Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
The thing is, I don't actually mind the Libdems "selling out" as some people see it and forming a coalition with whoever, because it maintains what I feel we need - coalition government.
The problem though, is that it's a MASSIVE decision which if made wrong will have huge negative consequences and repercussions for our children's children. And at this point in time the people of the UK would almost certainly make the wrong decision because they have been brainwashed by the media for years to believe lies about things they don't understand.
To be fair the have been Labour voices saying that for over a year now.
In the Tories defence, when they realised IDS was a colossal mistake they sacked him as leader without letting him stand in a single election. Labour should have had the balls* to do the same.
*No pun intended.
Between them they are only needing 309. DUP, UUP, UKIP won't vote against.
Of this there can be no doubt, Milliband himself even said last night he didn't believe the last Labour government overspent. I'd hate to see what overspending actually looked like.
Frightening.
So what you're saying is, there should be no general election.
Last edited:
How much did they overspend by?
To be fair, and I'm not a Labour supporter, I'm not sure that their last term could be described as "miserable".Please not Labourdon't commit our country to another term of misery!
The country grew at a sustained lick, public services were improved, average salaries went up, and generally people were better off.
It all ended rather inauspiciously, with the global crash, and we did get dragged into a couple of wars which should never have happened but, as a political term, miserable it wasn't.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,191
How do I get on Question Time? 
Haha... "turncoat".. brilliant.
"Hey Clegg & co, here's your first chance to make a real difference in government. You'll get to implement some of your own policies, moderate the conservatives etc... BUUUUT there is one caveat...You'll get called a turncoat"
Geeez that's a tough one.
Google will find you a graph within about 5 seconds.
From 1997 to 2008 UK debt as a % of GDP actually went down. It was only when the recession hit that debt actually started to rise.
And spending in a recession caused by liquidity constraint is what you're supposed to do.
I'm not surprised you ended your date range at 2008.
Yes. My 2nd and 3rd sentences addressed that.
Show me examples of Labours spending in 2009, and 2010 that were because 'that's what you're supposed to do'.
I've already said a couple of post above that debt was lower in 2008 than in 1997. It was the last two years of office (not the last two political terms) where spending shot up. But that was essential to counter the effects of a recession caused by liquidity contraction.
How do I get on Question Time?
Be a Labour activist, then the BBC will come knocking and beg you on their knees to take part.
Buying £200 billion worth of bonds in 2009, which BoE estimates, in the cold light of hindsight, boosted economic output (GDP) by around 1.5%
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2012/wp443.pdf
McBain, if you've bought into the idea that "we needed to cut the deficit because of the recession" then you should know that's not what most economists think, and it was the first time it's ever been used as an economic strategy. It was an experiment that has failed, resulting in a slower recovery than even after the Great Depression. Labour was doing the conventional thing, which was working nicely (like cheesyboy's example above) until Gideon came along.
- Status