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. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,397

    QE isn't really new money, at least when talking about asset purchasing (like bonds), it's actually money that's been previously spent into the economy by the state that was meant to be locked away for X years. The government owning its own debt basically means the BoE are paying the government via interest to lock away X amount of money that's been spent in the past for X years.

    The increase in debt was essentially past government spending being released into the economy, they took things like bonds that locked away past government spending and doesn't show up as debt (bonds are assets) and released that into the economy as money that does show up as debt, the £700bn odd of QE had already been spent into the economy at sometime in the past but the BoE essentially said I'll pay you X amount in interest if you give me £10k for 10 years (<example) so i can temporarily remove that from the system.

    As for the exact numbers of how much government debt increased I'm not entirely sure TBH as I've looked at the exact figures, technically though the government can't owe itself money, it can't get into debt like you and I as no ones going to come knocking at the door asking for their money back. It can however spend to much or to little and either cause inflation (the value of money falls because there's more supply than demand) or deflation/recession (the value of money goes up because demand outstrips supply).
     
  2. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,851

  3. Freddie1980

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 25, 2009

    Posts: 7,023

    Location: Billericay, UK

    The whole university funding system needs to be thoroughly looked at reviewed from top to bottom. We don't want to make universities an elitist as they have been in the past but they provide so many courses that offer no real world practical value (media studies, fashion, acting/drama, advertising and general business studies are a few that spring to mind) that is being funded by tax payers.
     
  4. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,301

    Location: Essex

    If it helps, reading back through my posts, it is not unfair to say that I made it sound as though QE and swapping government bonds for private shares was in of itself the same thing, when it isn't.

    With that said, I did repeatedly point out that in my view they end up amounting to pretty much the same thing (indirectly via it's effects rather than directly, and particularly for people at our end of the wealth spectrum), and in doing so acknowledged that they were different early on in our exchange.

    Still, it was wrong of me to portray them in that way and I'll concede that if helps you to move on to addressing the actual point that I made. Thinking about it, I probably should have explicitly acknowledged that immediately and then we could have moved on to the actual meat of my argument last night. I'm sorry, I regret that now. I need to stop my Thursday beer night.

    Anyway, the original point that I was making, was that you seem to be hand waving away the impacts of £250 billion in QE, along with the £72 billion cost of Brexit preparations so far and it's future cost, while simultaneously decrying Labour's policies as absurdly costly.

    This was the source of my frustration; I felt that you were completely glossing over the point I was trying to make by changing the discussion to one specifically about QE; and in doing so were ignoring that even in terms of actual borrowing itself (2016's Autumn budget increased our public borrowing bill by £120 billion in order to deal with Brexit alone), your beloved Brexit has already cost us significantly more.

    I genuinely cannot see how you can possibly reconcile those two positions.

    Besides, while I don't want to enter a debate around the benefits and drawbacks of nationalisation itself, you also have to consider that Labour's borrowing proposals would be to purchase profit creating assets, whereas the borrowing for Brexit was not.
     
  5. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,408

    All of these should really be apprenticeships... but then we'd be funding it anyway as companies don't like doing that, preferring to find the 60 year old with 500 years experience to training their own staff, or just stealing them from another country.

    I do want my polytechs back though.
     
  6. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,851

    I maintain the massive push for Uni was nothing more than a smoke screen to hide youth unemployment. Our economy does not need so many graduates although what is actually needed is electricians etc.
     
  7. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 6, 2013

    Posts: 13,242

    I don't understand this approach, you've literally chosen to ignore the topic being discussed and instead decided to discuss something completely unrelated. :confused:
     
  8. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,233

    It's a good graph and illustrates why Gordon Brown deserves some of the opprobrium heaped at his feat regarding the financial crisis. 1997-2000 he was broadly following Ken Clarke's plan for the economy and public spending. Debt was low and on a downward trajectory. Because Gordon had ended Boom and Bust he could be confident enough to increase public spending and run a deficit or around £40Bn a year during "not a boom" so when there was a "not a bust" the fiscal trajectory of the economy was all wrong, tax receipts took a dive and the Coalition inherited a £160Bn deficit. If he'd been fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining he could have deployed counter cyclic spending during the "not a bust".
    I couldn't vote for a Corbyn/McDonnell because the idea I have suggested above is not a message they are capable of understanding they only know spending is good, borrowing is better and if you can make the state responsible for everything it's best.

