The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

It's easy to be wise after the fact though isn't it? Few people were saying things were about to go very wrong at the time, just as few people thought the stock market was over-valued pre the dot-com crash.

None of which dispells the fact that it was capitalism not working because of neoliberalist ideology and corporate greed.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Do any of you politics lids with more knowledge on the subject than me agree that the obvious turnaround in the Economy in the UK was no mean feat when you consider the amount of cuts the Tories have made, punishing the lower income classes and not giving a sh*t about the affects on those dependant on benefits and welfare.

We have been the fastest growing Economy in Europe apparently, but that's because other countries would not cut as deep as the Tories did here without due consideration to those it affected, I mean lets just sack half the nurses and police and save even more money, we'll wipe out the deficit, that's all that matters to us millionaire Tories running the show with Bupa subs.

Way I see it, it's easy to turn things round if you cut enough and don't give a flying about who it affects, Labour or the Lib dems in a majority government would have just done it a little slower, because they would try to consider those in need of most help from the state.

When you take out a mortgage, you don't try to pay it off as quickly as possible living on bread and water, you manage it while maintaining a decent standard of living, this idea the Tories have pushed on us that we need to get the deficit down as quickly as possible has just been at a total disregard to consider the vulnerable people it will affect.

The Tories used the global recession to attack the public services and welfare systems they've wanted to trim and cut for years, it's just they would never have got away with it had it not been under the perfect smokescreen that was it's all bad labour's fault, they caused the global recession, that's why we have to bring in a bedroom tax and cuts to public services etc.

Am I in a minority who can see through the Tory bullshit they spin to the masses, because to me it's easy to see what shithouses they are, yet they are neck and neck with Labour in the poles.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Do any of you politics lids with more knowledge on the subject than me agree that the obvious turnaround in the Economy in the UK was no mean feat when you consider the amount of cuts the Tories have made, punishing the lower income classes and not giving a sh*t about the affects on those dependant on benefits and welfare.

We have been the fastest growing Economy in Europe apparently, but that's because other countries would not cut as deep as the Tories did here without due consideration to those it affected, I mean lets just sack half the nurses and police and save even more money, we'll wipe out the deficit, that's all that matters to us millionaire Tories running the show with Bupa subs.

Way I see it, it's easy to turn things round if you cut enough and don't give a flying about who it affects, Labour or the Lib dems in a majority government would have just done it a little slower, because they would try to consider those in need of most help from the state.

When you take out a mortgage, you don't try to pay it off as quickly as possible living on bread and water, you manage it while maintaining a decent standard of living, this idea the Tories have pushed on us that we need to get the deficit down as quickly as possible has just been at a total disregard to consider the vulnerable people it will affect.

The Tories used the global recession to attack the public services and welfare systems they've wanted to trim and cut for years, it's just they would never have got away with it had it not been under the perfect smokescreen that was it's all bad labour's fault, they caused the global recession, that's why we have to bring in a bedroom tax and cuts to public services etc.

Am I in a minority who can see through the Tory bullshit they spin to the masses, because to me it's easy to see what shithouses they are, yet they are neck and neck with Labour in the poles.

Expenditure on the NHS is roughly double what it was in 1997 (at 2010 prices), and it is almost as big a rise when you take into account spending on it per head of the population.

Taken wider, state spending as a % of GDP is higher now than pretty much any time in UK (peacetime) history. Even welfare spending as a % of GDP hasn't really shifted that much, considering the scale of the recession.

I've no doubt there are many that are having a tough time of things, but lets keep things in a bit of perspective here. All of this talk of reverting to Victorian levels is simply absurd, as the chart above clearly shows.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Expenditure on the NHS is roughly double what it was in 1997 (at 2010 prices), and it is almost as big a rise when you take into account spending on it per head of the population.

Taken wider, state spending as a % of GDP is higher now than pretty much any time in UK (peacetime) history. Even welfare spending as a % of GDP hasn't really shifted that much, considering the scale of the recession.

I've no doubt there are many that are having a tough time of things, but lets keep things in a bit of perspective here. All of this talk of reverting to Victorian levels is simply absurd, as the chart above clearly shows.

It doesn't matter what state spending is now, it was obviously higher to the public's benefit before the Tories had the last 4 years incharge.

And lets not forget the main factor in the deficit being so large when labour handed over is because of them bailing out the banks, which had to be done, any party in power would have done the same, there was no option, the banks in trouble had to be saved.

 

[Mrk]

It doesn't matter what state spending is now, it was obviously higher to the public's benefit before the Tories had the last 4 years incharge.

And lets not forget the main factor in the deficit being so large when labour handed over is because of them bailing out the banks, which had to be done, any party in power would have done the same, there was no option, the banks in trouble had to be saved.

The cost of bailing out the banks has never been included in the deficit figures.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

The cost of bailing out the banks has never been included in the deficit figures.

really, I remember it being used as a point by a labour MP when defending the size of the deficit on question time once.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It doesn't matter what state spending is now, it was obviously higher to the public's benefit before the Tories had the last 4 years incharge.

And lets not forget the main factor in the deficit being so large when labour handed over is because of them bailing out the banks, which had to be done, any party in power would have done the same, there was no option, the banks in trouble had to be saved.

Of course it matters. Is the health of the nation twice as good now as it was in 1997? The challenges of what to measure and how to measure it are things that people like Jim Easton have long grappled with and the state needs to be held accountable for spending taxes wisely.

Likewise, there have been estimates that poverty has roughly doubled since the 80s, despite welfare spending as a % of GDP being largely the same. It suggests simply throwing money at the problem isn't/hasn't worked and it's not a simple matter. If you look at our poverty levels, they're comparable with Germany and France, despite our unemployment being half of their levels.

It's the same with education. We've had free taxpayer funded schooling now for 70 years or so, yet in that time not only has social mobility barely budged, but adult literacy levels haven't done so either (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000650.htm). It seems the default response to these things is to demand even more money, yet despite education funding rising by a vast amount, the actual performance hasn't changed that much (at least for the poorer sections of society that such systems were built to help).

There comes a point when you question your assumptions about the right way to go about things surely?

 

[Mrk]

really, I remember it being used as a point by a labour MP when defending the size of the deficit on question time once.

Well, that wouldn't surprise me as the majority of Labour MP's seem unable to do simple maths, never mind discuss the complexities of the budget deficit. But no, it was never included.

 

[The Esk]

The deficit which is purely a measure of income and expenditure does not include the bail out of the banks. The deficit arose out of the collapse of tax revenues in the recession following the credit crisis.

Annual tax revenues fell by 1/6 th, more than £100bn in 2008/9 and in subsequent years. That singularly is the cause of the deficit.

 

[toffee matt]

I can't believe the Tories are neck and neck with Labour, just goes to show how good Camoron is at bullshitting.

Its the Milliband factor. People just don't see him as Prime Minister

 

[Clint Planet]

It's the same with education. We've had free taxpayer funded schooling now for 70 years or so, yet in that time not only has social mobility barely budged, but adult literacy levels haven't done so either (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000650.htm). It seems the default response to these things is to demand even more money, yet despite education funding rising by a vast amount, the actual performance hasn't changed that much (at least for the poorer sections of society that such systems were built to help).

So many other variables are contantly changing that it's impossible to say with any certainty what the exact effects of increased or decreased funding are. Take literacy levels at the end of KS2, for example. There is no doubt that teachers are much more highly trained and skills-focused in the teaching of Literacy than in, say, 1997 and yet the literacy levels only went up a few percent. What isn't taken into account, though, is how much modern life gets in the way of children's acquiring literacy skills. Games consoles, social media, the internet and literally hundreds of TV channels have all meant that children read significantly less at home now than they used to (and it is that home reading which really embeds reading skills and deepens understanding at text and sentence, as well as word, level).

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Its the Milliband factor. People just don't see him as Prime Minister

Ok he looks like a geek, but listen to him, he genuinely wants to help the majority of the general population fairly.

The fact the Tories are in with a good shout of getting another term astonishes me it really does, they aren't a party for the masses of normal working people, they never have been, if I was a millionaire and they saved me money I'd still not vote for them, if you have that type of money you can afford to pay a bit extra under a fairer government like Labour.

But I'd be in the minority, most rich people just want more and more.

 

[Clint Planet]

So many other variables are contantly changing that it's impossible to say with any certainty what the exact effects of increased or decreased funding are. Take literacy levels at the end of KS2, for example. There is no doubt that teachers are much more highly trained and skills-focused in the teaching of Literacy than in, say, 1997 and yet the literacy levels only went up a few percent. What isn't taken into account, though, is how much modern life gets in the way of children's acquiring literacy skills. Games consoles, social media, the internet and literally hundreds of TV channels have all meant that children read significantly less at home now than they used to (and it is that home reading which really embeds reading skills and deepens understanding at text and sentence, as well as word, level).

It's resonable to assume that increased funding is a good thing and decreased funding a bad thing, though!

 

[bring the ghost on]

Ok he looks like a geek, but listen to him, he genuinely wants to help the majority of the general population fairly.

A lot of people would have preferred his brother and were resentful that the union vote swayed it so heavily. Ed miliband was off to a bad start before he had even begun in terms of his popularity.

There now seems to be a consensus that he ''will never be a leader'' just because he is a bit geeky/awkward; Cameron and his media buddies have banged the drum for so long, people think it's true.

Given the straight choice, I would rather see Ed as PM than David Cameron. No question. Ed has a bit of compassion, he is not arrogant like Cameron. Miliband, contrary to media smears, is immensely clever and his recent Q&A sessions show how much he has come on as a public speaker aswell.

Basically, these days he is very good professional. Cameron is running scared of the TV debates for good reason.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

A lot of people would have preferred his brother and we're resentful that the union vote swayed it so heavily. Ed miliband was off to a bad start before he had even begun in terms of his popularity.

Couple that with the fact that he is a bit awkward, describes himself as a bit of a geek, that his voice grates a bit and that he is going to be subject to the same mass level of spin. There now seems to be a consensus that he ''will never be a leader'' just because Cameron and his media bodies have banged the drum for so long.

I'm not a fan of New Labour or their policies, but I would rather see Ed as PM than David Cameron. No question. Ed has a bit of compassion, he is not arrogant like Cameron. Anyone who says miliband is not smart is deluded, the man is immensely clever and his recent Q&A sessions show how much he has come on as a public speaker.

To be honest, these days he is very professional. I think he is the most obvious shout as a leader. Cameron is running scared of the TV debates for good reason.

Without doubt his brother was the one labour needed, but Ed Milliband is a decent MP who wants to do things fairly and for the good of the many, not the few.