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 .
I wonder how many people around the country are saying they feel their vote is wasted because the election is already over. I've observed an absolute shit ton of people say it in person or on forums, social media and various news sites in the last 24 hours. Those numbers add up and would mean something very significant if they just shut the feck up and voted on the policies they support!

The only positive out of this is that, those really energised and worried core Labour/Corbyn supporters will absolutely get out and vote. The Conservatives could actually be a victim of their own success and voter apathy if people see it as a foregone conclusion, thus not actually getting themselves to the polling stations.
 
Ady87 said:
I wonder how many people around the country are saying they feel their vote is wasted because the election is already over. I've observed an absolute shit ton of people say it in person or on forums, social media and various news sites in the last 24 hours. Those numbers add up and would mean something very significant if they just shut the feck up and voted on the policies they support!

The only positive out of this is that, those really energised and worried core Labour/Corbyn supporters will absolutely get out and vote. The Conservatives could actually be a victim of their own success and voter apathy if people see it as a foregone conclusion, thus not actually getting themselves to the polling stations.
Click to expand...

Depends where you live in the country though doesn't it?

Luckily enough I can vote in one of two constituencies. One of them though is so solidly Tory though that even that tactical voting strategy couldn't be arsed to tell you which way to vote to kick them out.

Hence why I have so much PASCHUN for electoral reform.
 
rcoobc said:
I just looked at that as well. Unfortunately their website is broken (typical) so can only use excel...

jEZ2u9L.png


Someone will explain how the two figures come together... I assume one includes borrowing to bail out the banks, and the other, not.

Edit - Updated the above image.

The two sets of data are as follows:

Public sector net borrowing, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

Public sector current budget deficit, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

One is borrowing, one is the deficit.
Click to expand...

Updated
 
Kentonio said:
To be honest I'm with you on the idea that it needs to be done carefully, and not just a load of huge changes all at once. It's essential though that we have government who actual want to bring about the big changes over time, and not just fob us off with some crap rearranging of the deckchairs.
Click to expand...
thats my worry, £10 minimum wage is a nice headline but it wont really address the problems with employment in this country and could even make them worse. I just worry Corbyn has gone for the headline not the long term plan with that policy.

im still gonna vote for labour as i believe their that Corbyn is the only leader who it is a genuine priority to tackle the inequalities and unfairness in the labour market, but i just feel this policy was misguided.
 
rcoobc said:
I just looked at that as well. Unfortunately their website is broken (typical) so can only use excel...

jEZ2u9L.png


Someone will explain how the two figures come together... I assume one includes borrowing to bail out the banks, and the other, not.

Edit - Updated the above image.

The two sets of data are as follows:

Public sector net borrowing, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

Public sector current budget deficit, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

One is borrowing, one is the deficit.
Click to expand...
that actually shows the conservatives are reducing borrowing every year? i thought it was the opposite.
 
Crossie said:
:D I thought they'd give me the best reflection of what Brexiteers think. Was my assumption wrong?
Click to expand...

BBC Radio 4 by far and away the best UK news and factual programming service IMO. Although the hard left will tell you they are biased against Corbyn while the Tories will say they pedal the politics of the 'left wing liberal elite'.

Murdoch owns a large part of Sky and is looking to become the majority shareholder. Sky News are generally being perceived as being pro right wing when reporting on UK politics.
 
I didn't know that Jeremy starred in The Birds.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
then you will know when banging on about norway they have a 55% tax rate, 78% corporate tax rate and 25% normal vat with up to 35% tax on luxury goods.

Using them as an example of what you want while voting for tories to avoid corbyn putting corpoarte tax rates back to 22% is as nonsensical as inviting gary glitter round for a toddlers tea party.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was an expert in world economics! I have just studied enough to know the basic mechanics of what makes the economy tick! This education should be given to everyone, as too much voting is based on emotions that lack fundamental understanding. It's always easy to find a tragedy where the system has let someone down, but simply put there isn't enough money to fund every problem and every ailment. But what is clear is that money going to interest can't go to the NHS, so whilst it's great jumping on the bandwagon of one person's struggles, or even a handful of peoples struggles, what isn't even shown is how many people are missing out because Labour spent too much in their term and didn't have a buffer for the financial crash. And typically it's Conservatives coming back in following a period of Labour overspending and looking like the bad guys for fixing a problem partly created by Labour.
 
rcoobc said:
I just looked at that as well. Unfortunately their website is broken (typical) so can only use excel...

jEZ2u9L.png


Someone will explain how the two figures come together... I assume one includes borrowing to bail out the banks, and the other, not.

Edit - Updated the above image.

The two sets of data are as follows:

Public sector net borrowing, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

Public sector current budget deficit, excluding public sector banks (£ million)

One is borrowing, one is the deficit.
Click to expand...

Aye one includes capital expenditure basically with the latter being the true day to day balance. I think you generally exclude anything you owe to yourself as well but i cant recall the other figure with that in.

Essentially he looked at the wrong figure. The tories spoke big but followed Labours plan including Brown shrewd work with the banks.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Tell me then, how much are children's lives actually worth to you. Give me a figure.

And who the feck do you think will be wiping your arse in your old age if we do not have a functioning healthcare system?
Click to expand...

Can I just ask you a question?

You can save 4 kids today, but 5 kids suffer tomorrow, or you can save 5 kids tomorrow and the 4 today will suffer?

Basic question, what do you do? No complicating this with other pots of money. Let's assume everything else is managed as tightly as possible.

It's easy to focus on the problem staring you in the face and to throw money at it, but sometimes you need to step away from the emotion to do more good!

This isn't a perfect world, you might be able to save those 9 kids with even more money, but then 11/12 suffer after that and then you try and save them, now you are up 25-30 kids suffering in the future, because that mounting debt is sucking up all the interest
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Can I just ask you a question?

You can save 4 kids today, but 5 kids suffer tomorrow, or you can save 5 kids tomorrow and the 4 today will suffer?

Basic question, what do you do? No complicating this with other pots of money. Let's assume everything else is managed as tightly as possible.

It's easy to focus on the problem staring you in the face and to throw money at it, but sometimes you need to step away from the emotion to do more good!

This isn't a perfect world, you might be able to save those 9 kids with even more money, but then 11/12 suffer after that and then you try and save them, now you are up 25-30 kids suffering in the future, because that mounting debt is sucking up all the interest
Click to expand...
'Step away from the emotion' in regard to kids not getting medical help in the UK because Branson needs to make a profit. :lol:

You never did give us a figure per child either. Get the calculator out.
 
Last edited:
RedTillI'mDead said:
I didn't say I was an expert in world economics! I have just studied enough to know the basic mechanics of what makes the economy tick! This education should be given to everyone, as too much voting is based on emotions that lack fundamental understanding. It's always easy to find a tragedy where the system has let someone down, but simply put there isn't enough money to fund every problem and every ailment. But what is clear is that money going to interest can't go to the NHS, so whilst it's great jumping on the bandwagon of one person's struggles, or even a handful of peoples struggles, what isn't even shown is how many people are missing out because Labour spent too much in their term and didn't have a buffer for the financial crash. And typically it's Conservatives coming back in following a period of Labour overspending and looking like the bad guys for fixing a problem partly created by Labour.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be rude but thats idiotic again. Without the financial crash there was no overspending.

Do you really think we'd have been able to carry on completely insulated from the credit crunch if they'd have run a few years of budget surplus (say 5%)??
 
Classical Mechanic said:
BBC Radio 4 by far and away the best UK news and factual programming service IMO. Although the hard left will tell you they are biased against Corbyn while the Tories will say they pedal the politics of the 'left wing liberal elite'.

Murdoch owns a large part of Sky and is looking to become the majority shareholder. Sky News are generally being perceived as being pro right wing when reporting on UK politics.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, it confirms my perception of Sky News. I watched them quite a bit during the referendum campaigns and was therefore next to not surprised about the Brexit. Watching them can be painful but I feel it prepares me for the worst possible outcomes. :D
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Can I just ask you a question?

You can save 4 kids today, but 5 kids suffer tomorrow, or you can save 5 kids tomorrow and the 4 today will suffer?

Basic question, what do you do? No complicating this with other pots of money. Let's assume everything else is managed as tightly as possible.

It's easy to focus on the problem staring you in the face and to throw money at it, but sometimes you need to step away from the emotion to do more good!

This isn't a perfect world, you might be able to save those 9 kids with even more money, but then 11/12 suffer after that and then you try and save them, now you are up 25-30 kids suffering in the future, because that mounting debt is sucking up all the interest
Click to expand...

That's just fiscal illiteracy.

You want to take the emotion of the kids out of it. Try this one then.

Our economy is based largely around the service industry, with a decreasing amount of manufacturing, our productivity levels are at record lows. I am sure you agree we need to grow the economy to survive. Fiscal prudence and taking care of the economy are tory foundations after all, even though they have piss poor performance in both in reality.

What is it that every business in the country needs? I'll tell you, an educated and healthy workforce. Without that foundation we have nothing. No business, from mcdonalds to Lloyds of London, manages without the basic building block of capitalism, a functional pool of employees. So, if all these kids are sick, with no access to a cure because virgin won't even answer the phone, do explain to me where that workforce is coming from in a decade's time? It is economically irresponsible to absolve the state of its duty of care to the people who will make up its workforce, even if you ignore the human cost as you seem want to do. Personally, I think the issue of kids living daily in pain so branson can buy another island a bit more urgent problem, but you don;t seem to give a toss about that part. I'm betting you would if it were your family though.
 
Kentonio said:
ukgs_chartDp12t.png


Yep, that's what our closed hospitals, slashed police forces and schools and crushed welfare support bought us.
Click to expand...

It's interesting you make that point. Now imagine what the debt would be like if there wasn't all the cuts?

But let me guess you think spending more on services will somehow reduce the debt? Where is the payback? Yes you'll get a bit from taxing the public sector workers and then the VAT they spend, but a very small fraction of the outlay and where is the capital return? There isn't any, because public services are rarely an investment with potential for a return. Occasionally this can happen, e.g. if spent on appreciating land and property that can be sold off for profit, but straight up police on the beat and extra NHS workers or higher salaries doesn't provide a return.

What you are losing here is that the crash has resulted in a massive investment required in saving the banks, investing in business, tax cuts for new business, etc. This takes time to repay, but is necessary to ensure the GDP remains, otherwise even the same debt will quickly become a bigger percentage of a smaller GDP.

All of the moving parts can create noise. It's important to focus on the basic economics, money that goes towards paying interest is money that can't be spent on other things. If the extra money generated from a loan is not invested in assets that provide a return, e.g. businesses, property, shares, etc then the trade off becomes fairly clear. You get more now, but less money later. Combine those two periods of time together and it's obvious that you have less money in total to spend on services and goods, as part of it is filtering towards interest.

It's the same reason people hated the Glazers, because so much money was going towards interest on the loan, which compared to other owners meant that even if they took the same out of the business personally there would be less money for players.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
It's interesting you make that point. Now imagine what the debt would be like if there wasn't all the cuts?
Click to expand...
To be fair, the Tories also cut the highest rate of income tax from 50% to 45%. They've cut coorporation tax from 20% now to 19% and it's due to fall again. They've increased the personal allowance (which I'm grateful for).

The tories claim that cutting the additional rate brought in more money... but the truth is not that simple.
Claim
There was an £8 billion increase in revenues from additional rate taxpayers after the top rate of tax was reduced from 50p to 45p.

Conclusion
Revenues did increase by that much, but tax receipts were artificially low in 2012/13 and artificially high in 2013/14 due to people ‘deferring’ income from one tax year to another in order to benefit from the lower tax rate. So this can’t be described as the amount of money raised by the reduction in the rate.
Click to expand...
Not that an extra £360 million over 5 years will have helped.

But... the basic logic is to borrow in hard times, save in the good times. This applies to any Government.

Labour failed to save in the good times, but the Tories, by cutting services left right and centre, likely made the situation worse. They should have done more to create growth, including spending.
 
Smores said:
Sorry to be rude but thats idiotic again. Without the financial crash there was no overspending.

Do you really think we'd have been able to carry on completely insulated from the credit crunch if they'd have run a few years of budget surplus (say 5%)??
Click to expand...

Of course there would be overspending. The crash was so significant it was impossible to avoid without letting the banks crash for example and that fallout could be disastrous for many families.

But if Tony Blair in the boom of the internet revolution had started banking some of the upside, rather than spend it on public services we would have started off in either a surplus or certainly a smaller deficit. This would then reduce the scale of both the interest payments, but also the interest on interest that will occur over time.

Put simply Tony/ Labour's focus on trying to seem like a great political party by spend spend spending meant a good couple of years for everyone prior to the crash, but at the cost of many many more years of pain right now and everyone way worse off.

Again I'll go down to basic principles, money spent on interest is money that can't be spent on services. And money spent from a loan on non profit generating activities means the interest will never be recouped. It's simply lost money.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Of course there would be overspending. The crash was so significant it was impossible to avoid without letting the banks crash for example and that fallout could be disastrous for many families.

But if Tony Blair in the boom of the internet revolution had started banking some of the upside, rather than spend it on public services we would have started off in either a surplus or certainly a smaller deficit. This would then reduce the scale of both the interest payments, but also the interest on interest that will occur over time.

Put simply Tony/ Labour's focus on trying to seem like a great political party by spend spend spending meant a good couple of years for everyone prior to the crash, but at the cost of many many more years of pain right now and everyone way worse off.

Again I'll go down to basic principles, money spent on interest is money that can't be spent on services. And money spent from a loan on non profit generating activities means the interest will never be recouped. It's simply lost money.
Click to expand...

Please quantify how you came up with many many more years? Have other countries faired better doing what you suggest?

It doesn't even come close and im not even convinced as a principle it would. Years of taking money out of the economy prior to the credit crunch would have had effects too.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Of course there would be overspending. The crash was so significant it was impossible to avoid without letting the banks crash for example and that fallout could be disastrous for many families.

But if Tony Blair in the boom of the internet revolution had started banking some of the upside, rather than spend it on public services we would have started off in either a surplus or certainly a smaller deficit. This would then reduce the scale of both the interest payments, but also the interest on interest that will occur over time.

Put simply Tony/ Labour's focus on trying to seem like a great political party by spend spend spending meant a good couple of years for everyone prior to the crash, but at the cost of many many more years of pain right now and everyone way worse off.

Again I'll go down to basic principles, money spent on interest is money that can't be spent on services. And money spent from a loan on non profit generating activities means the interest will never be recouped. It's simply lost money.
Click to expand...
That's not how government budgets work. If the service payments were lower, the budget would be lower by that amount.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Put simply Tony/ Labour's focus on trying to seem like a great political party by spend spend spending meant a good couple of years for everyone prior to the crash, but at the cost of many many more years of pain right now and everyone way worse off.
.
Click to expand...

This is plain wrong. Not only was debt at one of the lowest points it had ever been during the New Labour period, but Blairs Labour was one of the few Governments in modern history to run several years at a surplus.
 
rcoobc said:
To be fair, the Tories also cut the highest rate of income tax from 50% to 45%. They've cut coorporation tax from 20% now to 19% and it's due to fall again. They've increased the personal allowance (which I'm grateful for).

The tories claim that cutting the additional rate brought in more money... but the truth is not that simple.

Not that an extra £360 million over 5 years will have helped.

But... the basic logic is to borrow in hard times, save in the good times. This applies to any Government.

Labour failed to save in the good times, but the Tories, by cutting services left right and centre, likely made the situation worse. They should have done more to create growth, including spending.
Click to expand...

Creating growth through non revenue generating activities will not help, e.g. on public services.

Completely agree investing in business (which is basically part of what cuts on corporation tax is aiming to do) is a sensible investment, as you would hope the return to more than offset the extra cost in interest. I think this side of things is actually happening fairly well under the Conservatives.

Per the below you will see unemployment shot up as a result of the redundancies following the financial crash around 2008/2009. This has now been falling significantly and is down to almost historically low rates. Personally, I'd say this is a huge success. So whilst there may have been cuts, the overall position is clearly improving.

united-kingdom-unemployment-rate.png
 
Unmutual said:
This is plain wrong. Not only was debt at one of the lowest points it had ever been during the New Labour period, but Blairs Labour was one of the few Governments in modern history to run several years at a surplus.
Click to expand...

During the biggest financial boom in the history of the planet, otherwise known as the onset of the internet! So yes of course there was a surplus!
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
During the biggest financial boom in the history of the planet, otherwise known as the onset of the internet! So yes of course there was a surplus!
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Growth outstripped it in the 80s, 60s and 50s, and most of those times we were running a deficit.
 
I think we need another Obama video to explain austerity away. Someone post a video :lol:
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Creating growth through non revenue generating activities will not help, e.g. on public services.

Completely agree investing in business (which is basically part of what cuts on corporation tax is aiming to do) is a sensible investment, as you would hope the return to more than offset the extra cost in interest. I think this side of things is actually happening fairly well under the Conservatives.

Per the below you will see unemployment shot up as a result of the redundancies following the financial crash around 2008/2009. This has now been falling significantly and is down to almost historically low rates. Personally, I'd say this is a huge success. So whilst there may have been cuts, the overall position is clearly improving.

united-kingdom-unemployment-rate.png
Click to expand...
Unemployment has been good. 2010, a lot of my friends were really struggling for work. Things have definitely improved on that front.

But then, we are 9 years away from the crash now
 
Minimalist said:
What's your source for that? ~£50bn anywhere else I've seen for 2009.
Click to expand...

The ONS.

153b was the general government deficit.
103b was the budget deficit.

One is the difference between what goes out and what comes in, one is how much needs to be borrowed to cover the expenditure. The difference should be obvious to all the economists on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.