General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
How about a referendum on the terms after the Brexit negotiation is complete then? Just to make sure the British people are getting what they actually wanted.

Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).
 
Voted, the polling station was pretty quiet but as one person left another would come in which was good.

Went with my party, not the person and voted for Labour (even though they haven't got much chance of regaining control in my constituency).
If Labour can't take your constituency, wouldn't a tactical vote for the nearest party to the Tories have made more sense? Too late now, mind!
 
You think North Sea oil, robotics and the desktop computer had no effect on Thatchers economy?
united-kingdom-gdp@3x.png

79-90 Thatcher period, a relatively modest GDP growth.

97-2010 Blair. Peak in 2007 for GDP. Internet petty much drove all the growth in the 01-07 peak.

Here is the government spend chart:
government-spending-real-1967-2012.png

united-kingdom-government-spending@3x.png


So as you'll see Labour took the opportunity to spend the boom, rather than control it. They significantly increased the rate of government spend. The got carried away. They tried to keep their mantle and it's a major contributor to the level of cuts required now.

This is why voting is so damn complicated, because unless you have a background in economics and finance your chances of understanding the correlation and trends of politics is incredibly difficult.
 
Are you implying that car loans are about to bring the global financial system to its knees?

No. Not large enough but it could play hell with the motor industry. Diesel cars are loosing value quicker than modeled for due to expected tax changes. That part of loans could crash the lot
 
Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).
If the public favour 'no deal', they should be allowed to say 'no deal'. Also, you wouldn't have to announce the referendum until after the negotiations are completed, or at least the key terms.
 
And yet still a ton of cuts, imagine how bad it could be? Maybe you are looking at the wrong party to blame
Tories are as much to blame for the state of the economy pre 2008 as Labour are

PIFYDaR.png


-5% GDP as a Deficit
Debt over 45% GDP

Labour in 2007? No, the Conservatives in 1995.

There was nothing particularly terrible about the state of the economy in 2007/08 before the crash. Debt was at 40% GDP, which was less than much of the 80's with the tories in power. The Deficit was around 4% GDP, again, better than the Tories were consistently posting.

Then came the crash. If that crash had happened under the Tories watch, we'd have been just as screwed.

Don't believe me, google it, there are endless discussions on the subject. Or read this

As more and more people discover the truth on social media, the deficit mythpromoters know the game is up. They clearly underestimated people’s ability to discover the truth and their enthusiasm to share it with others.

Below are the four overspending claims. The eight facts come from the Treasury, ONS, OBR, IMF, OECD and IFS. The claims are:

Claim One
When will you apologise for running a structural deficit even before the recession the recession?

Fact one, apologise for what for being a deficit denier? Structural deficits, budget deficits and government borrowings PSNB have occurred in nearly every year since records began. The fact is very rarely have we had surpluses - OBR page 104. According to this claim, we have been overspending for two centuries - nonsense. Also read Claim one.

Fact two, after ten years of growth in 2007 Labour had a structural deficit of virtually zero at - 0.4% and also budget deficit of - 0.4% OBR page 104.

Fact three, the IMF say the last time we Conservative were in office during 1979 - 1997 we had 18 structural deficits in 18 years. Therefore, we Conservatives also ran structural deficits before all three recessions that occurred during 1979 - 1997. Moreover, it is clear we never fixed the roof whilst the sun was shining.

Claim Two
When are Labour going to apologise for overspending?

No self-respecting economist would simply cherry pick a few years increase in the deficit during 1997 - 2007 and then have the Chutzpah to declare there was overspending in all of that period. This type of selective analysis is not only amateurish but it is also transparently biased and misleading. As in any other field or subject, the entire alleged period would have to be sampled before any such claim could be validated. The facts below are derived from the Treasury and ONS data collected by the OBR page 104.

Fact four, in the alleged period of Labour overspending 1997 to 2007 the structural deficit was cut by 82%, the budget deficit by 85%, PSNB borrowings by 32% and Debt by 16% - read claim two.