    NB I don't think Gordon "Prudence" Brown was responsible for the 2007/08 global financial crisis. I just think he had such a high opinion of his own foresight that he steered the country in a direction and at a speed that made coping with the crisis one with no good solutions.
     
  9. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 34,015

    Location: Co Durham

    Last time I checked Gove wasn't the leader of the Tory Party. It was a "leaders debate". You dont get to send stand ins instead.
     
  10. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,265

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    There is a very difficult to model benefit from any government spending. Really the key facts are what its being spent on, and the originating source of that, far more than the source of the funds.

    The whole WASPI thing actually grinds my gears. Its annoying for sure, but the situation they find themselves in is mainly their own doing. The vast majority of people do not see any reason why a female should retire earlier than a man.
    So the pahsing in of that change is annoying, sure, but then many things are, few things are certain in life, things change. The WASPIs seem to have taken a hard position of I was going to retire at X, I will retire at X, changes? No no fingers in ears.
    When I started work I was due to retire at 65, I didnt take that as a given. It then got moved to 67. Likewise for my partner. Recently my age went to 68, but hers remained at 67, because she is slightly older, she was in the transition phase where they are unlikely to change the retirement date. I was outside that, now I am inside, so I take it as more likely that I will retire at 68 than older. I don't take that as a certainty.

    But going back to my original point, lets say we give the WASPIs what they want. Its not like its money down the drain, economic activity drives economic activity. The fiscal multiplier kicks in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier
    What it gets spent on is key, if its mainly sourced from offshore then that will give less economic benefit than it its heavily multiplied around domestic industry. Its gross misrepresentation to assume the WASPI amount if paid would be the net position for the economy.

    I am not specifically pointing this at you by the way, just getting a general point into the thread which seems to be being overlooked, that even spending thats paid for by borrowing isn't necessarily a bad thing due to the fiscal multiplier.
    This was used heavily in the EU post crash, some countries triggered infrastructure spending since without it the shock would be higher and the money paid to people would recirculate, so why not actually spend that directly on improvements.
    When the government spend say £100 on keeping someone in work, they in effect get that discounted by the tax coming back, thats even ignoring the multiplier.

    Part of the reason we struggled to really et going post financial crash was the semi austerity we had (it wasn't full fat austerity), austerity is a drag on growth. Factors change whether its beneficial or not, plus of course also when politics kicks in.
    The level of the national defecit is only really an issue in regards the interest being paid on it. If rates are very low then its more likely that keeping up spending and investing will improve the growth (or reduce the contraction) and may in fact mean that net your better off. Not only as a country, but by avoiding shocks to the population, something that is hard to measure and take into account. Disaster capitalists for example stand to make more from a crash and recovery, than a flat period, the people who pay for any gains are the normal workers, may lose their house, have to downsize, scrap their holidays etc.

    The bank bail outs were the equivalent to changing the oil in an engine. The engine is the economy, the oil is the money supply. There was a liquidity crisis, the banks had lost confidence in each other and that needed fixing. The government bailed this out with the new oil, the banks were "happy" to transact again, they had cash injected vs non liquid assets. It was actually a good time for savers, you could get 3%+on a cash ISA and inflation was practically zero. The banks took more confidence from directly deposited funds, this has since reversed, now they don't need the deposits as the system is functioning normally.

    I just get annoyed when i see blatant misrepresentation of money and its effects. Its politicians (who frequently seem to not actually understand it themselves) preaching to the masses who equally have limited/zero understanding.

    The key goal should really be to maximise the borrowing of low cost funds in order to invest, and in the short term potentially use that to avoid dips. Cheap funds are limited, a fixation on not using them is damaging, but its a con trick used to try to devalue others arguments. The rich, I mean really rich, benefit from boom and bust far more than the gut in the street, even if he is lucky enough to see no impact from the bust.
     
