we could go round in circles arguing about politics and I am sure labour would do some things better than the other parties
But there is no other party out there that runs the economy better than a Conservative government and Labour has been a disaster any time they have had a go in the last 50 years
I am staggered the lefties on here are still trying to win points on the economy, staggered.
Douglas Flint, HSBC Chairman said “One economic uncertainty stands out, that of continuing UK membership of the EU. In February we published a major research study which concluded that working to complete the Single Market in services and reforming the EU to make it more competitive were far less risky than going it alone, given the importance of EU markets to British trade”.
So, to be clear, the decision around relocating the HQ outside the UK is due - at least in part - to the economic and political uncertainty and risks involved around a Conservative win, followed by an in-out EU referendum.
Let them. The often trotted out line when bankers bonuses are challenged, is that the 'talented' people will leave the country. Well let them go then, because there will be others along to take their place and more importantly, Its those 'talented' bankers that appear to have royalty fucked up the economy any way, so no loss then.
Let them. The often trotted out line when bankers bonuses are challenged, is that the 'talented' people will leave the country. Well let them go then, because there will be others along to take their place and more importantly, Its those 'talented' bankers that appear to have royalty fucked up the economy any way, so no loss then.
More than happy to offer any of them a lift to the airport too.
The article says this is a result of regulatory and structural reforms since the recession, so presumably they were enacted (probably rightly) by the Conservatives.
Someone has also quoted one of their bigwigs moaning about the uncertainty an EU refferendum would cause, again this is solely a Tory/UKIP policy, not one Labour are proposing.
So it seems, if HSBC do leave Britain, it'll be due to current and future Tory policy and nothing to do with Labour.
Yes – the bankers pre-crash would have provided dire warnings if any regulations were imposed on them. The fact is, these companies have traded and been successful under a Labour government and if they are good companies will again. This is politics more than anything else and I think a major shock the great and the good are experiencing this election, is a lot of the electorate are too smart for this vulgar manipulation. Before the GLOBAL – I’ll spell it to help some G- L- O-B-A-L crash, the Labour party had been in power since 1997!!!!!!!
we could go round in circles arguing about politics and I am sure labour would do some things better than the other parties
But there is no other party out there that runs the economy better than a Conservative government and Labour has been a disaster any time they have had a go in the last 50 years
I am staggered the lefties on here are still trying to win points on the economy, staggered.
But perhaps not as staggered as I am by the way that people keep falling for Tory lies, misinformation and mud slinging.
The evidence does not show that a Conservative Govt. runs an economy better, people have posted tested evidence from independent sources throughout this thread disproving this.
To shorten a quote attributed to Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".
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").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Real GDP per adult grew by 22 per cent between 1997 and 2007 and then fell back by 2010 to 17 per cent higher than it had been in 1997. The annual growth of real GDP per adult in the UK over that period, 1.2 per cent, was faster than that of Germany, US, France, Japan, and Italy. Of course living standards fell back, we had a recession. But they did so for everyone else!! Of course the additional benefits to the population in increased spending in health and education, are not shown in these figures.
These are not invented figures and are backed up by Labour winning three consecutive elections.
Judging by the chart above, they were not needed then. Or maybe they were replaced by new wealth creators? Do you have a chart or evidence or is it just a fact in your mind? Anybody care to dispute the figures I printed above?
ba it's not falling for tory lies it's witnessing the shambolic way that labour left the country ran the country and lied to the country,
I voted for them I assisted in them coming in to power with that vote,
I have since voted them out and have witnessed an upturn in the country and the money being spent by businesses to confirm that upturn
On that basis they get the same level of trust as labour did when I voted for them, nothing can be proven in one term nothing can detract from the situation that we were in, labour didn't cause it labour didn't create it but they were the captain of our ship and unfortunately the buck stopped there,
People need to stop being so aligned to a party due to the hatred and despising of another, and vote with an open mind based on what they see, not past nonsense, highest employment figures in years, a sign we are coming out of the hole as a result of people working
So many vote based on past feelings yet neither party resembles any of them from 20-30 years ago that it's quite astounding that people still vote like a football club allegiance
Do they have wealth creator listed as their occupation on their passports? Sorry but this is one of the propaganda stories the public are always fed at election time. They really are not that stupid.
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.
That's one of your best ones !
So, if your sharing a panel, you lie and flatter the people sitting next to you lol.
Yes, it happens every week on Question Time. It's one big love in with each panelist singing the praises of the others.
You really can't debate this sort of nonsense. No offence intended, but come on ....
Has any recession not ended with a recovery? This one has taken longer and is not being felt by many yet. That is why Labour's vote is holding up. That and Milliband so far has thought a much stronger campaign than Cameron. A lot of Conservatives are admitting the last bit.
Has any recession not ended with a recovery? This one has taken longer and is not being felt by many yet. That is why Labour's vote is holding up. That and Milliband so far has thought a much stronger campaign than Cameron. A lot of Conservatives are admitting the last bit.
History. Every time Labour get in, many wealth creators leave the country. It's a fact.
Presumably "wealth creators" are a fairly mobile bunch, they probably regularly leave Germany, USA, France regularly too.
That's right.
Can you name a few that have left during the last Labour government? Just so we know whether we have missed them or not.
Not without spending hours I can't, but even ex Labour ministers agree, that Labour are not "friendly" to wealth creators.
Here is a very good article, with what I would say has independent views, saying that The Tories will reduce the deficit by more than Labour, whilst spending more on the NHS.
That's like saying day comes after night, it doesn't show any substance because nothing can improve so drastically that everyone feels the benefit, I know I don't feel the benefits financially yet, but I certainly can see the growth and confidence to turn a corner, if in four years time it isn't working then I will say you have had a good enough shot at this you can't deliver then let's go again,
I am sure that in many ways football mirrors politics,
Instant results Scape goats Fall guys Dismissal No stability No success People arguing and bitching
The only difference there's 4 teams two amateurs and a couple of fc clubs instead of clubs fc, all trying to win a cup and the fans being all monkey as to who is the best
Some have been rumours/leaks that have been extensively reported, but senior Tories have spoken out warning of the dangers of underestimating Milliband. David Davies likened him to Thatcher in terms of how he is being underestimated as an example for instance.
Did David Cameron have full and complete, post-conflict planning in place before the military action in Libya in 2011? Or did he repeat mistakes made by Margaret Thatcher, John Major (First Gulf War) and Tony Blair (Iraq), ie careful planning as to how to get involved in a conflict; careful planning as to how to run the military campaign; and no clear exit plan or post-conflict resolution?
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").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
This is ludicrous! You are the one who is becoming increasingly impolite as people challenge your views and throwing a little tantrum every day now. I dread to think what the tone of your posts will be like the day after 8th May if the Tories fail to return to government.
You have made a lot of good points and arguments on this thread. But, over the last few days your posts have taken on a very patronising and condescending tone.
William Rees-Mogg is another who has warned fellow Tories of the dangers. Thee ones who do it openly tend not to have a seat to defend. The others are posturing to bring Boris in if the Conservatives don't get a majority.
No war or military action has any post conflict planning That can be made prior to any action taking place that will still be valid once the first bullet is shot
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.
.
A good post from Seth but I would urge caution with this point of view. Financing debt relies on an imbalance between nations, those with a net surplus and those with a net deficit which tends to be developed nations borrowing from newly developing nations. There is only so much wealth being created in the World and the more developing nations develop, the less will be the imbalance between nations and the less capital will be available to be lent to nations who spend more than they earn.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
I love all the quotes coming from the telegraph lol BTW Nobody has countered the GDP figures I provided earlier yet. Surely they must be untrue!!!! That's my lot on politics for today - got work to do.
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").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
This is ludicrous! You are the one who is becoming increasingly impolite as people challenge your views and throwing a little tantrum every day now.
Pot. Kettle.
I don't exactly call exposing people as ignorant or misinformed a tantrum. I don't question the validity of a statement just because I find it inconvenient to my political beliefs or ideology. I'll admit I can be belligerent but only when facing personal attacks rather than constructive, informed debate.
Comments
we could go round in circles arguing about politics and I am sure labour would do some things better than the other parties
But there is no other party out there that runs the economy better than a Conservative government and Labour has been a disaster any time they have had a go in the last 50 years
I am staggered the lefties on here are still trying to win points on the economy, staggered.
So, to be clear, the decision around relocating the HQ outside the UK is due - at least in part - to the economic and political uncertainty and risks involved around a Conservative win, followed by an in-out EU referendum.
Someone has also quoted one of their bigwigs moaning about the uncertainty an EU refferendum would cause, again this is solely a Tory/UKIP policy, not one Labour are proposing.
So it seems, if HSBC do leave Britain, it'll be due to current and future Tory policy and nothing to do with Labour.
The evidence does not show that a Conservative Govt. runs an economy better, people have posted tested evidence from independent sources throughout this thread disproving this.
To shorten a quote attributed to Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".
And yes I am aware that all governments lie.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
These are not invented figures and are backed up by Labour winning three consecutive elections.
I voted for them I assisted in them coming in to power with that vote,
I have since voted them out and have witnessed an upturn in the country and the money being spent by businesses to confirm that upturn
On that basis they get the same level of trust as labour did when I voted for them, nothing can be proven in one term nothing can detract from the situation that we were in, labour didn't cause it labour didn't create it but they were the captain of our ship and unfortunately the buck stopped there,
People need to stop being so aligned to a party due to the hatred and despising of another, and vote with an open mind based on what they see, not past nonsense, highest employment figures in years, a sign we are coming out of the hole as a result of people working
So many vote based on past feelings yet neither party resembles any of them from 20-30 years ago that it's quite astounding that people still vote like a football club allegiance
So, if your sharing a panel, you lie and flatter the people sitting next to you lol.
Yes, it happens every week on Question Time. It's one big love in with each panelist singing the praises of the others.
You really can't debate this sort of nonsense. No offence intended, but come on ....
Here is a very good article, with what I would say has independent views, saying that The Tories will reduce the deficit by more than Labour, whilst spending more on the NHS.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20150424/281487864892632/TextView
I am sure that in many ways football mirrors politics,
Instant results
Scape goats
Fall guys
Dismissal
No stability
No success
People arguing and bitching
The only difference there's 4 teams two amateurs and a couple of fc clubs instead of clubs fc, all trying to win a cup and the fans being all monkey as to who is the best
You have made a lot of good points and arguments on this thread. But, over the last few days your posts have taken on a very patronising and condescending tone.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
I don't exactly call exposing people as ignorant or misinformed a tantrum. I don't question the validity of a statement just because I find it inconvenient to my political beliefs or ideology. I'll admit I can be belligerent but only when facing personal attacks rather than constructive, informed debate.