Lib-Dems accept defeat on Lords:

ubersonic said:
%age comparisons between countries are pointless as due to differing economy/population sizes they will show X country doing better of than Y country when it isn't.
Click to expand...

No, that's just not so. Think about it. Let's suppose imaginary country X has 100 businesses, whilst imaginary country Y has 1000. Let's also suppose these are the only contributors to GDP. Each country contributes a £100. Let's then suppose that every company improves to contributing £101, now country X has had £100 increase in GDP while country Y has had a £1000 increase but both have seen the same improvement in their companies performance. If we did it your way, country X would have to have its companies improve ten times as fast to show the same level of improvement.

You could look at per capita GDP instead, I guess - it tells a similar story for the developed nations - but it's not as usual a measure.
 
Mr Jack said:
No, that's just not so. Think about it. Let's suppose imaginary country X has 100 businesses, whilst imaginary country Y has 1000. Let's also suppose these are the only contributors to GDP. Each country contributes a £100. Let's then suppose that every company improves to contributing £101, now country X has had £100 increase in GDP while country Y has had a £1000 increase but both have seen the same improvement in their companies performance. If we did it your way, country X would have to have its companies improve ten times as fast to show the same level of improvement.

You could look at per capita GDP instead, I guess - it tells a similar story for the developed nations - but it's not as usual a measure.
Click to expand...

Erm, this is kinda like my argument from the last page mate, and this example shows why % growth/loss is a bad way of looking at it because it would show both country X and Y doing just as well when Y is obviously doing better.

Saying one country hasn't improved by as much a % as others is a mute point when it was doing much better to begin with. I.E the UK's % growth rate from the chart you linked is worse than Pakistan/Lithuania/France yet its doing better than all of them.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Erm, this is kinda like my argument from the last page mate, and this example shows why % growth/loss is a bad way of looking at it because it would show both country X and Y doing just as well when Y is obviously doing better.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. They both doing the same, it's just that one is larger than the other. All your method measures is the size of the economy, something which has absolutely nothing to do with the current government.

Saying one country hasn't improved by as much a % as others is a mute point when it was doing much better to begin with. I.E the UK's % growth rate from the chart you linked is worse than Pakistan/Lithuania/France yet its doing better than all of them.
Click to expand...

No, it's doing worse than all of them; although the comparison to Pakistan and Lithuania is not all that meaningful. Just going "Britain has a big ol' economy" tells us nothing about its current performance, it only tells us about its size and history. Even our current government won't manage to turn that around.

(Oh, and I have no idea why you're saying your graph shows the UK doing better than France when it clearly doesn't)
 
The thing is though If person X has a million pounds and gains £1 and person Y has £1 and gains £10 then person Y has gained the most and has gained the biggest % increase, but he still isn't doing as well as person X!

Mr Jack said:
(Oh, and I have no idea why you're saying your graph shows the UK doing better than France when it clearly doesn't)
Click to expand...

Because I made that statement while talking about GDP per capita, you have to switch the chart from GDP mode to GDP per capita mode, then it shows the UK doing better than France.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
The thing is though If person X has a million pounds and gains £1 and person Y has £1 and gains £10 then person Y has gained the most and has gained the biggest % increase, but he still isn't doing as well as person X!
Click to expand...

If you're talking about who's making best use of their money he certainly is. Again, talking about the absolute size of our economy tells us absolutely nothing about how well the current government are running things. Our GDP is high because it was high when they inherited it; the change in GDP is what matters, that's the comparison between the current performance of different economies.

Because I made that statement while talking about GDP per capita, you have to switch the chart from GDP mode to GDP per capita mode, then it shows the UK doing better than France.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay.
 
InKursion said:
This Coalition has been a complete and utter farce.

The Conservatives have pretty much reneged on all of their major reform promises to the LibDems at this point.

Add that to the fact that the LibDems mostly u-turned on all of their top manifesto principles that saw them voted into the coalition in the first place, for e.g. the student fees debacle.

Add that to the gross incompetence bordering on criminal negligence of Osbourne, Gove, et al...

Shambles. How can anyone have faith in politics after this charade?
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.

You don't need faith in politics anymore, you simple vote against the party you hate the most - or for the party who you hate the least.
 
I can't wait for the next general election.

Childish? I don't agree. I can see why you say so, but no, too many promises have been broken within the coalition agreement for the Lib Dems to continue to take severe damage for another party, worsen its own mediocre chances at the next election all for what?

Getting to pretend, or actually live out, being a Tory? I'm sure they've had enough of that, and the relationship is hardly been great has it. That's not even mentioning the damaged reputation the Government and their coalition partners also now appear to have. However, it is now vital that for the Lib Dems that they distance themself from the Tories, as they now have nothing to crow about and much more damage to sustain. If they want any possibility of keeping their self identity particularly in terms of policy and spectrum they have to act against the coalition.
 
Shame really as the boundary changes really need to be done, though I can see why Labour supporters would prefer the status quo.
 
Tories need to be taught a lesson, and the coat-hanger treatment of their precious boundary changes plan will occur as a result.
The right wing menace's idle attitude to their partners and the nation will cost them the next general election as a result. Good riddance.
 
KNiVES said:
Tories need to be taught a lesson ... The right wing menace's idle attitude to their partners and the nation will cost them the next general election as a result. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right but I'm not convinced. I suspect that the Liberal Democrats will be pretty much wiped out but the Tories will only get the boot IF disillusioned Lib Dem voters, particularly students and the young turn back to Labour rather than simply giving up and staying home - I know that I will :)

I suspect that job opportunities will be the key issue. The young don't really know how fantastic the NHS is although the shambles that the Tories seem determined to make of that may persuade many older people to vote Labour.
 
Personally, I haven't stopped laughing since it was announced :D

Tory 'rebels' vote down Lords reform in order to maintain their posh pals in unmerited positions of privilege and influence thereby angering their Lib-Dem coalition 'partners'. This causes the Lib-Dems to vote down border changes which may have helped win the Tories a majority in the next election. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband rubs his hands together chortling while the 'coalition' self-destructs.
 
Stan_Lite said:
Tory 'rebels' vote down Lords reform in order to maintain their posh pals in unmerited positions of privilege and influence thereby angering their Lib-Dem coalition 'partners'. This causes the Lib-Dems to vote down border changes which may have helped win the Tories a majority in the next election. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband rubs his hands together chortling while the 'coalition' self-destructs.
Click to expand...

It's been an extraordinary mess of bad political decisions from the coalition, hasn't it? Clegg apparently chose pursuing Lords reform over stopping the NHS reforms; giving up something many of his supporters cared about for something that most consider a minor issue. Clegg then attempted to ram massive constitutional change through without proper scrutiny or a referendum thus giving Red Ed the perfect opportunity to challenge the bill whilst maintaining the high ground. The Tory right see blood in the water and go in like maddened sharks.

The result? Red Ed comes out well on top, hammering a stake into the heart of the coalition whilst Clegg sinks a bill that would have significantly lowered Labour's chances of a solid majority at the next election.

Meanwhile Cameron looks weakened now he can't deliver his party's votes on the issues they've agreed to, and now the ***-for-tat has begun it's difficult to see the unruly Conservative backbenchers toeing the line through the rest of the parliament. The chances of a right winger taking the leadership before the next election must have gone up, an act that would sew up a Labour victory good and proper.
 
Why would the lib dems vote down NHS reform when the reforms match closely their manifesto proposals for nhs reform? I think it was around page 83....
 
Still shocked they dare to claim we have a democracy when nobody (read: not a proportional majority) actually voted the Torys or the Lib Dems into office... let alone supported either mandate. To make matters worse the entire time they have been in office all they have done is turn it into a massive ****ing contest... Come to think of it nobody voted in the last Labour leader either... the last guy anyone voted for with any conviction was Blair and he's demonized now.

Politics... what a joke.
Democracy for the middle east? How about we start at home.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Why would the lib dems vote down NHS reform when the reforms match closely their manifesto proposals for nhs reform? I think it was around page 83....
Click to expand...

Their plans for the NHS are around page 40 of their manifesto. I see nothing that closely matches the Tory plans which were widely opposed by LibDem members, not in the coalition manifesto and go directly against what the Tory manifesto said.
 
Mr Jack said:
Clegg then attempted to ram massive constitutional change through without proper scrutiny or a referendum thus giving Red Ed the perfect opportunity to challenge the bill whilst maintaining the high ground.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you don't half spout some rubbish. The Boundary Commission are putting right the Gerrymandering, there's no way to spin in that it's wrong to do so, just makes you look bitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom