General Election 2015

[Sour Mash]

More UKIP dirty tricks ;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-32234567

"A UKIP parliamentary candidate is to be questioned over allegations he tried to influence voters by giving away sausage rolls at a party event"

[trousers]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/10/eric-pickles-in-radio-spat-over-volunteering-policy_n_7038968.html?1428657350

The most amusing aspect of that is John Prescott, the master of car crash interviews, gleefully tweeting about the story without a hint of irony

 

John Prescott @johnprescott

If yesterday's Michael Fallon interview was a car crash, Eric Pickles just caused a motorway pile-up #r4today

Edited 10 April, 2015 by trousers

[pap]

Bits of the Pickles interview.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eric-pickles-radio-4-interview-5490633

[CB Saint]

Good grief - Pickles is a pillock and that policy is just plain stupid - how about stop wasting time and effort on trivialities and tell us how you are going to fix the big issues

 

In reality it just does not work - at work we can take two days off paid each year for charity work - to my knowledge not one person has taken advantage of it in the three years it has been in place.

[shurlock]

The reason I got started on this was to counter a post which seem to wholly plant the blame of the deficit onto falling tax receipts. I was pointing out that increased spending was as much to blame for the current predicament - I haven't "gushed" at all about Tory led recoveries.

 

The unfortunately fact that we are faced with is that we still have a circa £100bn deficit. We cannot sustain that in the longer term. We can earn more or spend less. There is limited scope to earn more unless the economy really gets going (and I don't believe that we will ever see more that a couple of % growth pa in a good year).

 

The corp tax receipt in the last 12 months were circa £40bn - even if you doubled the CT rate (assuming the large companies would stay) we would still be left with a £60bn shortfall. Mansion taxes, non doms etc, whilst it would contribute, will hardly make a dent in this.

 

The only real way left to tackle to the deficit is to spend less - how we do this and what you spend less on, I don't know but something has to give.

 

Ultimately government debt and deficit are sideshows and miss the bigger picture: that over the past 40 years, leverage in the total economy (households, governments, corporations, financial and external) has ballooned monstrously. The baton has been passed to different actors at different times -thus, for all we know, the accumulation of borrowing under Labour may have prevented an even greater acceleration in household debt.

 

But the overall result has been the same: successive credit booms have led to a huge debt overhang and more or more credit seems necessary just to sustain moderate levels of growth with implications for financial stability.

 

For all the talk about government austerity, let's not forget that this process is likely to shift debt back to households (the OBR predicts it will reach 182% of GDP in 2019, up from 169% in 2008 ). If not, demand will fall away, plunging the economy back into recession.

 

This should be the starting point for the conversation and how to respond. Obsessing about "the deficit" in isolation, not least because government is uniquely capable of taking on debt, backstopping the system and handling crises, is propaganda that does more to obscure than it does to enlighten.

[pap]

[Unbelievable Jeff]

"Ra ra ra. The coalition did a good job"

 

Oops. Before anyone complains that this is dark and a little bit scary, I had rioters a mile and a half down the road from me. A lot of people had to deal with it. It was a little bit dark and scary.

 

Under their watch.

 

 

I had rioters trying to break down the door of my office - and after going out the back of the office spoke to a few of the kids - they had no idea why they were there, but found looting and breaking stuff funny. It was a dark time for the country, but only because these toerags are our future, and being brought up in a country where they got something for nothing has spoilt them.

[buctootim]

We we running a deficit since 2001 and up until the crunch we were borrowing circa £40bn pa despite increasing the tax take year on year

 

if we had not increased spending as much between 2001 and 2008 we would have run a surplus

 

the fall in the tax take just brought the chickens home to roost

 

I agree you shouldnt be running a deficit during an economic boom, something both Brown and previous conservative chancellors were guilty of. However until 2007 the annual deficit was being funded by economic growth and, as Whelk said, the UK had one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the modern world. The massive increase in debt after 2007 wasnt a sudden increase in recurrent expenditure on public services, it was a collapse of revenues.

 

Should Brown have been more prudent, continuing as he did in the early days of the Blair government? yes. Was he doing anything that previous conservative chancellors hadn't done, or that other western countries weren't doing? no. Therefore to paint him as uniquely profligate or incompetent is wrong.

[trousers]

Therefore to paint him as uniquely profligate or incompetent is wrong.

 

#whataboutery klaxon#

 

Would you be using that same line of defence if it had been a nasty Tory at the helm at the time and with the same outcome?

[buctootim]

Ultimately government debt and deficit are sideshows and miss the bigger picture: that over the past 40 years, leverage in the total economy (households, governments, corporations, financial and external) has ballooned monstrously. The baton has been passed to different actors at different times -thus, for all we know, the accumulation of borrowing under Labour may have prevented an even greater acceleration in household debt.

 

But the overall result has been the same: successive credit booms have led to a huge debt overhang and more or more credit seems necessary just to sustain moderate levels of growth with implications for financial stability.

 

For all the talk about government austerity, let's not forget that this process is likely to shift debt back to households (the OBR predicts it will reach 182% of GDP in 2019, up from 169% in 2008 ). If not, demand will fall away, plunging the economy back into recession.

 

This should be the starting point for the conversation and how to respond. Obsessing about "the deficit" in isolation, not least because government is uniquely capable of taking on debt, backstopping the system and handling crises, is propaganda that does more to obscure than it does to enlighten.

 

Ultimately producing countries need the debtor countries. You cant have mass employment making tvs and cars and Iphones if you dont have demand. For every balance of trade surplus there needs to be an equal deficit somewhere. This hour long video from Yanis Varoufakis before he was Greek finance minister is very interesting, I really recommend it. It starts slowly but is well worth sticking with after the first few minutes. I don't agree with his implied conclusion that its okay to default, but his grasp of subject and 'how we got here' from a global perspective is enlightening.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

I had rioters trying to break down the door of my office - and after going out the back of the office spoke to a few of the kids - they had no idea why they were there, but found looting and breaking stuff funny. It was a dark time for the country, but only because these toerags are our future, and being brought up in a country where they got something for nothing has spoilt them.

 

I have the complete opposite view.

 

I'm sure that there were some opportunists among them, but mostly, I think it's about people that'll never get a stake in society. That's why they've no problem ripping it up.

[buctootim]

#whataboutery klaxon#

 

Would you be using that same line of defence if it had been a nasty Tory at the helm at the time and with the same outcome?

 

I dont do tribal politics - its not only pointless but prevents people from seeing situations as they are. Around 40% of people vote for the wrong party based on their views but have bought into the 'my team good, your team bad' mentality. I've voted for four different parties in the past, depending on candidate and election - including Tory.

Edited 10 April, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

Arf. Eastleigh 'Kipper candidate tweets this about Lib Dem Liverpool Riverside candidate:-

 

“2nd Lib Dem candidate reveals he deliberately became HIV positive yet free NHS care v costly.”

 

People's (f**king barmy) army?

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/general-election-2015-ukip-candidate-9015927

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I have the complete opposite view.

 

I'm sure that there were some opportunists among them, but mostly, I think it's about people that'll never get a stake in society. That's why they've no problem ripping it up.

 

Certainly from those that I saw and spoke to in London, as well as others I castigated on Facebook (middle class kids saying the government don't give them enough money when they're at College and living at home) is that they didn't understand what was happening, but they were angry about it anyway. The initial message became so diluted that in the end no-one knew what they were 'rioting' for, just that everyone else was.

 

It was utterly, utterly pathetic from my point of view, and those involved that weren't protesting peacefully should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. People like David Gilmours son etc.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Arf. Eastleigh 'Kipper candidate tweets this about Lib Dem Liverpool Riverside candidate:-

 

“2nd Lib Dem candidate reveals he deliberately became HIV positive yet free NHS care v costly.”

 

People's (f**king barmy) army?

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/general-election-2015-ukip-candidate-9015927

 

The whole ****ing lot of them are nuts, and a lot of people are going to vote for them. It's scary.

[Bearsy]

Is it normal that MPs declare what STDs they've got? Did i.e. Margaret Thatcher used to do press release every time she got i.e. pubic crabs?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Certainly from those that I saw and spoke to in London, as well as others I castigated on Facebook (middle class kids saying the government don't give them enough money when they're at College and living at home) is that they didn't understand what was happening, but they were angry about it anyway. The initial message became so diluted that in the end no-one knew what they were 'rioting' for, just that everyone else was.

 

It was utterly, utterly pathetic from my point of view, and those involved that weren't protesting peacefully should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. People like David Gilmours son etc.

 

Wasn't that the student protests?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Arf. Eastleigh 'Kipper candidate tweets this about Lib Dem Liverpool Riverside candidate:-

 

“2nd Lib Dem candidate reveals he deliberately became HIV positive yet free NHS care v costly.”

 

People's (f**king barmy) army?

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/general-election-2015-ukip-candidate-9015927

 

The whole ****ing lot of them are nuts, and a lot of people are going to vote for them. It's scary.

 

Are we allowed to do this now?

 

Or is it all still a big media conspiracy to tar their name?

 

Been saying it for ages, they are all nuts. They are all nasty, and the vast majority or ignorant, homophobic racists. F*ck UKIP. It speaks volumes that the party had to pretty much ban their candidates from talking publicly or giving interviews because everytime they do they come out with something awful.

 

Seriously, f*ck those guys.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree you shouldnt be running a deficit during an economic boom, something both Brown and previous conservative chancellors were guilty of. However until 2007 the annual deficit was being funded by economic growth and, as Whelk said, the UK had one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the modern world. The massive increase in debt after 2007 wasnt a sudden increase in recurrent expenditure on public services, it was a collapse of revenues.

 

Should Brown have been more prudent, continuing as he did in the early days of the Blair government? yes. Was he doing anything that previous conservative chancellors hadn't done, or that other western countries weren't doing? no. Therefore to paint him as uniquely profligate or incompetent is wrong.

 

He was awful, easily the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister that I have ever experienced.

[buctootim]

tribal politics - its not only pointless but prevents people from seeing situations as they are.

 

to paint him as uniquely profligate or incompetent is wrong.

 

He was awful, easily the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister that I have ever experienced.

 

As if on cue

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Wasn't that the student protests?

 

Might well have been actually, my mistake.

[pap]

Certainly from those that I saw and spoke to in London, as well as others I castigated on Facebook (middle class kids saying the government don't give them enough money when they're at College and living at home) is that they didn't understand what was happening, but they were angry about it anyway. The initial message became so diluted that in the end no-one knew what they were 'rioting' for, just that everyone else was.

 

It was utterly, utterly pathetic from my point of view, and those involved that weren't protesting peacefully should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. People like David Gilmours son etc.

 

Most people don't smash shít up for no reason. What would it take for you to smash something up, for example?

 

It was a fúcking shambles. Cameron showed no leadership, and didn't even bother returning from his hols.

[badgerx16]

He was awful, easily the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister that I have ever experienced.

 

Worse than Baldwin or MacDonald ?

[buctootim]

Worse than Baldwin or MacDonald ?

 

The devaluation of 1967, the IMF bailout in the 1970s, Lamont's Black Wednesday...

[pap]

He was awful, easily the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister that I have ever experienced.

 

I'm sorry if I've ever offended you before, Whitey G.

 

If I'd have known you were in a coma for a few decades, I'd have been more understanding.

[Bearsy]

Certainly from those that I saw and spoke to in London, as well as others I castigated on Facebook (middle class kids saying the government don't give them enough money when they're at College and living at home) is that they didn't understand what was happening, but they were angry about it anyway. The initial message became so diluted that in the end no-one knew what they were 'rioting' for, just that everyone else was.

 

It was utterly, utterly pathetic from my point of view, and those involved that weren't protesting peacefully should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

 

We'd been taught about America race riots at school + we thought they looked pretty cool + gangsta + sticking it to The Man. We just wanted to join in & be like America

[CB Fry]

He was awful, easily the worst Chancellor and Prime Minister that I have ever experienced.

 

LOL. Just parroting an opinion the right wing press told him to have.

[aintforever]

but only because these toerags are our future, and being brought up in a country where they got something for nothing has spoilt them.

 

I actually agree with that, except it's not just the dole scroungers who get something for nothing, its the MPs who fiddle their expenses, the bankers who gamble with our money and the super rich tax evade/avoiders.

[pap]

The problem with elections is that people have such short memories.

 

 

To counter Whitey's bold claim, I've never seen Southampton look any worse than under this last government.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I actually agree with that, except it's not just the dole scroungers who get something for nothing, its the MPs who fiddle their expenses, the bankers who gamble with our money and the super rich tax evade/avoiders.

 

It's an interesting viewpoint.

 

I bet never before has a generation had disdain for the next generation...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Most people don't smash shít up for no reason. What would it take for you to smash something up, for example?

 

 

To smash up other peoples property and livelihood? Probably people indiscriminately blocking my drive.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

To smash up other peoples property and livelihood? Probably people indiscriminately blocking my drive.

 

 

Well played UJ

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I actually agree with that, except it's not just the dole scroungers who get something for nothing, its the MPs who fiddle their expenses, the bankers who gamble with our money and the super rich tax evade/avoiders.

 

And after the MPs were told they could no longer claim expenses, did we see them rioting on the streets of London? If we manage to cut down on the avoidance/evaders, will we see groups of thuggish billionaires burning down furniture shops, looting Currys etc?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

And after the MPs were told they could no longer claim expenses, did we see them rioting on the streets of London? If we manage to cut down on the avoidance/evaders, will we see groups of thuggish billionaires burning down furniture shops, looting Currys etc?

 

Behave. You are comparing the richest most powerful people in society to the poorest most disenfranchised.

 

Of course they wouldn't do that, but you can be damn sure they will use their money and influence to make life as hard for the politicians implementing the changes as possible.

 

They'll riot f'sure, just in a different way. As Pap says, if you got no stake in society why the heck wouldn't you tear it down.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Behave. You are comparing the richest most powerful people in society to the poorest most disenfranchised.

 

Of course they wouldn't do that, but you can be damn sure they will use their money and influence to make life as hard for the politicians implementing the changes as possible.

 

They'll riot f'sure, just in a different way. As Pap says, if you got no stake in society why the heck wouldn't you tear it down.

 

It was a facetious comment, so I replied facetiously.

 

Just because you feel disenfranchised by something, doesn't mean you should go around smashing up other peoples stuff. What gives anyone that right? Protest peacefully outside parliament, there were enough of them to make them sit up and listen. But going around smashing stuff up? Pathetic, repugnant behaviour, and has meant that any sympathy people had was eroded pretty ****ing quickly.

[pap]

It was a facetious comment, so I replied facetiously.

 

Just because you feel disenfranchised by something, doesn't mean you should go around smashing up other peoples stuff. What gives anyone that right? Protest peacefully outside parliament, there were enough of them to make them sit up and listen. But going around smashing stuff up? Pathetic, repugnant behaviour, and has meant that any sympathy people had was eroded pretty ****ing quickly.

 

It wasn't intended as a facetious comment, but I do feel safe in characterising most of your post as (drum roll) dogshíte.

 

If 2 million people were not enough to dissuade Blair's government from going into Iraq, I doubt that "there were enough of them to make them sit up and listen".

 

You are also implying that there was sympathy to begin with, when the bulk of the Tory vote are indifferent c**ts that only notice the poor when they need someone to blame.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It was a facetious comment, so I replied facetiously.

 

Just because you feel disenfranchised by something, doesn't mean you should go around smashing up other peoples stuff. What gives anyone that right? Protest peacefully outside parliament, there were enough of them to make them sit up and listen. But going around smashing stuff up? Pathetic.

 

It's easier to ignore people that protest peacefully.

 

"Yes ok, nice people. We understand that you are poor, and have severely hampered chances in life due to where you were born, to whom and [often] the colour of your skin. We'll have a chat about it, when we are done holidaying with our millionaire pals and see what we can do. What you need to understand though, is that our priority right now is to save the bankers (rich folk) that have gambled everyones money and made a right pig's ear of it.

 

What this means is we need austerity. We shall take away all the systems that are put in place to help you guys (the most in need) away, to help our rich banker friends who got themselves in trouble.

 

But thanks for being terribly nice about it old sports."

 

Consider this has been going on for decades. Yeah, smash things up. But again, it's easy to just dismiss anger as thuggery. Especially when it already fits your convenient narrative that the poor are deserving, uncivilised and their through their own volition. They don't deserve help because they smash sh!t up. It's the same old thing trotted out all the time. Look at the reactions to the protestors in Ferguson, and across the States last year.

[Batman]

so, who you voting for then Pap?

[aintforever]

And after the MPs were told they could no longer claim expenses, did we see them rioting on the streets of London? If we manage to cut down on the avoidance/evaders, will we see groups of thuggish billionaires burning down furniture shops, looting Currys etc?

 

No, the MP's just voted themselves a massive pay rise so they didn't need to claim expenses, the bankers are just carrying on as usual and the tax evaders/avoiders will just move abroad of find another loophole.

 

People with nothing to lose just smash sh!t up.

[pap]

so, who you voting for then Pap?

 

Dunno yet. Either Green or Labour at the moment. Depends who else turns up on the ballot.

 

https://yournextmp.com/constituency/65766/liverpool-west-derby

 

The great shame of it is that my vote won't really matter beyond being a personal preference. Crap electoral system, unlikely to be looked at for another 40 years.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's easier to ignore people that protest peacefully.

 

"Yes ok, nice people. We understand that you are poor, and have severely hampered chances in life due to where you were born, to whom and [often] the colour of your skin. We'll have a chat about it, when we are done holidaying with our millionaire pals and see what we can do. What you need to understand though, is that our priority right now is to save the bankers (rich folk) that have gambled everyones money and made a right pig's ear of it.

 

What this means is we need austerity. We shall take away all the systems that are put in place to help you guys (the most in need) away, to help our rich banker friends who got themselves in trouble.

 

But thanks for being terribly nice about it old sports."

 

Consider this has been going on for decades. Yeah, smash things up. But again, it's easy to just dismiss anger as thuggery. Especially when it already fits your convenient narrative that the poor are deserving, uncivilised and their through their own volition. They don't deserve help because they smash sh!t up. It's the same old thing trotted out all the time. Look at the reactions to the protestors in Ferguson, and across the States last year.

 

But the violence was aimed at civilians, not at the government.

 

I am vehemently against any further benefits cuts, they went to far, hence why I won't vote Tory, but violence is not the answer.

 

The Ferguson riots are very different, that's violence based on violence.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

No, the MP's just voted themselves a massive pay rise so they didn't need to claim expenses, the bankers are just carrying on as usual and the tax evaders/avoiders will just move abroad of find another loophole.

 

People with nothing to lose just smash sh!t up.

 

Just out of interest, what do the bankers get for nothing?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It wasn't intended as a facetious comment, but I do feel safe in characterising most of your post as (drum roll) dogshíte.

 

If 2 million people were not enough to dissuade Blair's government from going into Iraq, I doubt that "there were enough of them to make them sit up and listen".

 

You are also implying that there was sympathy to begin with, when the bulk of the Tory vote are indifferent c**ts that only notice the poor when they need someone to blame.

 

Perhaps. Still don't think violence against civilian businesses etc is the right way to go about it.

[pap]

Just out of interest, what do the bankers get for nothing?

Interest?

[pap]

Perhaps. Still don't think violence against civilian businesses etc is the right way to go about it.

 

What is the right way for a disenfranchised electorate to raise their concerns with an indifferent elite?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What is the right way for a disenfranchised electorate to raise their concerns with an indifferent elite?

 

Picketing Government buildings perhaps? Why not attack council buildings etc? Or was it just because they fancied a new TV and some Beats by Dre headphones?

[pap]

Picketing Government buildings perhaps? Why not attack council buildings etc? Or was it just because they fancied a new TV and some Beats by Dre headphones?

 

And when that doesn't work....

 

What then?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

And when that doesn't work....

 

What then?

 

You think burning down numerous council offices won't have more than an effect than burning down a furniture store in Croydon? As soon it actually starts costing the government big bucks it would have an effect. But they didn't try that, they just went and got themselves a new Ipad.

[Torres]

What is the right way for a disenfranchised electorate to raise their concerns with an indifferent elite?

 

Re-engage with the democratic process. It's really not difficult.

[pap]

You think burning down numerous council offices won't have more than an effect than burning down a furniture store in Croydon? As soon it actually starts costing the government big bucks it would have an effect. But they didn't try that, they just went and got themselves a new Ipad.

 

So you're actually advocating arson of public buildings? That would have been preferable?

 

Brilliant, UJ. To quote the great Cap'n Mal, "my days of not taking you seriously are at a middle".