Election Thread

News, Banter and anything else non football!!

Who You Going To Vote For?

Poll ended at Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:19 am

Conservative
23
44%
Labour
17
33%
Liberal Democrats
3
6%
Green
1
2%
Scottish Lot
1
2%
UKIP
3
6%
Someone else
4
8%
 
Total votes: 52

User avatar
h69
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:51 pm
Location: Ruislip, Middlesex

Re: Election Thread

Postby h69 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:29 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
h69 wrote:
Hammerwell wrote:I'm not saying I like labour either , but least we'd of had some services put back instead of paying money on nothing as the Tories spend has gone sky rocket and more than labours in 10 years + ...... End of the day we will never be debt free and id now question if May did get the most votes , or if any election is 100% legit .


Another conspiracy theory Whacko !

By the way, compare the spending plans of both parties for the next 10 years. I do agree we will now never recover from the late 90s spending spree and be debt free but really.....a conspiracy that is designed to get a hung parliament...really ?


He's not necessarily talking about the NWO.
We do see certain unelected people, and groups of people, who exert an extreme amount of power and influence over world affairs.
And again national debt has doubled in less than 2 parliament's under the Conservatives.
And that was done living under austerity, with public services and the armed forces gutted.

Btw, in many nations electoral voting systems has been specifically designed to negate majority voting. In the US we see the electoral college that can return a positive result for a candidate polling under half the vote. This is famously meant to combat the 'tyranny of the majority'.
In our own system most if not all elections would produce a hung parliament if every vote was actually represented. So I guess the real conspiracy is in not producing said hung parliament.
To paraphrase Bakunin, whether it's conspiracy or not, political freedom in the absence of economic equality isn't really possible. Never a truer word spoken in my opinion.


You are still a whacko if you think that the election just gone was bent...
0 x

User avatar
h69
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:51 pm
Location: Ruislip, Middlesex

Re: Election Thread

Postby h69 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:35 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
Thames wrote:And again national debt has doubled in less than 2 parliament's under the Conservatives.
And that was done living under austerity, with public services and the armed forces gutted.



Nev, can you add facts to your statement above?


Debt has risen from just over £1trillion in 2010 to £1.8trillion in 2017.
As percentage of GDP it's up from 65 to 85 over the same period.
National debt is at it's highest level since the 1960s.
Deficit targets set in 2010 and 2015 have not been met.
Even adjusted for inflation (which includes a hugely devalued pound) the figures show a continually upward trend -- a 53% increase in real terms.
It should be noted this upward trend began when the recession hit in 2008. Though much like immigration, the Conservatives continue to miss targets and fail to deliver on pledges of serious reductions.
To set a target they had no will to enforce is a lie, pure and simple. Saying 'we'll cut immigration', 'we'll cut the deficit', then doing neither is exactly the same as not doing either.
Not that you could or would put that in a manifesto.
I love politics. Power and money attracts liars and hypocrites like shit attracts flies. And yet somehow some of us still manage to find one shitty fly more appealing than another.


It also attracts people that talk on and on about one subject without including all the factors in that subjects to suit their argument.

You keep banging on about the debt mate but you are ignoring an obvious fact here.....Under the conservatives the borrowing has gone down year on year. Under labours constings the borrowing would go up. So how would that be a good thing ?
That is also not including the amount they would have to borrow to renationalise that they did not include in their costings meaning even more borrowing.

Moan all you want about austerity but we would not need it if the labour government under Blair and Brown had not got us into a position where we cannot even afford the interest....its like taking outr a payday loan.

Now you will tell me you dont like labour either again so exactly how would you plan to lower the debt ?
0 x

User avatar
grandad
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 8:13 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Election Thread

Postby grandad » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:19 am

I did vote Tory ( like always ) but fcuk me Mrs May aint all that is she ? :o :o :o
1 x
Once you take the devils shilling its no going back !!!!!!

User avatar
Noni
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:20 pm

Re: Election Thread

Postby Noni » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:23 am

grandad wrote:I did vote Tory ( like always ) but fcuk me Mrs May aint all that is she ? :o :o :o


For once we agree!!! :D
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Election Thread

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:25 pm

h69 wrote:
It also attracts people that talk on and on about one subject without including all the factors in that subjects to suit their argument.

You keep banging on about the debt mate but you are ignoring an obvious fact here.....Under the conservatives the borrowing has gone down year on year. Under labours constings the borrowing would go up. So how would that be a good thing ?
That is also not including the amount they would have to borrow to renationalise that they did not include in their costings meaning even more borrowing.

