussion, they have very limited time so as soon as it's apparent they are wasting their time, they will leave.

    They are also aware how very quickly it can go south and people get aggressive (even if you weren't). Brexit is so divisive as soon as you mentioned "going against the majority" it likely made them think this is a single issue election for you, you aren't who they want to target. It also probably set alarms off and raised red flags so they are instructed to back off.
     
  12. b0rn2sk8

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 5,654

    That and them threatening Channel 4’s public service broadcasting licence over the debate last night is just abhorrent.
     
  13. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,353

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Yellow bellied chicken boris, well what a surprise.

    He cant debate, all he can do is parrot soundbites with waffle and bluster.

    Wont debate Neill, wont go an channel 4. He thinks hes got it in the bag and now running scared of scrutiny, trying desperately to keep his foot out of his mouth

    Speaking of cowards in hiding, anyone seen hide nor hair of our favourite disaster capitalist Rees Mogg since his frankly despicable LBC interview?
     
  14. b0rn2sk8

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 5,654

    Do we need to re-heat the KFC meme for Boris Johnson?

    Not seen Mogg either now you mention it, makes sense as his not exactly voter friendly is he?
     
  15. Rilot

    Don

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 20,110

    Location: Wargrave, UK

    And he would be right.
     
  16. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,591

    This is something I was trying to work out as I followed the back-and-forth last night.

    QE is new money that is created by the BoE in order to buy back government bonds — so it's money created by 'The UK' in order to buy UK debt. I read last night that the UK owns about a quarter of its own debt which sounds counter-intuitive.

    Something else I couldn't work out — following the 2008 crash, government debt skyrocketed and the common narrative is that this additional borrowing was used to 'bail out the banks', which I (clearly incorrectly) assumed was the QE.

    So am I right in thinking that, not only did government debt almost double between 2008–2012 (up to ~£900Bn) the UK (in the form of the BoE) also injected a further £375Bn of QE — or is that £375Bn included in the £900Bn figure? If not, what else were we spending it on?
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  17. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,352

    Location: Essex

    This was precisely my point. Perhaps in my somewhat beer fuelled state (Thursday is beer night), while simultaneously trying to sketch out a wedding speech, I didn't articulate it properly; I'm more than happy to accept that criticism, but in my view they amount to the same thing - a burden or cost.

    My frustration is that dowie is casually hand-waving away one, while frothing over another. That's it, the whole point in one sentence.

    He purposefully laboured upon the technical differences between the two in order to change the discussion so as to avoid confronting the actual point itself. This is something he does frequently.

    I should know better.
     
  18. Quartz

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 10,687

    Location: Aberdeen

    They did? Good. It's about time someone cut them down to size. The political bias of Channel 4 is well-attested. Remember the Peter Snow incident?
     
  19. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 47,094

    Well it is existing debt the BoE bought from the secondary market... (it could in theory cancel it). What you'll see in future is some quantitative tightening, the reverse of QE whereby it is sold back to the market.

    In what sense? It doesn't involve additional bonds being issued, it involves the BoE buying up bonds from the secondary market i.e. the open market.. i.e. from financial institutions currently holding UK public debt.

    Purposefully laboured on the technical differences? Like the actual fundamental differences... This is ridiculous, you got muddled, conflated rather different things and then demanded some justification from me and I simply pointed out that you were getting confused and conflating different things.

    I get that you want to bring Brexit into everything but I fail to see how uncosted public spending should be turned into some comparison with QE and then some straw man re: some (technically)costed plans for infrastructure spending.

    Your frustration is you made a flawed comparison and didn't seem to understand why. It is utterly pointless yet you just carried on with it.
     
  20. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 6, 2013

    Posts: 13,996

    This is exactly what cost May dearly in the last election. Their domestic record is too poor to defend after 10 years trying, so now it's a case of hiding and hoping we don't think about it too much as we're too busy discussing how bad the rest are.

    What a **** show.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.