Compare this to our mythical outstanding financial record during 1979 and 1997 and you discover we Conservatives are in no position to lecture Labour.

Hence, in 1979, we inherited a Budget deficit of - 1.8% and by 1997 we actually increased it to - 2.7%, which is a huge increase of +50%. Likewise, we also increased the structural deficit by +29% but cut borrowings PSNB by only 17% and we cut the debt by a mere 3%.

Fact five, 1997 to 2007 Labour’s average budget deficits was virtually zero at - 0.1% per annum, the structural deficits was also - 0.1% whilst PSNB borrowings was mere 0.9%.

In contrast, our average budget deficit per annum was much higher at -1.9%, the structural deficit was a mere - 0.9% and borrowings PSNB was much higher at 3.3%.

Claim Three
If Labour were not running a structural deficit in the run up the recession, we would not have inherited the mess they created.

A structural deficit of virtually zero of - 0.4% or a budget deficit of also - 0.4% in 2007 was not the cause of a high budget deficit of - 7.6% and PSNB borrowings of 11.1% in 2010 - OBR March 2011 Page 141

Fact six, the IMF concluded the UK deficit increased because of a large fall in income GDP and output caused by the global banking crisis.

Fact seven, a recession causes the deficit to increase because as income falls; tax revenues also decline; consequentially as businesses cuts back the unemployment rate rises, which causes government expenditure to increase because more people start to claim unemployment benefits and as result the budget deficit rises. This automatic chain reaction occurs in every recession and it occurred in 2008 triggered off by the global banking crisis - its basic economics.

Finally, it also increased because of the bank bailouts and the fiscal stimulus - read claim three.

Claim Four
Labour was running the biggest structural deficit in the G7 before the recession.

Hence, Andrew Marr asked Ed Balls:

It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit of any of the G7 countries?” - Marr 30th January 2011.

Fact eight, it was misleading to say: “It is true to say, is not” because at that time (January 2011) the IMF and OECD said the UK did not have the biggest structural deficit. The IMF stated that the 2006 structural deficit was the third highest at - 2.6% and in 2007 it was the second biggest at - 3%. The OECD concluded the same thing as confirmed by the IFS who stated:

“On the OECD measure, the UK had a structural deficit of 3.5% of national income in 2007. This was the third highest among the G7 countries and the sixth highest among the 26 OECD countries” - IFS page 10 paragraph 3.

The 2006 and 2007 structural deficits was later changed to the biggest only when the IMF published its October 2012 data because the ONS then decided to double its figures - read claim four

So as not to mislead, it is very important to point out there are two structural deficits. The first is the actual measure based on the budget deficit, which George Osborne plans to eliminate, and was virtually zero at - 0.4% in 2007. The second is the OECD and IMF measure based essentially on the ONS PSNB borrowings figure.

To conclude, the claims simply fail to stand up to the facts and even if a few or all of the Labour MP’s admit to overspending; it does not change or nullify the facts from the Treasury, ONS, OBR, IMF, OECD and IFS.

The overspending myth is over because the facts are not going away. As wise man once said:

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”

― Aldous Huxley

Hence, if like me you believe people are entitled to the truth; share this on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, WhatsApp and email; so the truth can be discovered by all; now and in the future. As the Bard said:

“Tell the truth and shame the devil”

― William Shakespeare
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/finally-the-overspending-_b_7591088.html
 
Turnout would have to be about 70% for a hung parliament, right?

Taking current polling data into account, I mean.
 
Turnout would have to be about 70% for a hung parliament, right?

Taking current polling data into account, I mean.
Depends who turns out! The assumption during the EU referendum that high turnout was good for Remain, but it turned out (BAHAHA) that it was Brexity non-voters turning out more than younglings. 2015 was 66%, EUref was 72%.
 
Internet petty much drove all the growth in the 01-07 peak.
Have you got any evidence for this claim? As far as I'm aware, most economists believe the integration of Eastern Europe, the development of the global supply chain, the opening up of China/ access to cheap labour, and migration to be the key factors. As well as a credit binge, obviously.

The dotcom bubble was just a blip in there somewhere.
 
Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).

This is another weird point that Brexit has dragged up.

I am under the impression that 'do-overs', as you put it, are the cornerstone of our democracy. Every five years, at least, we go to the polls and have the chance to say 'well we buggered that one up, I'm picking something different'. Why should Brexit be such a special case that the public are denied what is a democratic right to voice their opinion? If Brexit isn't such a special case then why do we bother to have elections at all anymore? After all, whoever is elected today will be elected 'by the will of the people' so what right do the people have to kick them out again? And why is the line in the sand we drew on Jun 23rd 2016 such an unshakeable and immovable solid point? And why did chief 'ISH DA WILL OF DA PEOPLE' disciple Nigel Farage say on live TV on the night that 52/48 was not the end of the fight?

It seems to me that the primary opposition to a second referendum is based in a fear that the public might have realised they had been duped by then.
 
And yet still a ton of cuts, imagine how bad it could be? Maybe you are looking at the wrong party to blame
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?
 
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?

And that will be Labour's fault when it happens, of course.
 
If the public favour 'no deal', they should be allowed to say 'no deal'. Also, you wouldn't have to announce the referendum until after the negotiations are completed, or at least the key terms.

Question is, after the negotiations are completed, then what happens if the referendum result is "no the public don't accept these terms" - they can't go back and start all over again. Basically the people voted for something of which they had no clue of what the outcome could possibly be and now have to rely on May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and co. to not give the UK a disastrous future.
 
It seems to me that the primary opposition to a second referendum is based in a fear that the public might have realised they had been duped by then.
If the result was the other way, we'd never have heard the end of it. For some reason democracy only works when the right says it does
 
So as you'll see Labour took the opportunity to spend the boom, rather than control it. They significantly increased the rate of government spend. The got carried away. They tried to keep their mantle and it's a major contributor to the level of cuts required now.

This is why voting is so damn complicated, because unless you have a background in economics and finance your chances of understanding the correlation and trends of politics is incredibly difficult.

The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science
 
Reports of high turnout in various places











Was like this at the polling station on our campus today as well. Good news in that I thought most of the undergrads had buggered off home, but I don't know how well it represents the area.
 
Question is, after the negotiations are completed, then what happens if the referendum result is "no the public don't accept these terms" - they can't go back and start all over again. Basically the people voted for something of which they had no clue of what the outcome could possibly be and now have to rely on May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and co. to not give the UK a disastrous future.
The EU have been clear that Britain will be allowed to withdraw its Article 50 notification. If the public would rather stay in the EU than leave on the terms the government has negotiated, it is democratically vital to have a referendum to express that.
 
And that will be Labour's fault when it happens, of course.
Not sure if you are serious, but if so, just have a look at this (or just scroll up)

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ction-day-today.428257/page-279#post-21024899

The Tories were as much at fault for the economy in 2007 as Labour were. In fact they may have been MORE at fault, given that they wanted to deregulate the banking industry.

And because the "death of manufacturing" happened on their watch.

If you want to see more of what the Tories have done wrong, have a look at how Germany handled their economy post-crash.

Job-sharing programmes. Free retraining programmes.

I's worth pointing out that Germany's programme of fiscal stimulus was among the largest in Europe (across developed nations). Germany's unemployment rate is low, and it declined through some of the worst portions of the recession, but it's important to point out that this is due in part to an ambitious work-sharing arrangement, in which employers are encouraged to reduce individual hours worked rather than lay off employees. This policy certainly helps to mitigate job losses during a downturn (which makes for great countercyclical policy, and which reduces the fiscal cost of recession) but it's more likely to delay necessary structural reforms than accelerate them.

And finally, as you can see at right, Germany is one of the few large European economies to increase its deficit from 2009 to 2010. And its planned deficit reduction in 2011 is among the smallest in the euro area. If Germany is more successful than other economies at pulling through recession, it may be because it's better at performing the ideal policy move—a move the that Mr Cowen appears to criticise when it's urged by members of the American left—bigger short-term deficits followed by a credible switch to fiscal tightening down the road.

Mr Cowen's point still stands, to some extent; other countries shouldn't berate Germany for having the good sense to do what they ought to be doing. But I don't think it's quite accurate to sell the German experience as one of a triumph of structural savvy over countercyclical good sense.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/recovery_1

So no NinjaFletch Labour are no longer solely to blame. From this point forward, we must give equal blame to the Tories. If not more.
 
The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science

Something that is continually forgotten about. They don't have a clue. Pretty sure your man works in a call centre with a number of times he's mentioned his qualifications.

Also when a government spend money it's always talked about from the opposition like they're going to a casino and running wild. Not that they've INVESTED money in the public services to improve society. Invested in healthcare, education etc. Perspective changes everything and I can't relate to eejits who think national level economics works like their bloody MS Excel sheet.
 
Have you got any evidence for this claim? As far as I'm aware, most economists believe the integration of Eastern Europe, the development of the global supply chain, the opening up of China/ access to cheap labour, and migration to be the key factors. As well as a credit binge, obviously.

The dotcom bubble was just a blip in there somewhere.
Hmm think above is maybe a moot point. The Internet improved comms in a major way to enable global supply to blossom. These above points are not mutually exclusive.
 
Was like this at the polling station on our campus today as well. Good news in that I thought most of the undergrads had buggered off home, but I don't know how well it represents the area.

The fact that various poll workers are telling people that this election is the busiest they've ever seen it sounds encouraging.

If this is replicated across the country then we can sit up and take more notice.
 
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?

Can I just ask where you think Conservatives could have done things differently?
 
Update on the current top 10, before we descend in to the chaos of tonight and tomorrow.

No real surprises. Nick's a notable omission. He made a good go of it, after a late start, but there was too much catching up to be done.

fqi2a36.png
 
The EU have been clear that Britain will be allowed to withdraw its Article 50 notification. If the public would rather stay in the EU than leave on the terms the government has negotiated, it is democratically vital to have a referendum to express that.

So basically another in or out vote. On the whole the electorate didn't understand the ramifications the first time around, as far as I can see, little has changed in their understanding since.
 
Not sure if you are serious, but if so, just have a look at this (or just scroll up)

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ction-day-today.428257/page-279#post-21024899

The Tories were as much at fault for the economy in 2007 as Labour were. In fact they may have been MORE at fault, given that they wanted to deregulate the banking industry.

And because the "death of manufacturing" happened on their watch.

If you want to see more of what the Tories have done wrong, have a look at how Germany handled their economy post-crash.

Job-sharing programmes. Free retraining programmes.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/recovery_1

So no NinjaFletch Labour are no longer solely to blame. From this point forward, we must give equal blame to the Tories. If not more.

Thought my reputation may have preceded me on that one. It was a comment on how the right wing press will blame Labour for the financial mismanagement of the Conservatives just as they blame Labour for the economic crash and austerity.
 
The responsibility to control the boom rested with the Bank of England, they controlled interest rates. The Labour government didn't spend the boom, the spending growth matched gdp growth as the Tories did during the 80s

Economics isn't a science

Focusing on spend as a percentage or GDP is misleading. Why should spending grow at the same proportion as GDP? It's an easy political shield as those stats can be shown to highlight things are rosy. The big question is when you have a major GDP boom such as the advent of the Internet, why would you need to spend tons more on services. Better to get the debt down and get to a healthy position first.
 
Farrelly voted against Brexit so that won't go down well with the voters.

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/brex...-50-by-march/story-29968291-detail/story.html

Tory candidate is active on social media too whereas Farrelly isn't. I expect they'll go blue for the first time.

Large portion of that constituency is made up by keele university students & lot of people who work for the large university hospital live in that constituency as well so should get a good number of labour voters.
 
So basically another in or out vote. On the whole the electorate didn't understand the ramifications the first time around, as far as I can see, little has changed in their understanding since.
The way the vote should have been constructed was 'do you want the government to start negotiations to leave the EU?'

Then a second referendum on the specific question of 'now you know the terms, do you want to leave?'