The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
To be clear about this, band 6 is for senior and specialist nurses. Most nurses fall into bands 4 and 5, the majority in band 5. Salaries for band 5 are £21-28k.
My wife, who is a practice nurse with about 35 years working for the NHS is paid half way up the band 6 scale because GPs are able to set pay rates as they see fit with no increments included. She could go to another practice, but her main commitment is to the patients she sees week in and week out. Nurses should be paid considerably more given the training, skills and responsibility they have but are not because many nurses are more interested in care than money.
The position is getting worse as trained nurses are being replaced in many places by HCAs as they are cheaper (but without the training and skill to provide the necessary care).
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
tube/train drivers are in charge of potentially lethal vehicles that carry hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on a regular basis .. anyway, rule one in life is that one doesn't get paid what one 'is worth', one is paid the best that one can negotiate .. I have met no-one who when offered big bucks said: 'I cannot accept this, I am not worthy'
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
tube/train drivers are in charge of potentially lethal vehicles that carry hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on a regular basis .. anyway, rule one in life is that one doesn't get paid what one 'is worth', one is paid the best that one can negotiate .. I have met no-one who when offered big bucks said: 'I cannot accept this, I am not worthy'
I suppose when you can hold a whole city to ransom it makes it easier to negotiate ones position.
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
tube/train drivers are in charge of potentially lethal vehicles that carry hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on a regular basis .. anyway, rule one in life is that one doesn't get paid what one 'is worth', one is paid the best that one can negotiate .. I have met no-one who when offered big bucks said: 'I cannot accept this, I am not worthy'
I suppose when you can hold a whole city to ransom it makes it easier to negotiate ones position.
exactly .. for good or bad, the way it is .. legislation should be enacted to prevent this blackmail .. has the position improved since Bob Crow's demise ?
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
tube/train drivers are in charge of potentially lethal vehicles that carry hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on a regular basis .. anyway, rule one in life is that one doesn't get paid what one 'is worth', one is paid the best that one can negotiate .. I have met no-one who when offered big bucks said: 'I cannot accept this, I am not worthy'
I suppose when you can hold a whole city to ransom it makes it easier to negotiate ones position.
exactly .. for good or bad, the way it is .. legislation should be enacted to prevent this blackmail .. has the position improved since Bob Crow's demise ?
Well we haven't had a strike for a while so that's progress. Expect one pretty pronto if the Tories stay in government.
Let's see if things change if Labour get in power - awaiting to see how they deal with the unions in comparison to the Tories.
Did anyone just see Diane Abbott on BBC London News; fella had an opinion that the NHS should be depoliticized by all parties and not used as a political football, she started going on about the state of the health service in the US and that's what can happen with no national health service... Bell
The best thing for the NHS would be if it was de-politicised and not used as a political football. Decisions could be made that would be best for patient outcomes. The Tories resent the Public Sector whilst for Labour it is a sacred cow that can't be changed.
Diane Abbott err retiring would also be a good thing.
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
And they have been educated for three years - now all to degree level - worked thier way up, work bloody hard in situations most people would'nt tolerate and deserve every penny they get!
Politics has changed dramatically over the last 20 years and it depends on your viewpoint on what you prioritise as to how you vote .
Most of the posters on here live in the south east so will not feel the despair which is occurring in other parts of the country.I posted this earlier in the thread and it gives in my view a good perspective on the fault lines that are appearing in the campaign and why there is such a difference in voting intentions .
In terms of the 1992 election I think the comparison could have some merit . I think that year the move away from Labour happened in the last 10 days of the campaign and the Tories did have a secret army of voters who proved the pollsters wrong . We will only know on polling day .
There are big differences though .
In my view Kinnock's behaviour at the famous Sheffield Rally acted as a catalyst which moved public opinion against him .I don't think Miliband will make that mistake.
Thatcher had been toppled by her own MP's the previous year . Effectively many voters felt they already had a change of government at that point .Remember she was PM for 11 years .There was no internet then so the Sun as the best read tabloid had a much stronger position .
In my view it is ironic that the fact the pound devalued three months after the election. Remember this was under a Tory government . As ex PM Jim Callaghan said this ' broke the Dam' and set up Blair's landslide 5 years later .
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is. He has failed on a wholesale level against nearly all of his pre-2010 election predictions/promises of what he would deliver:
He's borrowed more than £250b more than he said he would and created more new debt than every previous Labour government...combined He's failed to turn the deficit into a surplus by 2015 He missed his growth targets pretty much throughout his term leading to a situation where the size of the UK economy is £100b smaller than it should be by now He oversaw the loss of our AAA credit rating for the first time since the 70's Even with the recent growth improvement it is still likely to lead to an annual rate less than the long term average He predicted the debt/gdp ratio under Labour was on the verge of bankrupting the country, yet it's now 25% higher than at the end of Labour administration, even after the financial crash in 07/08 Average real wages have lagged behind inflation on his watch and millions of us are worse off comparitively now than 7 or 8 years ago...
...we could go on but I suspect that the answer to AFKA's question as to why the Tories are not walking this election, or any since 1992, is that people are not seeing the hype coming out about the "recovery" adequatly reflected in their pocket.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
And how much of that was caused by the fools in charge before, this country was left Pot less no other way than to try to borrow more to rebuild the shambles that the last labour gvmt and it's wasteful shamefull spending, it's outrageous level of money it gave to people who never contributed to any of it,
You can not judge this government on any results yet, as it was never going to be fixed in the short term, this country is growing again, there is a confidence in the economy and companies are investing and spending, I didn't expect to see any money back in my pocket, I accepted that I would have to put up with a higher taxing, cuts to key areas but in return I wanted to see Less people taking the piss and get off their arse I wanted everyone to pay towards the problem, how anyone can even begin to defend the last government and try to criticise the next regardless of who it was and I would say the same if it was the other way Rd, this problem would take 10-15 yrs to solve yet we will only give people 4, we will see soon enough, and if it's labour I bet they don't change any of the savings and the only ones who will really benefit are the ones too lazy and woe is me and we will all pay for them again,
How does the song go
" the needle returns to the start of the song and we all get along like before, because nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all "
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is. He has failed on a wholesale level against nearly all of his pre-2010 election predictions/promises of what he would deliver:
He's borrowed more than £250b more than he said he would and created more new debt than every previous Labour government...combined He's failed to turn the deficit into a surplus by 2015 He missed his growth targets pretty much throughout his term leading to a situation where the size of the UK economy is £100b smaller than it should be by now He oversaw the loss of our AAA credit rating for the first time since the 70's Even with the recent growth improvement it is still likely to lead to an annual rate less than the long term average He predicted the debt/gdp under Labour was on the verge of bankrupting the country, yet it's now 25% higher than at the end of Labour administration, even after the financial crash in 07/08 Average real wages have lagged behind inflation on his watch and millions of us are worse off comparitively now than 7 or 8 years ago...
...we could go on but I suspect that the answer to AFKA's question as to why the Tories are not walking this election, or any since 1992, is that people are not seeing the hype coming out about the "recovery" adequatly reflected in their pocket.
Most if not all you have cited can be directly attributed to factors outside of the Government's control, such as the global financial crisis that was still at its peak in May 2010 and the unfolding Eurozone crisis that hampered UK growth. There is nothing to suggest any other party would not have faced the same issues and the IMF recently commended the Coalition for having the best approach at steering the country through the crisis.
There are indeed pressures on public services and the biggest is an aging population together with health cost inflation. Politicos are playing round the edges and some blame bankers, some blame immigrants... But very few have tangible solutions. Someone on page 25 asked how are we to make choices. And without proper information and clear vision it's difficult. My take is that immigration has been forced up the agenda because living standards for ordinary people have frozen and perhaps declined. And it's oh so easy to find someone else to blame!
My take is also that Cameron is prepared to play fast and loose with the union with Scotland and with membership of the EU. As @Chizz states so clearly Cameron has boxed himself into a corner promising a referendum. One where he will campaign for a "yes" vote as long as there are treaty changes to debate which make membership "acceptable".
Here's the thing: those treaty changes are not in his gift and require the 100% agreement of all 27 EU members. And it has been indicated that nothing can move before 2019, some two years after the proposed referendum. They have bigger concerns like Greece to contend with...So what is it we are to vote for, Dave?!
It will be 2030 when demographics, health and retirement costs really bite so politicians probably aren't that keen to tackle root causes just yet but it's fairly obvious that longer life expectancy for more and more after retirement is an issue. It's no coincidence that older people are more likely to vote so again the main parties can't rethink the post war consensus without risking haemorrhaging support.
Perhaps a new political force will form, made up of those born after 1990, those whose living standards are falling, those who missed out on free university education and the 3-400% property boom in the south east? Maybe those under 25 today might decide that if they can't get a free ride then neither can anyone else - bang goes a free NHS for the over 60s because the younger generation might decide the country can't afford it. After all that has been the coalition message to the 16-25 year old demographic - "I'm alright Jack"
Across Europe there is no clear vision for society to address a post crash environment. We have magnificent IT (compared to 30 years back) whilst the richest 1% of people and corporations are able to effectively choose the tax code within which they operate. And Europe (and the USA) face the very same challenges as we do regarding demographics, health, pensions and youth unemployment.
After five years of the coalition government doing very little and breaking manifesto commitments left right and centre, Labour should be walking this, not least because of changing demographics and ordinary people paying for the crash. Contrary to AFKA's view on the coalition, it is my belief that they held back recovery plus sought to blame immigration for the ills of today. This despite all the evidence showing that immigrants are net contributors. And GCSE economic theory stating that when you're in trouble as we were back in 2011 then it's time for the government to spend NOT cut.
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
As smaller parties of the left state, the time for austerity is over, particularly outside the M25.
The simple truth is that Labour ran a deficit of 1% from 2003-2007. And before that there were four years of surplus!The deficit rocketed to 8% in 2008 because of bank bailouts and loss of tax receipts as banks took losses and the country went into deep recession. But now the deficit is back around 4%.
For me the best way to reduce the total debt: GDP ratio is to increase GDP as quickly as possible. Just grow the economy!
This last few days of the campaign have been very illuminating as the Tories promise: 1) to sell off Lloyds bank shares in a bribe to voters- they should have sold these a while back to clear debt 2) to compel independent legal entities to dispose of housing assets reducing social housing and the ability of housing trusts to run their own balance sheets - is that a form of nationalisation? 3) attack anything that moves in Scotland in a desperate move to scare voters - does wonders for the union! 4) bang on about the deficit like we are still in crisis mode as in 2008-10 and yet simultaneously make unfunded promises about the NHS etc 5) offer tax breaks to those with estates worth £1m 6) commit to enormous cuts in welfare spending but refused to reveal where and what these are.
Please, please, please do NOT believe the lie that we are still in economic crisis. We are clearly in a recovery but the shape of that over the next 5-10 years will be determined by the forthcoming election.
And please do not believe that Labour ran a structural deficit throughout 13 years in government because they didn't. It's a lie! It's very dramatic and it's a concern that Labour have failed to defend, but as above: for 12 years they ran a surplus or a 1% deficit. The global crash and saving the banks caused the spike. Huge amounts of cash were injected into illiquid banks. But those banking assets are now tradeable again. And perhaps at a profit!
Now one can criticise Labour for running a lax regulatory regime but guess what? The Tories didn't criticise at the time and probably would have removed more regulations.
Do we want a rise in the minimum wage with associated savings in benefit subsidies
Or do we want to risk leaving the EU?
Do we want banks sold to the highest bidder or bribes given to voters?
Do we want an immediate reduction in tuition fees to reduce (often uncollectable) student debt?
And do we want solutions or to blame immigrants and the EU?