Moan all you want about austerity but we would not need it if the labour government under Blair and Brown had not got us into a position where we cannot even afford the interest....its like taking outr a payday loan.

Now you will tell me you dont like labour either again so exactly how would you plan to lower the debt ?


Like UKIP you mean?

Mate, debt is still rising. It's even had a little bump this year.
As for renationalising, well you'd need a basic understanding of who the government borrows from (I'm pretty sure my figures are sound, but I'll be bollocksed if I'm checking, so don't hold me to any of this).
75% of national debt is owed to British people, institutions and companies (including pension funds). Over 20% of that is owed to the Bank of England APFF. The rest is overseas borrowing, which, as you might imagine, is offset by debt owed to the UK -- the US, for example, is into us for well over $500billion.
Basically what happens is that the government borrows money on a promise to repay it over a certain period with interest (apologies if that's blindingly obvious))-- Britain repays gilt, on average, over 13+ years, which is double and triple the time period of places like the US, France and Germany.
With such an extended period to repay, any borrowing to renationalise profitable industries would pretty much repay itself -- assuming said industries remained profitable.

Personally I'd like to see investment. Investment in people, industry, infrastructure, public services. And maybe draw some kind of line under selling off British companies. Did you know that over half of all shares in British companies are foreign owned?
Wouldn't happen in Germany.
Research suggests the difference between the British and German economy is investment.
The Germans back themselves and their companies with investment, the British don't, we sell off our success'.

I've bored myself there...
1 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

Hammerwell
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 4:21 pm

Re: Election Thread

Postby Hammerwell » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:44 pm

h69 wrote:
Thames wrote:
Hammerwell wrote:


Oh for fuck sake grow a pair of bollocks mate. Why the fuck would she want to be in touch with lefty wankers like you?

Go and march on a tree you all round fucking poof house!


errrr I did not write that statement regarding the PM and the fire ....... what is going on here ?



No I know you didn't and I never claimed you had . I just put it on the end to make a point of '' How much the government's were in touch with ordinary people '' at the time I posted Treasa May had paid her first private visit to the site before getting humiliated and having to return to actually meet those affected by it ...........
0 x

User avatar
mkhammer
Posts: 1422
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 11:12 am

Re: Election Thread

Postby mkhammer » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:55 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
h69 wrote:
It also attracts people that talk on and on about one subject without including all the factors in that subjects to suit their argument.

You keep banging on about the debt mate but you are ignoring an obvious fact here.....Under the conservatives the borrowing has gone down year on year. Under labours constings the borrowing would go up. So how would that be a good thing ?
That is also not including the amount they would have to borrow to renationalise that they did not include in their costings meaning even more borrowing.

Moan all you want about austerity but we would not need it if the labour government under Blair and Brown had not got us into a position where we cannot even afford the interest....its like taking outr a payday loan.

Now you will tell me you dont like labour either again so exactly how would you plan to lower the debt ?


Like UKIP you mean?

Mate, debt is still rising. It's even had a little bump this year.
As for renationalising, well you'd need a basic understanding of who the government borrows from (I'm pretty sure my figures are sound, but I'll be bollocksed if I'm checking, so don't hold me to any of this).
75% of national debt is owed to British people, institutions and companies (including pension funds). Over 20% of that is owed to the Bank of England APFF. The rest is overseas borrowing, which, as you might imagine, is offset by debt owed to the UK -- the US, for example, is into us for well over $500billion.
Basically what happens is that the government borrows money on a promise to repay it over a certain period with interest (apologies if that's blindingly obvious))-- Britain repays gilt, on average, over 13+ years, which is double and triple the time period of places like the US, France and Germany.
With such an extended period to repay, any borrowing to renationalise profitable industries would pretty much repay itself -- assuming said industries remained profitable.

Personally I'd like to see investment. Investment in people, industry, infrastructure, public services. And maybe draw some kind of line under selling off British companies. Did you know that over half of all shares in British companies are foreign owned?
Wouldn't happen in Germany.
Research suggests the difference between the British and German economy is investment.
The Germans back themselves and their companies with investment, the British don't, we sell off our success'.

I've bored myself there...


UK debt is going down....like I said in a previous post,debt is not a bad thing,everybody owes
everyone else,it's a necessity to keep money moving.
The US in turn owe us Billions,not as much as we owe them granted,(interested to know now
I'll have a google :i am genuinely amused: )but it's a lot I know.

The reason the Tories like to keep Taxes low for companies (everyone for that matter)is they
want profits to be re-invested,and by taxing them heavily reduces the amount they can invest.

Foreign investment in us is crucial,we need outside money,more we get in, the better off we are.
We are one of the, if not the wealthiest country in Europe for a reason..
Apart from Germany obviously,who have a massive advantage over us in the fact that since
the 40s their defence budget has been a hell of a lot less than ours,and I mean 10s of billions
a year,that is one massive leg up.

The problem is because of our 15 year or so cycle in our politics one route then another,
we have glitches in our investments,down the route of low taxation and investments,allowing
foreign money to come in...to high taxation hence low investments,and keeping everything
"inhouse".

Blair realised the right way to go,but the stupid fuck went to the extremes in his vote
winning shit agenda,and very nearly screwed us.
Now we got another lot who want to get votes at absolutely any cost,no matter what the
outcome.
1 x

User avatar
ironstillidie
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Election Thread

Postby ironstillidie » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:42 pm

Austerity economics will be resigned as a barbaric economic practice in years to come. It is the economy policy equivalent of amputation as a method for healing.

Worse still it's like hacking a leg off at a time when you have all the facilities and opportunities that electricity and anaesthesia and modern antibiotics bring to bear?

And why?

Because of the absurd pretense that it would be irresponsible not to cut the leg off. Fear not the 'responsible' economic right will do that which our opposites aren't brave enough to do themselves - pass me that axe!

Labour did overspend during the 2000s. It did have an effect on the fiscal options available post recession ... but not that much.

With the deficit we never experienced what any respectable expert would call a fiscal crisis.

The only thing you might focus on is that inflation from Labour spending meant housing prices went artificially high in boom years so fell further when the crash happened.

So basically false expectations. Which aren't good. But in real terms against GDP borrowing was less than in previous years so to call it irresponsible on labours part would be ... irresponsible.
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Election Thread

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:26 pm

mkhammer wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
h69 wrote:
It also attracts people that talk on and on about one subject without including all the factors in that subjects to suit their argument.

You keep banging on about the debt mate but you are ignoring an obvious fact here.....Under the conservatives the borrowing has gone down year on year. Under labours constings the borrowing would go up. So how would that be a good thing ?
That is also not including the amount they would have to borrow to renationalise that they did not include in their costings meaning even more borrowing.

Moan all you want about austerity but we would not need it if the labour government under Blair and Brown had not got us into a position where we cannot even afford the interest....its like taking outr a payday loan.

Now you will tell me you dont like labour either again so exactly how would you plan to lower the debt ?


Like UKIP you mean?

Mate, debt is still rising. It's even had a little bump this year.
As for renationalising, well you'd need a basic understanding of who the government borrows from (I'm pretty sure my figures are sound, but I'll be bollocksed if I'm checking, so don't hold me to any of this).
75% of national debt is owed to British people, institutions and companies (including pension funds). Over 20% of that is owed to the Bank of England APFF. The rest is overseas borrowing, which, as you might imagine, is offset by debt owed to the UK -- the US, for example, is into us for well over $500billion.
Basically what happens is that the government borrows money on a promise to repay it over a certain period with interest (apologies if that's blindingly obvious))-- Britain repays gilt, on average, over 13+ years, which is double and triple the time period of places like the US, France and Germany.
With such an extended period to repay, any borrowing to renationalise profitable industries would pretty much repay itself -- assuming said industries remained profitable.

Personally I'd like to see investment. Investment in people, industry, infrastructure, public services. And maybe draw some kind of line under selling off British companies. Did you know that over half of all shares in British companies are foreign owned?
Wouldn't happen in Germany.
Research suggests the difference between the British and German economy is investment.
The Germans back themselves and their companies with investment, the British don't, we sell off our success'.

I've bored myself there...


UK debt is going down....like I said in a previous post,debt is not a bad thing,everybody owes
everyone else,it's a necessity to keep money moving.
The US in turn owe us Billions,not as much as we owe them granted,(interested to know now
I'll have a google :i am genuinely amused: )but it's a lot I know.

The reason the Tories like to keep Taxes low for companies (everyone for that matter)is they
want profits to be re-invested,and by taxing them heavily reduces the amount they can invest.

Foreign investment in us is crucial,we need outside money,more we get in, the better off we are.
We are one of the, if not the wealthiest country in Europe for a reason..
Apart from Germany obviously,who have a massive advantage over us in the fact that since
the 40s their defence budget has been a hell of a lot less than ours,and I mean 10s of billions
a year,that is one massive leg up.