  11. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,844

    To be fair, C4 did technically violate purdah rules by showing bias. However, they did far less than the BBC have done in favour of the Conservatives. Both of them need to have some hefty fines laid down after the election and Laura Kuenssberg should be immediately fired, particularly given the rumours floating around the BBC that she has had a personal relationship with Johnson.

    Mogg has reportedly been ordered to stay away from the media after his comments on Grenfell. Johnson is simply a coward, as String has said he's trying to do May's submarine approach.
     
  12. BowdonUK

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 3,449

    I was going to compare Boris's personal history with Corbyn's personal history. But then I thought I'd be slipping in to raking up muck so decided to make another point instead.

    I said standing with terrorists, not that he personally is a terrorist.

    Oh I'm not defending the Tories either. Or the Brexit Party either for having Claire Fox, a Revolutionary Communist Party member who refused to apologise for her comments defending the right of the IRA to bomb Warrington in which 2 children died and 56 people where injured, now is an elected MEP.

    I must admire your post as not many people would chose enemies from both the left and right to make a point. Though as a nationalist I wouldn't be associating with either Mandela or Pinochet, and certainly not with Saville.

    The point I was making in my recent posts is that all the main parties are crap and have unsaviour characters in them, so we can go on all day keep attacking each parties weak points. To a degree I'm playing in to that by trying to balance out the media bait that is used by some to make a point. I merely point out that the other party equally have bad points too.

    The only thing that swings it for me in this election is against the extremist nature of Corbyn himself. I would even give him a pass on most of his history if he had sensible policies. But it seems Labour have gone back to the militant days. I personally would benefit if he become prime minister. But for the country, in my opinion, he is the worst choice. Pick any other leader of a mainstream political party and I would say they are safer than Corbyn.
     
  13. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,987

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    Purdah applies to Civil Servants, not TV. There are bias rules though. I'd say empty chairing a candidate who chooses not to attend is not bias though.
     
  14. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,265

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    What we actually needed was "higher" education

    When I left school far too many bright people left, but didnt further their education.
    Sure sparkies etc left at 16, went to work, part time college etc and are probably on the same curve as someone leaving school now following that career.
    Its the people who were capable of more that didnt carry on that was the waste, and thats where IMO they were trying to fix the issue.

    The problem is you need all jobs done. We could insist everyone went to masters or beyond. But for many roles thats excessive and pointless, somehow finding the balance to untap the potential, but without unnecessary costs and time being spent in education is the balance we should seek.
     
  15. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,397

    Sounds very anti-free markets to me, shouldn't universities be free to choose what courses they offer and if the students attend then it will be profitable if they don't it won't and they'll stop offering those courses.
     
  16. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,844

    Broadcaster bias rules are also known as purdah because they only apply at the same time as the civil service is in purdah.

    And C4 stepped beyond empty chairing when they replaced Johnson and Farage with ice sculptures. An empty chair has no political bias; a melting picture of the globe with a Conservative logo on it in a climate change debate does.
     
  17. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,830

    Presumably ice sculptures would have replaced any party leader that failed to show - I doubt you'll get them to admit they'd have sub'ed in a well prepped PR agent for Corbyn or Swinson.
     
  18. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,397

    I wouldn't say he's a coward so much as the Conservatives know he's got no substance, did you hear him on LBC this morning? I don't think I've heard anyone say erm, erm, erm while they're scrambling around in their brain for something to say in all my life, i get the impression the Conservatives know the more the public hear what he has to say the more they'll cotton on to the fact that he's all mouth and no trousers.
    Do you do standup?
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  19. Freddie1980

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 25, 2009

    Posts: 7,023

    Location: Billericay, UK

    It's not really a free market as such though when all your course are effectively paid for by loans underwritten by the government. In a free market Universities would be private run businesses and students would have to pay for their own courses with their own money and if a student went bankrupt while owning debt to a university then the university would have to right any money as a bad debt.
     
  20. terley

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 3, 2010

    Posts: 2,722

    Probably not SC worthy, but this killed me.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.