Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?


  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. Corbyn's view of taking away the decision of shoot to kill from the officers is terrible. After what happened yesterday what on earth could they have done. Taser them? Let them continue on their rampage!? I can not support him on this approach to terrorism. Action needs to be swift and abrupt in these situations.


Your kidding? It is indefensible to support ending shoot to kill of terrorists by the police.

Currently, it is up to the police to decide how much force is reasonable to use. A "shoot to kill" policy takes this decision out of the officers' hands and mandates that suspected terrorists should be shot dead during a terrorist attack.

The current policy saw Jean Charles de Menezes shot dead after a case of mistaken identity. A mandated shoot to kill policy only makes that outcome more likely.
 
I guess all these people criticising the Tories over the deficit were just expecting the UK economy to some how magically exceed its long term growth potential of 2 - 2.5% per annum and wipe out that deficit with a few years of 4 or 5% economic growth. Back in the real world ......
 
Caged thats true, but they like any government can only make plans and estimates based on forecasts. Thankfully since 2010 they've not had the liberty of conjuring up their own growth forecasts, thats the job of the OBR. (IM NOT A TORY! Despite having voted so in this poll)
 
I've no interest in all the politics shenanigans, but it's mental how many people don't know what the difference between, the budget deficit, and the national debt is.

Deficit = Income vs. Expenditure, think of it like your wages, vs. your out goings, e.g mortgage, council tax, car payments etc. If you lost your job, and had to still make those payments you might need to borrow some more money from, maybe your parents, friends, or a bank until you got another job and your income was greater than your out goings again. You can't run in a deficit forever, or you have to start sacrificing things, like selling your car, house, or getting rid of some possessions.

Debt = Amount you currently owe to creditors. So, if you take it in your terms, the balance of your mortgage, car loan, and credit card balances. Obviously your debt will increase, if you can't raise enough money to pay it back, so if you lose your job, and need to borrow more your debt goes up. The longer your debt stay higher, the more the interest adds to the balance, and if you can't start paying it off soon, then you will eventually become bankrupt.

In short, until this country is making more money than it spends, the debt will never ever decrease. Now go and figure out how you achieve that, in the same terms that you would have to do personally.
 
I guess all these people criticising the Tories over the deficit were just expecting the UK economy to some how magically exceed its long term growth potential of 2 - 2.5% per annum and wipe out that deficit with a few years of 4 or 5% economic growth. Back in the real world ......

Well no, in the real world we were criticising the Tories for saying they would eliminate the deficit in one term through austerity, when we were saying it would take at least 10 years and need stimulus instead...
 
Saudi do not fund Daesh, they do fund groups fighting in Syria and possibly elsewhere. The argument being some of the fringes of those groups are close enough to transition over to Daesh, possibly even be fighting for both groups at the same time in order to gain this funding while actually being radicals far beyond the original intention. Thats a feasible theory and its probably happened in the past in previous conflicts
 
<snip>

In short, until this country is making more money than it spends, the debt will never ever decrease. Now go and figure out how you achieve that, in the same terms that you would have to do personally.

Well, no because Govt debt is nothing like Personal debt...its mental how many people don't know that ;)
 
Saudi do not fund Daesh, they do fund groups fighting in Syria and possibly elsewhere. The argument being some of the fringes of those groups are close enough to transition over to Daesh, possibly even be fighting for both groups at the same time in order to gain this funding while actually being radicals far beyond the original intention. Thats a feasible theory and its probably happened in the past in previous conflicts

This article seems to indicate they do

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html
 
In short, until this country is making more money than it spends, the debt will never ever decrease. Now go and figure out how you achieve that, in the same terms that you would have to do personally.

That's not strictly true. The debt to GDP ratio falls provided the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is lower than GDP growth. Likewise, the value of the debt falls provided inflation is higher than the increase in the size of the debt.

There's nothing to say we have to have a surplus. Any surplus is only ever going to have a tiny effect on the UK's debt problem. Growth and inflation affect it far more dramatically.
 
Well no, in the real world we were criticising the Tories for saying they would eliminate the deficit in one term through austerity, when we were saying it would take at least 10 years and need stimulus instead...

Thats a fair point you make. I don't know if you know of Mark Blyth, you probably have since you refer to Countries not being like individuals. But his point is, Countries like the UK and USA have been providing the stimulus (Consumer spending driven mind you), and Countries such as China, Germany, etc have been the ones soaking up that stimulus. Highly paraphrased of course, but his view seems to be a global stimulus effort and not one where everybody simultaneously contracts.
 
That's not strictly true. The debt to GDP ratio falls provided the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, is lower than GDP growth. Likewise, the value of the debt falls provided inflation is higher than the increase in the size of the debt.

There's nothing to say we have to have a surplus. Any surplus is only ever going to have a tiny effect on the UK's debt problem. Growth and inflation affect it far more dramatically.

Yep. Assuming we have a long term growth potential of say 2%, we could run a perpetual 1% budget deficit and the total stock of debt to GDP would shrink year on year.
 
Well rather than do a winky useless smiley, that means nothing to anyone, you could explain it in laymans terms to help the folks, (obviously like me) who don't know.

Sorry, I was just being light hearted, no offence intended.

Satchef1 has explained the basics, but it's mainly about time, inflation, growth, debt to GDP ratio not just the total debt figure and controlling your own currency value that make it very different to simple household economics.

Simply put, in WW1 we borrowed, say, 1.5 billion pounds to fund the war, which was an enormous amount of money at the time. We don't actually pay that off, just service the interest, so the capital owed doesnt increase. ...which as long as growth outstrips inflation we can do easily. Fast forward to the present time (which we still do owe debts rolled over from the 1700's iirc) and 1.5 billion pounds is no longer a large amount of money, relatively, so is much easier to pay off.

Obviously macro economics are far more complicated than that, but that's my simple layman's understanding :)

Of course that doesn't mean would shouldn't care about debt, of course we should. Our current interest payments are eye watering but it doesn't mean we can't actually run a 'small' deficit every year. In fact some economic theory says running a surplus is inefficient, which is totally unlike personal economics
 
Last edited:
Caged thats true, but they like any government can only make plans and estimates based on forecasts. Thankfully since 2010 they've not had the liberty of conjuring up their own growth forecasts, thats the job of the OBR. (IM NOT A TORY! Despite having voted so in this poll)

Is the plan to drop to the bottom of the G7 in economic performance, or eliminate economic migration by making our currency worthless?
 
Thats a fair point you make. I don't know if you know of Mark Blyth, you probably have since you refer to Countries not being like individuals. But his point is, Countries like the UK and USA have been providing the stimulus (Consumer spending driven mind you), and Countries such as China, Germany, etc have been the ones soaking up that stimulus. Highly paraphrased of course, but his view seems to be a global stimulus effort and not one where everybody simultaneously contracts.

Doesn't ring a bell, i'll look him up, thanks :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom