| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread 20:33 - Apr 7 with 83103 views | exiledclaseboy |
About time we had one and it's got the word "official" in the title so that makes all the difference. If a mod wants to sticky it, feel free.
I seem to remember that five years ago (on the old, better Planet Swans) we got to nearly 100 pages and then another 60odd with the "aftermath" thread. They were good fun but there were more posters then and we were all a bit more tolerant of others' views. Let's try to be nice to each other, eh.
Anyway, best site for opinion polls is this one in my experience:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Polls are so tight the only conclusion is that the Tories and Labour are head to head nationwide. Can't put a whisker between them.
Tories need about 39-40% for an overall majority. Labour will probably get one on 36-37%. God bless our ridiculous voting system.
So, enjoy yourselves. I'll start with a prediction. Labour to win most seats but slightly fewer votes than the Tories and end up forming some kind of minority government with support from various parliamentary lefties on a vote by vote basis. And then all of a sudden many Tory supporters will discover that they've always hated first past the post and can't understand why we perpetuate a system under which the party which more people voted for than any other can lose the election. It'll be quite funny and lead to calls for a proper voting system. Which everyone will forget about in six months when all the fuss has died down.
What say you? |  |
| |  |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 19:43 - May 5 with 2764 views | libertine |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 19:13 - May 5 by exiledclaseboy |
I nicked this from someone semi famous on Twitter. Haven't bothered checking the figures but they ring true. We can check on Friday.
"First Past the Post: Ukip may get 13% & 2 MP. LDs 9% but 26 MPs. SNP 50 MPs with Lab & Cons in Scotland getting 45% of the vote and no MPs."
All this talk of legitimacy, the latest and seemingly final Tory tactic to keep power, is bollocks. Either main party will have been voted for by about 35% of the electorate. Neither a Labour minority/coalition will be legitimate, nor a Tory one. Even if either manages a majority it still won't be legitimate. Nothing will be legitimate until we get a proportional voting system. And that will make majority government far less likely. Britain needs to grow the f*ck up and its politicians should stop bleating about legitimacy while perpetuating a system that is an affront to democracy. |
I've never seen you so fired up clasey!!
and you absolutely fin right
it isn't going to happen though as it will not suit the top 2 |  | | |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:46 - May 5 with 2730 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 19:13 - May 5 by exiledclaseboy |
I nicked this from someone semi famous on Twitter. Haven't bothered checking the figures but they ring true. We can check on Friday.
"First Past the Post: Ukip may get 13% & 2 MP. LDs 9% but 26 MPs. SNP 50 MPs with Lab & Cons in Scotland getting 45% of the vote and no MPs."
All this talk of legitimacy, the latest and seemingly final Tory tactic to keep power, is bollocks. Either main party will have been voted for by about 35% of the electorate. Neither a Labour minority/coalition will be legitimate, nor a Tory one. Even if either manages a majority it still won't be legitimate. Nothing will be legitimate until we get a proportional voting system. And that will make majority government far less likely. Britain needs to grow the f*ck up and its politicians should stop bleating about legitimacy while perpetuating a system that is an affront to democracy. |
You must stop following all those TOWIE people Clasie ;-)
The irony is not lost however that the biggest beneficiaries of FPTP this time round are probably the Lib Dems! |  | | |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:52 - May 5 with 2722 views | waynekerr55 |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:25 - May 5 by WarwickHunt |
Trampie's priceless, isn't he?
Not sure how he'll cope with puberty though. |
Methinks he's a WUM...
If not, I could do with a pint of what he's drinking to escape from reality for a few hours  |  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 21:18 - May 5 with 2700 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:46 - May 5 by londonlisa2001 |
You must stop following all those TOWIE people Clasie ;-)
The irony is not lost however that the biggest beneficiaries of FPTP this time round are probably the Lib Dems! |
Indeed. And Clegg's been banging on about legitimacy today too. Fool.
It was Richard Bacon as it goes. One of the few "celebs" I follow on there and only then because I'm an avid 5Live listener and he used to do a very good afternoon show. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 23:30 - May 5 with 2649 views | Lord_Bony |
I shall pray for YOUR soul Thomas as mine is beyond redemption.
I really have no idea who to vote for on the day as I have absolutely no liking for any of them this time around.
At the moment I think it s a toss up between Dave and Leanne..probably depends who looks the best dressed and has the smartest hair on the day...
There again if someone wants my vote then one beer token buys it...
Viva la Revolution ... |  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 08:51 - May 6 with 2571 views | libertine |
there really is only one party to vote for if you live in Wales,
don't worry about the other parts of the Uk they can look after themselves.
what owen smith says is rubbish about looking after those in North England aswell,
charity begins at home Owen, not in Newcastle
the labour party in England maybe Ok but absolutely not in wales, because we'll vote for them no matter what they do to us or for us as we hate the tories so much.
We are blinded by our hatred of the witch,
they've made some catastrophic blunders here and still we run back with our votes,
they don't care about wales , wake up.
Labour have made an enormous effort to try and get our votes, like hell, they don't return calls for weeks on end, if at all and then blame everything on the EU,
well labour if your so much against the EU why on earth do you want to be part of it?
just a lazy party full of lazy people who are happy to have their photos taken next to zebra crossings. EGO | | | |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 15:43 - May 6 with 2478 views | trampie |
Polls are suggesting a hung Parliament, one third Labour, one third Conservative and one third AN Others. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 16:23 - May 6 with 2461 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 15:43 - May 6 by trampie |
Polls are suggesting a hung Parliament, one third Labour, one third Conservative and one third AN Others. |
"Others" are likely to number around 100, including libdems, Nats and NI. which is closer to one sixth than one third. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 16:57 - May 6 with 2446 views | monmouth |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 16:23 - May 6 by exiledclaseboy |
"Others" are likely to number around 100, including libdems, Nats and NI. which is closer to one sixth than one third. |
This is one time when I think the polls may not come close. |  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 17:08 - May 6 with 2435 views | trampie |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 16:23 - May 6 by exiledclaseboy |
"Others" are likely to number around 100, including libdems, Nats and NI. which is closer to one sixth than one third. |
Percentage of votes , not percentage of seats I was referring too. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 17:48 - May 6 with 2421 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 16:57 - May 6 by monmouth |
This is one time when I think the polls may not come close. |
This election is unique in so many respects so who knows. The exit poll at 10pm tomorrow will give us the first clue. It's very exciting. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:11 - May 6 with 2400 views | libertine |
i don't get it why are the Scottish sharp when it comes to politics,
seems the same demographic in Wales down't care
why do we have to be the village idiots all the time.
The more they don't educate us the more we vote for slave labour | | | |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:19 - May 6 with 2372 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:11 - May 6 by libertine |
i don't get it why are the Scottish sharp when it comes to politics,
seems the same demographic in Wales down't care
why do we have to be the village idiots all the time.
The more they don't educate us the more we vote for slave labour |
You're making the old Tory mistakes of not being able to work out or accept why not everyone agrees with you and of the insulting and intolerant assumption that all Labour voters are unthinking, ignorant sheep. It's very unedifying. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:22 - May 6 with 2367 views | WarwickHunt |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 17:48 - May 6 by exiledclaseboy |
This election is unique in so many respects so who knows. The exit poll at 10pm tomorrow will give us the first clue. It's very exciting. |
Heard a pollster on Newsnight last night saying that even the exit poll isn't going to be that reliable this time...
Could be a long night. |  | | |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:25 - May 6 with 2364 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:22 - May 6 by WarwickHunt |
Heard a pollster on Newsnight last night saying that even the exit poll isn't going to be that reliable this time...
Could be a long night. |
Many pollsters are talking themselves down so they can congratulate themselves if they get it right and say "well we did warn you" if they don't.
I'm pulling an all nighter and then going to work. F*cking hardcore. | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 19:29 - May 6 with 2312 views | monmouth |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:25 - May 6 by exiledclaseboy |
Many pollsters are talking themselves down so they can congratulate themselves if they get it right and say "well we did warn you" if they don't.
I'm pulling an all nighter and then going to work. F*cking hardcore. |
I've reconciled myself that we will be governed by a bunch of hopeless chancers whatever happens, so I'm going to watch it with a pretty much detached interest and a nice bottle of nebbiolo, but will stay up to hopefully see Clegger and Farrago lose their respective votes. I've never made it past about 2.30 am, before I'm bored into submission though, even though I have no intention of doing anything strenuous on Friday, and certainly nothing resembling work.
#lightweight | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:41 - May 6 with 2276 views | yescomeon |
Bit of last minute economics.
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop
Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron
by Benjamin Studebaker
The 2008 economic crisis slammed Britain particularly hard because the UK has a big financial sector—its economy suffers heavily from “financialization”, a condition in which a lot of money is tied up in finance. In most cases, this means that not enough is flowing through the wider economy (unless you’re Luxembourg and don’t really have a wider economy). Indeed, this is a bigger problem in the UK than it is in the US:
This meant that Gordon Brown’s Labour government had to bailout a lot of banks and do a lot of economic stimulus to rescue Britain’s economy. This required it to run up the UK’s debts:
But it also prevented the UK economy from cratering, pulling it out of recession:
But British voters were in no mood to credit this recovery to Labour—instead, they blamed Labour for the recession, the bailouts, and the size of the public debt. This made no sense, because the economic crisis started in the United States because of a US housing bubble facilitated by Clinton-era deregulation of the US financial sector. But as political scientists know, the public tends to blame the sitting government for economic phenomena regardless of whether or not government policy is really responsible.
So in 2010, the British elect a coalition government led by the Conservative Party’s David Cameron. Cameron immediately begins doing austerity—he cuts government spending to in an effort to reduce the debt. The trouble is that when government spending is reduced, this cuts the legs out from under economic demand. Cameron cut benefits, salaries, and reduced subcontracts putting less money into consumers’ pockets. Here we can see the composition of UK economic growth during the Labour government as compared with that of the conservatives:
Two things stick out:
Growth is significantly higher under Labour.
The difference is primarily accounted for by differences in government spending.
When the conservative austerity package passed, the UK’s path totally diverged:
If we look at average annual growth rates, the UK was almost totally stagnant compared to the United States:
This experience was not unique to the UK—it quickly became clear that austerity negatively correlated with growth throughout the European Union:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) subsequently came out with a paper stating that the multiplier (the effect of government spending on economic growth) had been massively underestimated. Then it got worse—the IMF revealed that because the multiplier is so large, austerity shrinks the economy enough to cancel out debt relief. Let me be clear—austerity reduces growth so much that it undercuts government revenue and prevents governments from shrinking their deficits. I wrote about this at the time. It was and remains shockingly clear evidence that austerity was and is failing even to reduce debt and deficits. The UK is in a significantly worse fiscal position than it was in 5 years ago:
And what did Britain have to show for it? Look at these figures:
The UK performed worse than France, a country that the Wall Street Journal accused of “descending into ridiculousness”. In the first two years, Cameron’s government put up numbers that were worse than Spain’s. Spain is a basket case—even today, Spain has an unemployment rate over 20%. Had it maintained the trajectory it was on from 2009-2010, Britain could have been doing as well as Germany in 2012.
Now, Cameron isn’t completely foolish—he slowed down the austerity after 2012:
From 2010-2012, spending fell by about 3% of GDP. Since 2012, it’s fallen by about 1%, and it was essentially halted for a full years between 2012 and 2013. Consequently, Britain’s economy has started showing signs of life:
But rather than admit its error, the government now claims that these are the good results austerity was going to bring all along. This is clearly misleading—even with the growth post-2012, the UK remains behind France, and the US and Germany are still far ahead:
What the numbers really suggest is that Britain could be much further along now if it had avoided austerity to begin with. But voters have short memories, and because the British economy has been improving since the austerity slowed down, the conservatives remain electorally competitive:
This is disturbing, because the Conservative Party promises to continue cutting government spending by a further 2% over the next two years if it is returned to power. This would not be as fast as the rate of cutting from 2010-2012, but it would be faster than the rate from 2012-2014. This will only serve to hinder British growth further.
According to Oxfam, the government’s austerity policies have devastated Britain’s middle and working classes in a variety of ways:
As a result of austerity, an addition 800,000 British children will live in poverty over the next decade.Over the same period, 1.5 million working age adults will fall into poverty.
By 2018, 900,000 public sector workers will have lost their jobs. The bottom 10% of British earners will have seen their incomes fall 38% over this government’s five year term.
Indeed, when we adjust for inflation, British workers have seen continual reductions in their wages over the course of this parliament:
And as university students should remember, the conservatives raised university tuition fees to £9,000 per year (roughly $13,600 by today’s conversion rates). This means that a British university student must now pay more to go to university than an in-state American student—for instance, Indiana residents pay only $10,388 in tuition to go to Indiana University. Before 1998, British students went to university for free. Society benefits from a well-educated population and well-trained workforce. It remains an obscene injustice to pass this cost onto young people. It deters students from pursuing degrees, particularly those degrees that are less financially lucrative.
In sum, this austerity serves no economic purpose—its exists because the Conservative Party wants to cut the welfare state so it can reduce taxes on the rich and for no other reason.
The Labour Party has done a bad job of attacking austerity—indeed, it promises to prioritize cuts as well. There are however two key differences:
Instead of cutting the deficit 2% over 2 years, Labour promises to eliminate the deficit a little bit at a time each year, which implies a cut of about 0.4% per year for five years—this is not good for the economy by any means, but it is less bad than a quick 2% cut.
The composition of the cuts will be different. The conservatives promise to avoid increasing most taxes, and some they even plan to cut (including inheritance tax, which targets the wealthy and affluent). This forces the conservatives to make deeper cuts to benefits and to the welfare state to achieve their budgetary goals. Labour promises to raise taxes on the rich, which will offset cuts in other areas and facilitate a decrease in tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
This is not by any means an ideal alternative—Labour has done little to combat the Conservative Party’s narrative that the debt poses an existential economic threat to the UK. Austerity is not an effective way to fight debt, but Labour has not challenged this claim and as a result it has become part of what ordinary British voters consider common knowledge. As a result, it has become impossible to be taken seriously in British politics if one does not promise significant spending cuts. Even the Greens are promising to focus on the debt, though their manifesto calls almost exclusively for tax increases. This is remarkable, considering that UK borrowing costs are at historic lows, indicating a high level of confidence in the UK’s solvency (and a low level of confidence in its future economic trajectory):
But nevertheless, it means that for British voters, there really is no way out. They can trust Labour austerity to be less damaging for poor and working people, and they can hope that Labour will see the error of its ways and change its policies faster or more quickly than the Conservative Party would, but that’s about it. This is still significant—the UK will be better off if Labour wins—but things could be so different, if only British voters were better informed about what has been going on.
(data in link) |  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 21:33 - May 6 with 2258 views | Dr_Winston |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 18:25 - May 6 by exiledclaseboy |
Many pollsters are talking themselves down so they can congratulate themselves if they get it right and say "well we did warn you" if they don't.
I'm pulling an all nighter and then going to work. F*cking hardcore. |
I'll watch it for a bit and then go to bed.
Can't honestly say that my life would be vastly different no matter who wins. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 22:23 - May 6 with 2217 views | epaul |
‪#‎WhyImvotingUKIP Hashtag taken over hilarious 
https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhyImVotingUkip?src=tren |  |
| The hair and the beard have gone I am now conforming to society, tis a sad day
The b*stards are coming back though |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 23:19 - May 6 with 2183 views | jack_lord |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:41 - May 6 by yescomeon |
Bit of last minute economics.
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop
Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron
by Benjamin Studebaker
The 2008 economic crisis slammed Britain particularly hard because the UK has a big financial sector—its economy suffers heavily from “financialization”, a condition in which a lot of money is tied up in finance. In most cases, this means that not enough is flowing through the wider economy (unless you’re Luxembourg and don’t really have a wider economy). Indeed, this is a bigger problem in the UK than it is in the US:
This meant that Gordon Brown’s Labour government had to bailout a lot of banks and do a lot of economic stimulus to rescue Britain’s economy. This required it to run up the UK’s debts:
But it also prevented the UK economy from cratering, pulling it out of recession:
But British voters were in no mood to credit this recovery to Labour—instead, they blamed Labour for the recession, the bailouts, and the size of the public debt. This made no sense, because the economic crisis started in the United States because of a US housing bubble facilitated by Clinton-era deregulation of the US financial sector. But as political scientists know, the public tends to blame the sitting government for economic phenomena regardless of whether or not government policy is really responsible.
So in 2010, the British elect a coalition government led by the Conservative Party’s David Cameron. Cameron immediately begins doing austerity—he cuts government spending to in an effort to reduce the debt. The trouble is that when government spending is reduced, this cuts the legs out from under economic demand. Cameron cut benefits, salaries, and reduced subcontracts putting less money into consumers’ pockets. Here we can see the composition of UK economic growth during the Labour government as compared with that of the conservatives:
Two things stick out:
Growth is significantly higher under Labour.
The difference is primarily accounted for by differences in government spending.
When the conservative austerity package passed, the UK’s path totally diverged:
If we look at average annual growth rates, the UK was almost totally stagnant compared to the United States:
This experience was not unique to the UK—it quickly became clear that austerity negatively correlated with growth throughout the European Union:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) subsequently came out with a paper stating that the multiplier (the effect of government spending on economic growth) had been massively underestimated. Then it got worse—the IMF revealed that because the multiplier is so large, austerity shrinks the economy enough to cancel out debt relief. Let me be clear—austerity reduces growth so much that it undercuts government revenue and prevents governments from shrinking their deficits. I wrote about this at the time. It was and remains shockingly clear evidence that austerity was and is failing even to reduce debt and deficits. The UK is in a significantly worse fiscal position than it was in 5 years ago:
And what did Britain have to show for it? Look at these figures:
The UK performed worse than France, a country that the Wall Street Journal accused of “descending into ridiculousness”. In the first two years, Cameron’s government put up numbers that were worse than Spain’s. Spain is a basket case—even today, Spain has an unemployment rate over 20%. Had it maintained the trajectory it was on from 2009-2010, Britain could have been doing as well as Germany in 2012.
Now, Cameron isn’t completely foolish—he slowed down the austerity after 2012:
From 2010-2012, spending fell by about 3% of GDP. Since 2012, it’s fallen by about 1%, and it was essentially halted for a full years between 2012 and 2013. Consequently, Britain’s economy has started showing signs of life:
But rather than admit its error, the government now claims that these are the good results austerity was going to bring all along. This is clearly misleading—even with the growth post-2012, the UK remains behind France, and the US and Germany are still far ahead:
What the numbers really suggest is that Britain could be much further along now if it had avoided austerity to begin with. But voters have short memories, and because the British economy has been improving since the austerity slowed down, the conservatives remain electorally competitive:
This is disturbing, because the Conservative Party promises to continue cutting government spending by a further 2% over the next two years if it is returned to power. This would not be as fast as the rate of cutting from 2010-2012, but it would be faster than the rate from 2012-2014. This will only serve to hinder British growth further.
According to Oxfam, the government’s austerity policies have devastated Britain’s middle and working classes in a variety of ways:
As a result of austerity, an addition 800,000 British children will live in poverty over the next decade.Over the same period, 1.5 million working age adults will fall into poverty.
By 2018, 900,000 public sector workers will have lost their jobs. The bottom 10% of British earners will have seen their incomes fall 38% over this government’s five year term.
Indeed, when we adjust for inflation, British workers have seen continual reductions in their wages over the course of this parliament:
And as university students should remember, the conservatives raised university tuition fees to £9,000 per year (roughly $13,600 by today’s conversion rates). This means that a British university student must now pay more to go to university than an in-state American student—for instance, Indiana residents pay only $10,388 in tuition to go to Indiana University. Before 1998, British students went to university for free. Society benefits from a well-educated population and well-trained workforce. It remains an obscene injustice to pass this cost onto young people. It deters students from pursuing degrees, particularly those degrees that are less financially lucrative.
In sum, this austerity serves no economic purpose—its exists because the Conservative Party wants to cut the welfare state so it can reduce taxes on the rich and for no other reason.
The Labour Party has done a bad job of attacking austerity—indeed, it promises to prioritize cuts as well. There are however two key differences:
Instead of cutting the deficit 2% over 2 years, Labour promises to eliminate the deficit a little bit at a time each year, which implies a cut of about 0.4% per year for five years—this is not good for the economy by any means, but it is less bad than a quick 2% cut.
The composition of the cuts will be different. The conservatives promise to avoid increasing most taxes, and some they even plan to cut (including inheritance tax, which targets the wealthy and affluent). This forces the conservatives to make deeper cuts to benefits and to the welfare state to achieve their budgetary goals. Labour promises to raise taxes on the rich, which will offset cuts in other areas and facilitate a decrease in tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
This is not by any means an ideal alternative—Labour has done little to combat the Conservative Party’s narrative that the debt poses an existential economic threat to the UK. Austerity is not an effective way to fight debt, but Labour has not challenged this claim and as a result it has become part of what ordinary British voters consider common knowledge. As a result, it has become impossible to be taken seriously in British politics if one does not promise significant spending cuts. Even the Greens are promising to focus on the debt, though their manifesto calls almost exclusively for tax increases. This is remarkable, considering that UK borrowing costs are at historic lows, indicating a high level of confidence in the UK’s solvency (and a low level of confidence in its future economic trajectory):
But nevertheless, it means that for British voters, there really is no way out. They can trust Labour austerity to be less damaging for poor and working people, and they can hope that Labour will see the error of its ways and change its policies faster or more quickly than the Conservative Party would, but that’s about it. This is still significant—the UK will be better off if Labour wins—but things could be so different, if only British voters were better informed about what has been going on.
(data in link) |
#Planetswans retweet |  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 00:42 - May 7 with 2149 views | Ebo |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 09:01 - Apr 18 by perchrockjack |
Davis, being the son of a single mother would at least stop the incessant "scum posh Eton "crap postied contunally here by people still stuck in a 70s timewarp,a time when our country really did looked fecked/ People forget the scum Union leaders who cared more for themselves than anything . Still, they had plenty of freebies in Cuba |
The village idiot speaks. [Post edited 7 May 2015 0:42]
|  |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 07:26 - May 7 with 2078 views | Jack_Meoff |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 20:41 - May 6 by yescomeon |
Bit of last minute economics.
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop
Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron
by Benjamin Studebaker
The 2008 economic crisis slammed Britain particularly hard because the UK has a big financial sector—its economy suffers heavily from “financialization”, a condition in which a lot of money is tied up in finance. In most cases, this means that not enough is flowing through the wider economy (unless you’re Luxembourg and don’t really have a wider economy). Indeed, this is a bigger problem in the UK than it is in the US:
This meant that Gordon Brown’s Labour government had to bailout a lot of banks and do a lot of economic stimulus to rescue Britain’s economy. This required it to run up the UK’s debts:
But it also prevented the UK economy from cratering, pulling it out of recession:
But British voters were in no mood to credit this recovery to Labour—instead, they blamed Labour for the recession, the bailouts, and the size of the public debt. This made no sense, because the economic crisis started in the United States because of a US housing bubble facilitated by Clinton-era deregulation of the US financial sector. But as political scientists know, the public tends to blame the sitting government for economic phenomena regardless of whether or not government policy is really responsible.
So in 2010, the British elect a coalition government led by the Conservative Party’s David Cameron. Cameron immediately begins doing austerity—he cuts government spending to in an effort to reduce the debt. The trouble is that when government spending is reduced, this cuts the legs out from under economic demand. Cameron cut benefits, salaries, and reduced subcontracts putting less money into consumers’ pockets. Here we can see the composition of UK economic growth during the Labour government as compared with that of the conservatives:
Two things stick out:
Growth is significantly higher under Labour.
The difference is primarily accounted for by differences in government spending.
When the conservative austerity package passed, the UK’s path totally diverged:
If we look at average annual growth rates, the UK was almost totally stagnant compared to the United States:
This experience was not unique to the UK—it quickly became clear that austerity negatively correlated with growth throughout the European Union:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) subsequently came out with a paper stating that the multiplier (the effect of government spending on economic growth) had been massively underestimated. Then it got worse—the IMF revealed that because the multiplier is so large, austerity shrinks the economy enough to cancel out debt relief. Let me be clear—austerity reduces growth so much that it undercuts government revenue and prevents governments from shrinking their deficits. I wrote about this at the time. It was and remains shockingly clear evidence that austerity was and is failing even to reduce debt and deficits. The UK is in a significantly worse fiscal position than it was in 5 years ago:
And what did Britain have to show for it? Look at these figures:
The UK performed worse than France, a country that the Wall Street Journal accused of “descending into ridiculousness”. In the first two years, Cameron’s government put up numbers that were worse than Spain’s. Spain is a basket case—even today, Spain has an unemployment rate over 20%. Had it maintained the trajectory it was on from 2009-2010, Britain could have been doing as well as Germany in 2012.
Now, Cameron isn’t completely foolish—he slowed down the austerity after 2012:
From 2010-2012, spending fell by about 3% of GDP. Since 2012, it’s fallen by about 1%, and it was essentially halted for a full years between 2012 and 2013. Consequently, Britain’s economy has started showing signs of life:
But rather than admit its error, the government now claims that these are the good results austerity was going to bring all along. This is clearly misleading—even with the growth post-2012, the UK remains behind France, and the US and Germany are still far ahead:
What the numbers really suggest is that Britain could be much further along now if it had avoided austerity to begin with. But voters have short memories, and because the British economy has been improving since the austerity slowed down, the conservatives remain electorally competitive:
This is disturbing, because the Conservative Party promises to continue cutting government spending by a further 2% over the next two years if it is returned to power. This would not be as fast as the rate of cutting from 2010-2012, but it would be faster than the rate from 2012-2014. This will only serve to hinder British growth further.
According to Oxfam, the government’s austerity policies have devastated Britain’s middle and working classes in a variety of ways:
As a result of austerity, an addition 800,000 British children will live in poverty over the next decade.Over the same period, 1.5 million working age adults will fall into poverty.
By 2018, 900,000 public sector workers will have lost their jobs. The bottom 10% of British earners will have seen their incomes fall 38% over this government’s five year term.
Indeed, when we adjust for inflation, British workers have seen continual reductions in their wages over the course of this parliament:
And as university students should remember, the conservatives raised university tuition fees to £9,000 per year (roughly $13,600 by today’s conversion rates). This means that a British university student must now pay more to go to university than an in-state American student—for instance, Indiana residents pay only $10,388 in tuition to go to Indiana University. Before 1998, British students went to university for free. Society benefits from a well-educated population and well-trained workforce. It remains an obscene injustice to pass this cost onto young people. It deters students from pursuing degrees, particularly those degrees that are less financially lucrative.
In sum, this austerity serves no economic purpose—its exists because the Conservative Party wants to cut the welfare state so it can reduce taxes on the rich and for no other reason.
The Labour Party has done a bad job of attacking austerity—indeed, it promises to prioritize cuts as well. There are however two key differences:
Instead of cutting the deficit 2% over 2 years, Labour promises to eliminate the deficit a little bit at a time each year, which implies a cut of about 0.4% per year for five years—this is not good for the economy by any means, but it is less bad than a quick 2% cut.
The composition of the cuts will be different. The conservatives promise to avoid increasing most taxes, and some they even plan to cut (including inheritance tax, which targets the wealthy and affluent). This forces the conservatives to make deeper cuts to benefits and to the welfare state to achieve their budgetary goals. Labour promises to raise taxes on the rich, which will offset cuts in other areas and facilitate a decrease in tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
This is not by any means an ideal alternative—Labour has done little to combat the Conservative Party’s narrative that the debt poses an existential economic threat to the UK. Austerity is not an effective way to fight debt, but Labour has not challenged this claim and as a result it has become part of what ordinary British voters consider common knowledge. As a result, it has become impossible to be taken seriously in British politics if one does not promise significant spending cuts. Even the Greens are promising to focus on the debt, though their manifesto calls almost exclusively for tax increases. This is remarkable, considering that UK borrowing costs are at historic lows, indicating a high level of confidence in the UK’s solvency (and a low level of confidence in its future economic trajectory):
But nevertheless, it means that for British voters, there really is no way out. They can trust Labour austerity to be less damaging for poor and working people, and they can hope that Labour will see the error of its ways and change its policies faster or more quickly than the Conservative Party would, but that’s about it. This is still significant—the UK will be better off if Labour wins—but things could be so different, if only British voters were better informed about what has been going on.
(data in link) |
Given the 'choice' today that paragraph is pretty depressing, and the last sentence so true. |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 09:11 - May 7 with 2041 views | waynekerr55 |
What I want to know is if I spoil my ballot paper will I retain my rights to seek help from my local MP | |
| |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 09:27 - May 7 with 2028 views | LeonisGod |
| The Official Planet Swans General Election 2015 Thread on 07:26 - May 7 by Jack_Meoff |
Given the 'choice' today that paragraph is pretty depressing, and the last sentence so true. |
But just remember that this is written by someone who is effectively still at school. He may have started a PhD but has no life experience yet and will still be full of youthful idealism. he may be right, but I suspect he's not particularly balanced |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