Do we want a pan European approach to tax avoidance, Internet dominance, Eastern Europe and financial regulations? Or do we want a fractured ineffective approach because the governing party has no real partners across the continent?
This has been a great discussion to date and I look forward to how the campaign and this thread develops.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon"). It seems unlikely though, given that both the poll and the voting would be confidential; and the assertion is that up to 3% of respondents had already chosen to vote Tory and went on to do so, but when polled, prior to the election, they had chosen to say they were undecided. They ticked the undecided box in the poll, having already decided.
But, you know what, I really can't be bothered. It looks like you've won this argument. For three reasons:
1. Because your vastly superior education has taught you how properly to handle statistics and, at the same time, has taught you that lesser mortals needn't be bothered with the burden of trying to understand the detail behind them. So I really ought not to be questioning you.
2. Because I should have known better than to suggest it can't have been proven and, instead, accepted that as *you* said it was proven, then that should have been good enough.
3. And because, my lack of a statistics degree is clearly trumped by your lack of manners.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is.
Yeah, he is such a magician he has even managed to convince the IMF (an organisation that previously warned against his policies) to concede that, actually, he did alright. How did that happen BA?
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is.
Yeah, he is such a magician he has even managed to convince the IMF (an organisation that previously warned against his policies) to concede that, actually, he did alright. How did that happen BA?
Well, firstly she was sitting next to George Osborne when she said it so I suspect there was an element of wanting to put a positive spin on things and avoiding appearing to be unduly negative when he was sharing the panel with her.
It also came the day after her own organisation had reported that the Tories plan for deficit reduction was out to the tune of £14b and growing household debt was threatening the recovery so perhaps it was an attempt to be conciliatory or she just takes a different view from the economists actually working for her?
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
Or, maybe...
...they are terrified as to what will happen to the markets should the Tories gain power and go ahead with their plan to poll the public on an EU in/out referendum, causing several years of economic and political uncertainty.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is.
Yeah, he is such a magician he has even managed to convince the IMF (an organisation that previously warned against his policies) to concede that, actually, he did alright. How did that happen BA?
Well, firstly she was sitting next to George Osborne when she said it so I suspect there was an element of wanting to put a positive spin on things and avoiding appearing to be unduly negative when he was sharing the panel with her.
It also came the day after her own organisation had reported that the Tories plan for deficit reduction was out to the tune of £14b and growing household debt was threatening the recovery so perhaps it was an attempt to be conciliatory or she just takes a different view from the economists actually working for her?
First, the difference in calculation you cite relates to a staggeringly huge 0.6% change in GDP - massive discrepancy there then! Of course, it's a "rounding error", as the IMF has conceded.
Second Lagarde said "It's clearly delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked." If she was merely being polite (and actually I think this feisty French woman has more balls than that) she would have found a form of words (she speaks excellent English) which were much less complimentary.
So, with the UK now second only to the US as the fastest growing economy in the G7, the IMF has reversed its position, urging the UK to continue on the path of fiscal consolidation.
But you carry on trying to manipulate data to fit in with your view on things.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is. He has failed on a wholesale level against nearly all of his pre-2010 election predictions/promises of what he would deliver:
He's borrowed more than £250b more than he said he would and created more new debt than every previous Labour government...combined He's failed to turn the deficit into a surplus by 2015 He missed his growth targets pretty much throughout his term leading to a situation where the size of the UK economy is £100b smaller than it should be by now He oversaw the loss of our AAA credit rating for the first time since the 70's Even with the recent growth improvement it is still likely to lead to an annual rate less than the long term average He predicted the debt/gdp ratio under Labour was on the verge of bankrupting the country, yet it's now 25% higher than at the end of Labour administration, even after the financial crash in 07/08 Average real wages have lagged behind inflation on his watch and millions of us are worse off comparitively now than 7 or 8 years ago...
...we could go on but I suspect that the answer to AFKA's question as to why the Tories are not walking this election, or any since 1992, is that people are not seeing the hype coming out about the "recovery" adequatly reflected in their pocket.
Osborne might have - like all politicians - lied and/or over exaggerated and over estimated his abilities to balance the books back in 2010 .. however, all he inherited from the Soppy Bollocks B Brothers, Brown and Balls was a note stating that there was no money, nil points, nix, nada in the British Exchequer. We would be in a far worse position had that moron Brown become 'our leader', this time voted into power rather than taking over after a dodgy deal with the third B Bro Blair .. AND this is why I am RELUCTANTLY voting labour as Brown's sidekick Balls, has somehow kept his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I just hope that this is not an indication that there is no-one else in the Labour hierarchy who can count as well as bluster and lie. The bankers have been bailed out, the economy, despite @Bournemouth Addick 's opinions is in decent shape, it's time that the emphasis was geared more towards the young rather than the older and richer Britons. Five years of Labour failure will not bankrupt the UK, the Tories can come back in 2020 and get all austerity on us again. My hope is that a Labour government now can give the disaffected and under utilised young people in this country a boost: guaranteed jobs and/or apprenticeships, reduced Uni fees and a tighter control on immigration. Ironic that Labour's immigration policies are far more stringent than those of the Tories.
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
I'm not sure you can really articulate the prediction of an economy crashing "in short" ?
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
I'm not sure you can really articulate the prediction of an economy crashing "in short" ?
Any idea why they fear this ?
Haven't got a clue, and my knowledge of the ins and outs of the economy is probably not advanced enough to get into a debate with them about.
It seems to be a simple case of thats what our industry / the city is predicting and so that's why our spend is getting put on hold.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
Unsurprisingly I don't share your and Afka's view that George Osborne is in any way competent let alone the saviour of the UK's economy he has somehow convinced large swathes of the electorate he is. He has failed on a wholesale level against nearly all of his pre-2010 election predictions/promises of what he would deliver:
He's borrowed more than £250b more than he said he would and created more new debt than every previous Labour government...combined He's failed to turn the deficit into a surplus by 2015 He missed his growth targets pretty much throughout his term leading to a situation where the size of the UK economy is £100b smaller than it should be by now He oversaw the loss of our AAA credit rating for the first time since the 70's Even with the recent growth improvement it is still likely to lead to an annual rate less than the long term average He predicted the debt/gdp ratio under Labour was on the verge of bankrupting the country, yet it's now 25% higher than at the end of Labour administration, even after the financial crash in 07/08 Average real wages have lagged behind inflation on his watch and millions of us are worse off comparitively now than 7 or 8 years ago...
...we could go on but I suspect that the answer to AFKA's question as to why the Tories are not walking this election, or any since 1992, is that people are not seeing the hype coming out about the "recovery" adequatly reflected in their pocket.
Osborne might have - like all politicians - lied and/or over exaggerated and over estimated his abilities to balance the books back in 2010 .. however, all he inherited from the Soppy Bollocks B Brothers, Brown and Balls was a note stating that there was no money, nil points, nix, nada in the British Exchequer. We would be in a far worse position had that moron Brown become 'our leader', this time voted into power rather than taking over after a dodgy deal with the third B Bro Blair .. AND this is why I am RELUCTANTLY voting labour as Brown's sidekick Balls, has somehow kept his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I just hope that this is not an indication that there is no-one else in the Labour hierarchy who can count as well as bluster and lie. The bankers have been bailed out, the economy, despite @Bournemouth Addick 's opinions is in decent shape, it's time that the emphasis was geared more towards the young rather than the older and richer Britons. Five years of Labour failure will not bankrupt the UK, the Tories can come back in 2020 and get all austerity on us again. My hope is that a Labour government now can give the disaffected and under utilised young people in this country a boost: guaranteed jobs and/or apprenticeships, reduced Uni fees and a tighter control on immigration. Ironic that Labour's immigration policies are far more stringent than those of the Tories.