The problem is because of our 15 year or so cycle in our politics one route then another,
we have glitches in our investments,down the route of low taxation and investments,allowing
foreign money to come in...to high taxation hence low investments,and keeping everything
"inhouse".

Blair realised the right way to go,but the stupid fuck went to the extremes in his vote
winning shit agenda,and very nearly screwed us.
Now we got another lot who want to get votes at absolutely any cost,no matter what the
outcome.


From what I've read (not I might add in the newspapers) debt is still increasing.
I'm not sure there's any parity in UK/US debt -- since the 25% of UK debt owed overseas equates to roughly what the US owes the UK it's unlikely to be anywhere close to even (though the figures I'm recalling were from a couple of years ago).
Blair and Labour, and the Conservatives prior to that actually managed debt and borrowing very well, right up to the 2008 meltdown.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
ironstillidie
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Election Thread

Postby ironstillidie » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:55 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
mkhammer wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
Like UKIP you mean?

Mate, debt is still rising. It's even had a little bump this year.
As for renationalising, well you'd need a basic understanding of who the government borrows from (I'm pretty sure my figures are sound, but I'll be bollocksed if I'm checking, so don't hold me to any of this).
75% of national debt is owed to British people, institutions and companies (including pension funds). Over 20% of that is owed to the Bank of England APFF. The rest is overseas borrowing, which, as you might imagine, is offset by debt owed to the UK -- the US, for example, is into us for well over $500billion.
Basically what happens is that the government borrows money on a promise to repay it over a certain period with interest (apologies if that's blindingly obvious))-- Britain repays gilt, on average, over 13+ years, which is double and triple the time period of places like the US, France and Germany.
With such an extended period to repay, any borrowing to renationalise profitable industries would pretty much repay itself -- assuming said industries remained profitable.

Personally I'd like to see investment. Investment in people, industry, infrastructure, public services. And maybe draw some kind of line under selling off British companies. Did you know that over half of all shares in British companies are foreign owned?
Wouldn't happen in Germany.
Research suggests the difference between the British and German economy is investment.
The Germans back themselves and their companies with investment, the British don't, we sell off our success'.

I've bored myself there...


UK debt is going down....like I said in a previous post,debt is not a bad thing,everybody owes
everyone else,it's a necessity to keep money moving.
The US in turn owe us Billions,not as much as we owe them granted,(interested to know now
I'll have a google :i am genuinely amused: )but it's a lot I know.

The reason the Tories like to keep Taxes low for companies (everyone for that matter)is they
want profits to be re-invested,and by taxing them heavily reduces the amount they can invest.

Foreign investment in us is crucial,we need outside money,more we get in, the better off we are.
We are one of the, if not the wealthiest country in Europe for a reason..
Apart from Germany obviously,who have a massive advantage over us in the fact that since
the 40s their defence budget has been a hell of a lot less than ours,and I mean 10s of billions
a year,that is one massive leg up.

The problem is because of our 15 year or so cycle in our politics one route then another,
we have glitches in our investments,down the route of low taxation and investments,allowing
foreign money to come in...to high taxation hence low investments,and keeping everything
"inhouse".

Blair realised the right way to go,but the stupid fuck went to the extremes in his vote
winning shit agenda,and very nearly screwed us.
Now we got another lot who want to get votes at absolutely any cost,no matter what the
outcome.


From what I've read (not I might add in the newspapers) debt is still increasing.
I'm not sure there's any parity in UK/US debt -- since the 25% of UK debt owed overseas equates to roughly what the US owes the UK it's unlikely to be anywhere close to even (though the figures I'm recalling were from a couple of years ago).
Blair and Labour, and the Conservatives prior to that actually managed debt and borrowing very well, right up to the 2008 meltdown.


Agree with this.

Lot of basic ideas out there about national debt. So long as your not talking about a Greece situation ... which the UK was always far away from in spite of all Cameron and Osborne's scare tactics that confused many.

National debt is not corporate debt is not personal debt.

And as far as I can see on the issue of debt vs borrowing you're talking at cross purposes. Both are true.

Borrowing or the deficit has been cut by Tories but not eliminated as they preached they would so in turn debt has increased.

Not that this matters too much.... just like it didn't under new Labour ... proof? ... in spite of the Tories not removing the deficit that infamous double dip recession never came.

That's the problems with the Tories these days
.. they can't meet their harsh criteria and in doingso prove how unnecessary and flexible the criteria were in the first place.
0 x


Return to “Topical Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests