Johnny Bognor

Hey, if you like people that verbally attack disbaled children or take the **** out of people with down syndrome, I guess that is your perrogative. I personally find people like this vile scum.

Yes, but as you can see, simply printing more money is not an option afforded to any political party, under the current remit of the MPC and BOE No **** shurlock (sorry, wanted to do that for a while). I don't disagree. You can offer to lend as much money as you want, but someone has to borrow it. Business confidence has been fairly low and still is, which affects the appetite for risk. Households need to develerage after a decade of unsustainable consumer borrowing. When talking about national debt, Labour may get some of the blame, but the financial crisis was the major cause. However, the biggest "crime" under New Labour was allowing consumer debt to spiral out of control to unprecedented levels. This happened before the crisis and directly contributed to it. Brown was quite happy with this though, because the debt was fueling the boom of the naughties. The feel good factor of the nation kept him in power. He actively encouraged consumer debt with his declaration of "no more boom and bust". And to think people were trying to hoodwink us into thinking he was the prudent one.... The problem with most policy is that it is for the short term and at best medium term. Most policy is for the now, to win votes. There is no longer term strategy for sustained economic growth from any party. The tories recently made £40m available for businesses to get involved in the "Internet of Things". This is the next phase of digital development. £40m is a nice gesture, but it is completely ****ing in the wind in the scheme of things.

I agree. Don't you remember me lecturing Guided Missile (The most successful businessman on the forum) about the elasticity of demand??? If you knew your stuff, you would know that QE is decided by the Monetary Policy Commission at the independent Bank of England. It started under Labour and continued under the Tories. But as the BOE is independent, it is not a specific option open to political parties, to simply print more money. Which judging by some of the posters in here, is no bad thing. Granted that the government of the day sets the inflation target amongst other things, but can you imagine a government suggesting that we should have a 5% inflation rate? On another note, despite QE, much of the money was injected into the banking system, who have sat on the money to repair their balance sheets HTH

At manageable levels, say less than 5%, it would still take 20+ years with no deficit. But inflation hits the poorest hardest. So inflation or printing more money, when it is suggested by socialists is a bit silly really. They may as well say have deeper cuts!!! The best long term solution is to build an economic boom built on ingenuity and creativity (not consumer debt, like the last boom). A modern day industrial revolution in the digital age.... Unfortunately no political party gives a **** beyond getting elected

There are three ways to deal with the National Debt and the defecit. 1) Tax people more, but be careful not to harm the economy 2) Spend less, but be careful not to hurt the people at the bottom 3) Have a balance of 1 and 2, whilst focusing on growing the economy When it comes to "focusing on growing the economy", I have not seen much from any political party.

You can't just make money out of thin air. If it were that simple, surely Gordon Brown would have done it to stay PM? Printing more money has its consequences. The more you print, the bigger the consequences... and you end up in an even worse situation Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit our debt! (this should be the new socialist mantra)

I think it will peak at 1.8 trillion, so we'll need substantial surpluses for a very long time. Maybe then we may be able to clear $40bn a year over the next 20 years, which should get us back below 1 trillion. Then we can pass this on to our grand children to worry about, over the following 25 years. **** em, we'll be dead by then. Oh wait a minute... that sounds a bit greedy doesn't it???? A bit me, me, me???? Self interest before the common good??? I didn't have you down as a tory aintforever ;-)

Because some people are so blinkered, that anything but the tories is acceptable. Would rather a Labour majority over a Lab / SNP pact (however it is formed/worded) any day of the week

Unless you want to raise some cash, spend it all on Scotland, bankrupt the UK and then **** off under independence, with some extra cash stuffed under the pillow. Under these circumstances, I can see exactly why the SNP want to increase spending

Don't worry Si, she won't ruin the UK by breaking it up, she'll bankrupt it by increasing spending. WTF???

Fair play, but most lefties want free education for all. In an ideal world, this would make sense, but it is not an ideal world. So, in my view, if the taxpayer is to fund FE and HE, then it is only right that it is done so where the taxpayer gets the best return. Out of interest, what was the Secreatary of State's response?

But you still need to invest in infrastructure, despite the cuts that will have to be made (and we all know that). However, with some creative thinking, you can still target funds to where they are needed. One of Labour's key policies is to reduce tuition fees for all to £6000 (which is good, especially where the tories are doing nothing). However, if there is a mass shortage of maths teachers, why not selectively waive tuition fees for the areas where there is more need? If the country needs more maths teachers, what about waiving tuition fees for maths graduates who go on to teach? Same for English. It's not rocket science.... although waiving tuition fees on rocket science, would create more rocket scientists. Why are we churning out more media studies graduates than the industry can support? It should be everyones right to study what they want, but the tax payer funding of it should be based on the needs of the nation. To me that is just common sense. Something that ALL political parties seem to lack!!!

When you inherit a mess, it takes time to sort it out. The difficulty is that cuts have to be balanced, so as not to de-stabilise economic recovery. It makes sense to start with balancing the economy (GDP growth, low inflation, falling unemployment), which have all been achieved. Then you can start to bring the defecit under control in a steady but deliberate fashion. When you have a surplus, you start paying back. Simple really. ... and I know that you know that Labour know this too. They criticise the tories for the cuts they propose, when they KNOW they have to do the same too. But making the tories out to be nasty wasty howwible people (when in fact they will have to be nasty wasty too), show it's a load of old ******** really. When you look at charts below, total debt will continue to grow until 2018. Only then will it be possible to start paying back....

The word austerity is used as if it is something bad, evil even. It is used as an excuse for not doing something about living beyond our means. For those amongst us that fight for social justice, may I ask if passing debt onto our children is moral? Right? Just? Luckily as individuals, our debts are written off when we die. But if this were not the case, would you be happy to run up debts for your living now and pass them on to your kids and expect them to pay them off later?

Hate the word "austerity". This should read... Equal and opposite scare tactics from the anti-living-within-your-means brigade

Mate, I could write a manifesto of simple, but good workable ideas to make the country a better place. It astounds me that with the resources at the disposal of the main parties, none of them seem to be able to do the same. Maybe they are tied down by the dogma of their own parties. Maybe the fact that many of them lack real life experience, holds them back.

It's a big assumption, but a legitimate fear. The fact that lefties are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect, is not only about anything but the tories, but also pulling Labour back to the left. FWIW, I would rather a Labour majority than a Labour/SNP coalition. Political allegiancies aside, it will be interesting. Far more interesting than flipping between tory and labour, left and right This would be difficult to stomach. If the SNP stuck to Scotland only policies, then fine. It is not right that a party that wants to seperate from England ends up governing England in the process. Could lead to a rise in nationalism and the Lothian question comes into play. In retrospect I reckon Cameron might regret supporting the union, as a now independent scotland would probably have kept him in power

... and that is why Cameron is playing on this fear by pushing Labour and SNP togther in order to gain votes, whilst Milliband is trying to distance Labour from the SNP in order to gain votes. When in fact both leaders want the opposite.

Maybe it is based on recent experience, but Milliaband has gone on about growing the economy without being too specific how he'll do it. Maybe he has and the message is lost. Who knows. Labour have moved towards the centre, because you need the centre to govern. However, there is a threat that they will promise politics of the centre to get elected, only to be dragged back to the left by the SNP. Whilst I can see why this might be appealing to traditional lefties, because they may get what they've always wanted, centralies like me are uncomfortable with this. So if it is a case of the current Con / Dem coalition versus a Labour / SNP coalition, I would prefer the current one because the Lib Dems pull the tories back to the centre, whereas the SNP will pull labour away from the centre. After the economy, this is probably the biggest fear of a true centralie

The biggest block for voting labour is economic competence. I think the condems have done a reasonable job on the economy. I haven't seen a lot from labour to suggest they would do as well. Having said this, things like reducing business rates, which caught my eye, would be good for the economy. But even on rates, neither political party has grasped the nettle. The business rate system was devised at a time when the size of your business premises correlated to the size of your business and therefore was a 'fair' business tax. The bigger you were, the more you can pay. However, in today's economy, this model doesn't work any more. You can have highly profitable businesses operating from small premises, paying far less than a much less profitable business in bigger premises. If you think about it, it is ludicrous. To give a specific example at what a ridiculous tax this is, we can look at ebay shops. They compete with high street retailers. The high street retailers have to pay rates on their premises. The run from home ebay shops don't. How is this a fair business tax? Is it any wonder why the retail sector is under the cosh? The world has and is changing faster than we can legislate. So whilst Labour are doing something positive in terms of business tax, which will help the economy, they have missed a trick. The tories don't even come close on this specific area and they are supposed to be the party of business. I am quite dillusioned because there are not many conviction politicians. They are all from the same bull**** political class who no more represent their electorate than I do. I am disillusioned because most policy is on the basis of party dogma, rather than what is really in the best interests of the nation as a whole. I am disillusioned because there is often no middle ground. Take views on foreign aid. People seem to be against it or for it. Again there is some middle ground to be had. How about not giving aid to China, who clearly don't need it. How about not giving aid to India, whilst they are investing in nuclear weapons and a space programme. But how about continuing to give aid to countries that really need it. ******** to spoiling my ballot paper. I will draw a box for the Johnny Bognor Common Sense Party. They will definately get my vote. Hey, this could be the start of something new and quite special....

You have to start with the economy and wealth creation. Then you need to distribute it. That is where I sit generally. This places me slightly right of centre. Probably in the Ken Clarke zone. The social credentials for Labour are clearly there, as I have said before, I agree with the minimum wage, but Labour have failed to state how they are going to improve the economy and prosperity for all. There is no strategy. Economically, the tories are actually fairing quite well, just look at the very latest news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32348353 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214 ... so they are moving in the right direction, but they are relying on lower taxation and cuts to acheive it. There are those within the tory party who sometimes make sense on a social angle, such as IDS, who I genuinely believe is seeking to find solutions to our social problems. But IDS may as well **** in the wind as none of it will ever happen. So let's say for arguments sake, you give the tories the economic argument. For me they still fail. They rely on taxation and cuts, which may stimulate the present economy, but where is the real strategy to look at securing prosperity for all in the long term and investing in the future??? Neither Labour or Tory have this. If either party could give me this, they have my vote hands down. Red or Blue. Couldn't give a ****. In summary, tory fail me socially, labour fail me economically. Maybe that is how the electorate feels and why we no longer have two party politics. So what would I do? The UK established itself as a developed nation on the back of inventiveness. Herein lies the key for prosperity in the future. In some fields, the UK performs well, but I believe that we need to engineer future growth based on creating / developing IP and entrepreneurship to create real substantial wealth. Then maybe we can afford a decent social society for all to live in. How can this be achieved? There are many ways, but as I dont have time to go into detail, let's look at one policy area where all political parties are failing. Take tuition fees. Presently political parties are either for them (in the interests of cost) or against them (on the basis of fairness). Why does the concept of tuition fees have to be based purely on cost or fairness. Seems quite narrow minded to me. Why shouldn't they be determined on the basis of need for the greater good of the nation? You see, there is another way and both parties fail to recognise this. So how about looking at areas where there could be a real tangible benefit to the economic prosperity of the UK in the future? Perhaps in the areas of design technology. Why not scrap tuition fees on courses where it is demonstrated that it could contribute to a new industrialised revolution? I for one, as a taxpayer, would be quite happy to pay for engineers, product designers and the like, as this should secure our future. On the other hand, I think it is a waste of time funding a course in "contemporary outer mongolian jazz in the 16th century". People should have a right to study it, but it shouldn't be an automatic right for it to be funded. So there you go. A common sense policy which takes account of fairness and cost at the same time. You could call it a compromise. You could call it common sense, which when applied correctly, will help to build a more prosperous future for all. But as it does not sit with the dogma of both of the major parties, it won't happen. So here is an example of where political dogma, left or right, is holding the nation back. I didn't vote in the euro elections and I will spoil my ballot in this election.

I don't dispute that, but the gap between rich and poor grew under Labour, so much so that when they left office, the gap was the widest in 40 years. For me there are two reasons: 1) They dont want to be part of the UK, so I am uncomfortable with them having their hands on the levers of power in the UK 2) They maybe clever politically, but their economic credentials are shocking. Thie economic model for independence relied heavily on an oil price that halved, just a few months later. Had they had got their independence, they would have already had their begging bowl out.

Whatever the outcome of this election, I think it is fascinating, as was the last. Many of us grew up with a two party system. One or the other. You could predict the outcome with some certainty as groundswell support moved either left or right, with the only shock of the last 40 years being the thatcher kinnock election. Now no one has a clue what's going to happen and how it's going to turn out. the polls show the current state of play, but there is always a swing back to the incumbent as the election looms. In a safe Tory seat like Chichester, the ukip protest vote will hold. But in key marginals, I think there will be a swing from ukip to Tory, because whatever your views on immigration, you can't really vote for a one trick pony. This effect will only come to light in the few days before the election.

I think most normal people are governed by common sense. Those politically motivated, will stick to the party lines. I prefer not to stick to a party line and wouldn't want to accept everything a party does as right. Most traditional labour voters were betrayed by new labour in many ways, yet labour voters will defend them to the hilt. I don't get that. I wasn't sure about the coalition. They haven't done an amazing job by any means, but it hasn't been the disaster most people expected either. I was brought up on two party politics and I think that coalitions and consensus politics is the way forward. But it is also weird that people will choose people most unlike them to represent them politically, but don't accept those unlike them to support the same football team. Can't get my head round that....

Of course they are, as they will use it to damage his credibility if they can. It won't lose them votes and may win them votes. It would be the same in reverse. All good, but rather than expecting the state to sort me out, I managed to take personal responsibility and sort it out on my own. But as you clearly are a caring sharing leftie, I must thank you for asking We have 000's of fans and centre right voters use the internet. Is it really that surprising? There is always the assumption that tories are all rich and that they are all privileged (Dave is, sure I accept that). But John Major was a school leaver and was unemployed. Thatcher was the daughter of a shop keeper and was brought up in a flat. I would guess that most people had a background more similar to both Thatcher and Major, as opposed to millionaire Milliband It maybe easier to believe right wingers are nasty, but if you look at the behaviour on this forum, the left wingers don't live up to the caring sharing ******** (Jonnyboy excluded. He clearly is caring, if not sharing). Ironically, the extreme left wing UAF are more fascist than the fascists they propose to oppose. Quite laughable really.