Not my 'opinions' Linc's, they are published facts that illustrate that after 5 years Osborne has overall borrowed more to deliver less than he promised, and in essence failed to meet his own performance indicators. I didn't even mention the fact that we had just come out of recession at the time of the last election only to narrowly avoid a double dip recession under Osborne due to an post reporting accounting amendment that suggested growth wasn't negative but had in fact climbed to zero (I think this is the case anyway).
People can have their own opinion on whether he's been good or bad for the UK but I do wish they would make this decision on the basis of a fuller picture rather than on what seems a out of date perception to me.
And where does it say they may leave the UK on the back of a Labour victory? It states that they may leave because of new banking regulations that are already in place.
I read something recently that said that HSBC were looking to get out because of the uncertainty surrounding EU membership. But I wouldn't trust anything that the bank said, they have been caught doing so many dodgy things recently I am sure they want to go somewhere where they will be less regulated. I believe the deal was when they bought the Midland Bank way back was that hey had to have their HQ in the UK. So is this just a way of breaking that promise?
Comments
My wife, who is a practice nurse with about 35 years working for the NHS is paid half way up the band 6 scale because GPs are able to set pay rates as they see fit with no increments included. She could go to another practice, but her main commitment is to the patients she sees week in and week out. Nurses should be paid considerably more given the training, skills and responsibility they have but are not because many nurses are more interested in care than money.
The position is getting worse as trained nurses are being replaced in many places by HCAs as they are cheaper (but without the training and skill to provide the necessary care).
Let's see if things change if Labour get in power - awaiting to see how they deal with the unions in comparison to the Tories.
Diane Abbott err retiring would also be a good thing.
Most of the posters on here live in the south east so will not feel the despair which is occurring in other parts of the country.I posted this earlier in the thread and it gives in my view a good perspective on the fault lines that are appearing in the campaign and why there is such a difference in voting intentions .
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/three-new-tribes-of-voters-will-dominate-this-election
In terms of the 1992 election I think the comparison could have some merit . I think that year the move away from Labour happened in the last 10 days of the campaign and the Tories did have a secret army of voters who proved the pollsters wrong . We will only know on polling day .
There are big differences though .
In my view Kinnock's behaviour at the famous Sheffield Rally acted as a catalyst which moved public opinion against him .I don't think Miliband will make that mistake.
Thatcher had been toppled by her own MP's the previous year . Effectively many voters felt they already had a change of government at that point .Remember she was PM for 11 years .There was no internet then so the Sun as the best read tabloid had a much stronger position .
In my view it is ironic that the fact the pound devalued three months after the election. Remember this was under a Tory government . As ex PM Jim Callaghan said this ' broke the Dam' and set up Blair's landslide 5 years later .
He's borrowed more than £250b more than he said he would and created more new debt than every previous Labour government...combined
He's failed to turn the deficit into a surplus by 2015
He missed his growth targets pretty much throughout his term leading to a situation where the size of the UK economy is £100b smaller than it should be by now
He oversaw the loss of our AAA credit rating for the first time since the 70's
Even with the recent growth improvement it is still likely to lead to an annual rate less than the long term average
He predicted the debt/gdp ratio under Labour was on the verge of bankrupting the country, yet it's now 25% higher than at the end of Labour administration, even after the financial crash in 07/08
Average real wages have lagged behind inflation on his watch and millions of us are worse off comparitively now than 7 or 8 years ago...
...we could go on but I suspect that the answer to AFKA's question as to why the Tories are not walking this election, or any since 1992, is that people are not seeing the hype coming out about the "recovery" adequatly reflected in their pocket.
You can not judge this government on any results yet, as it was never going to be fixed in the short term, this country is growing again, there is a confidence in the economy and companies are investing and spending, I didn't expect to see any money back in my pocket, I accepted that I would have to put up with a higher taxing, cuts to key areas but in return I wanted to see Less people taking the piss and get off their arse I wanted everyone to pay towards the problem, how anyone can even begin to defend the last government and try to criticise the next regardless of who it was and I would say the same if it was the other way Rd, this problem would take 10-15 yrs to solve yet we will only give people 4, we will see soon enough, and if it's labour I bet they don't change any of the savings and the only ones who will really benefit are the ones too lazy and woe is me and we will all pay for them again,
How does the song go
" the needle returns to the start of the song and we all get along like before, because nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all "
Eurozone crisis that hampered UK growth. There is nothing to suggest any other party would not have faced the same issues and the IMF recently commended the Coalition for having the best approach at steering the country through the crisis.
Someone on page 25 asked how are we to make choices. And without proper information and clear vision it's difficult. My take is that immigration has been forced up the agenda because living standards for ordinary people have frozen and perhaps declined. And it's oh so easy to find someone else to blame!
My take is also that Cameron is prepared to play fast and loose with the union with Scotland and with membership of the EU. As @Chizz states so clearly Cameron has boxed himself into a corner promising a referendum. One where he will campaign for a "yes" vote as long as there are treaty changes to debate which make membership "acceptable".
Here's the thing: those treaty changes are not in his gift and require the 100% agreement of all 27 EU members. And it has been indicated that nothing can move before 2019, some two years after the proposed referendum. They have bigger concerns like Greece to contend with...So what is it we are to vote for, Dave?!
It will be 2030 when demographics, health and retirement costs really bite so politicians probably aren't that keen to tackle root causes just yet but it's fairly obvious that longer life expectancy for more and more after retirement is an issue. It's no coincidence that older people are more likely to vote so again the main parties can't rethink the post war consensus without risking haemorrhaging support.
Perhaps a new political force will form, made up of those born after 1990, those whose living standards are falling, those who missed out on free university education and the 3-400% property boom in the south east? Maybe those under 25 today might decide that if they can't get a free ride then neither can anyone else - bang goes a free NHS for the over 60s because the younger generation might decide the country can't afford it. After all that has been the coalition message to the 16-25 year old demographic - "I'm alright Jack"
Across Europe there is no clear vision for society to address a post crash environment. We have magnificent IT (compared to 30 years back) whilst the richest 1% of people and corporations are able to effectively choose the tax code within which they operate. And Europe (and the USA) face the very same challenges as we do regarding demographics, health, pensions and youth unemployment.
After five years of the coalition government doing very little and breaking manifesto commitments left right and centre, Labour should be walking this, not least because of changing demographics and ordinary people paying for the crash. Contrary to AFKA's view on the coalition, it is my belief that they held back recovery plus sought to blame immigration for the ills of today. This despite all the evidence showing that immigrants are net contributors. And GCSE economic theory stating that when you're in trouble as we were back in 2011 then it's time for the government to spend NOT cut.
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
As smaller parties of the left state, the time for austerity is over, particularly outside the M25.
The simple truth is that Labour ran a deficit of 1% from 2003-2007. And before that there were four years of surplus!The deficit rocketed to 8% in 2008 because of bank bailouts and loss of tax receipts as banks took losses and the country went into deep recession. But now the deficit is back around 4%.
For me the best way to reduce the total debt: GDP ratio is to increase GDP as quickly as possible. Just grow the economy!
This last few days of the campaign have been very illuminating as the Tories promise:
1) to sell off Lloyds bank shares in a bribe to voters- they should have sold these a while back to clear debt
2) to compel independent legal entities to dispose of housing assets reducing social housing and the ability of housing trusts to run their own balance sheets - is that a form of nationalisation?
3) attack anything that moves in Scotland in a desperate move to scare voters - does wonders for the union!
4) bang on about the deficit like we are still in crisis mode as in 2008-10 and yet simultaneously make unfunded promises about the NHS etc
5) offer tax breaks to those with estates worth £1m
6) commit to enormous cuts in welfare spending but refused to reveal where and what these are.
Please, please, please do NOT believe the lie that we are still in economic crisis. We are clearly in a recovery but the shape of that over the next 5-10 years will be determined by the forthcoming election.
And please do not believe that Labour ran a structural deficit throughout 13 years in government because they didn't. It's a lie! It's very dramatic and it's a concern that Labour have failed to defend, but as above: for 12 years they ran a surplus or a 1% deficit. The global crash and saving the banks caused the spike. Huge amounts of cash were injected into illiquid banks. But those banking assets are now tradeable again. And perhaps at a profit!
Now one can criticise Labour for running a lax regulatory regime but guess what? The Tories didn't criticise at the time and probably would have removed more regulations.
Do we want a rise in the minimum wage with associated savings in benefit subsidies
Or do we want to risk leaving the EU?
Do we want banks sold to the highest bidder or bribes given to voters?
Do we want an immediate reduction in tuition fees to reduce (often uncollectable) student debt?
And do we want solutions or to blame immigrants and the EU?
Do we want a pan European approach to tax avoidance, Internet dominance, Eastern Europe and financial regulations? Or do we want a fractured ineffective approach because the governing party has no real partners across the continent?
This has been a great discussion to date and I look forward to how the campaign and this thread develops.
But, you know what, I really can't be bothered. It looks like you've won this argument. For three reasons:
1. Because your vastly superior education has taught you how properly to handle statistics and, at the same time, has taught you that lesser mortals needn't be bothered with the burden of trying to understand the detail behind them. So I really ought not to be questioning you.
2. Because I should have known better than to suggest it can't have been proven and, instead, accepted that as *you* said it was proven, then that should have been good enough.
3. And because, my lack of a statistics degree is clearly trumped by your lack of manners.
It also came the day after her own organisation had reported that the Tories plan for deficit reduction was out to the tune of £14b and growing household debt was threatening the recovery so perhaps it was an attempt to be conciliatory or she just takes a different view from the economists actually working for her?
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
...they are terrified as to what will happen to the markets should the Tories gain power and go ahead with their plan to poll the public on an EU in/out referendum, causing several years of economic and political uncertainty.
Of course, it's a "rounding error", as the IMF has conceded.
Second Lagarde said "It's clearly delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked." If she was merely being polite (and actually I think this feisty French woman has more balls than that) she would have found a form of words (she speaks excellent English) which were much less complimentary.
So, with the UK now second only to the US as the fastest growing economy in the G7, the IMF has reversed its position, urging the UK to continue on the path of fiscal consolidation.
But you carry on trying to manipulate data to fit in with your view on things.
.. however, all he inherited from the Soppy Bollocks B Brothers, Brown and Balls was a note stating that there was no money, nil points, nix, nada in the British Exchequer.
We would be in a far worse position had that moron Brown become 'our leader', this time voted into power rather than taking over after a dodgy deal with the third B Bro Blair .. AND this is why I am RELUCTANTLY voting labour as Brown's sidekick Balls, has somehow kept his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I just hope that this is not an indication that there is no-one else in the Labour hierarchy who can count as well as bluster and lie.
The bankers have been bailed out, the economy, despite @Bournemouth Addick 's opinions is in decent shape, it's time that the emphasis was geared more towards the young rather than the older and richer Britons.
Five years of Labour failure will not bankrupt the UK, the Tories can come back in 2020 and get all austerity on us again.
My hope is that a Labour government now can give the disaffected and under utilised young people in this country a boost: guaranteed jobs and/or apprenticeships, reduced Uni fees and a tighter control on immigration. Ironic that Labour's immigration policies are far more stringent than those of the Tories.
Any idea why they fear this ?
It seems to be a simple case of thats what our industry / the city is predicting and so that's why our spend is getting put on hold.
bbc.co.uk/news/business
People can have their own opinion on whether he's been good or bad for the UK but I do wish they would make this decision on the basis of a fuller picture rather than on what seems a out of date perception to me.
I read something recently that said that HSBC were looking to get out because of the uncertainty surrounding EU membership. But I wouldn't trust anything that the bank said, they have been caught doing so many dodgy things recently I am sure they want to go somewhere where they will be less regulated. I believe the deal was when they bought the Midland Bank way back was that hey had to have their HQ in the UK. So is this just a way of breaking that promise?