I do find it funny that Russell Brand (who is a tosser and id say the same if he was a right wing Charlton fan) is worshipped on here just because he is labour and hates those nasty bankers paying billions of tax
I do find it funny that Russell Brand (who is a tosser and id say the same if he was a right wing Charlton fan) is worshipped on here just because he is labour and hates those nasty bankers paying billions of tax
I do find it funny that Russell Brand (who is a tosser and id say the same if he was a right wing Charlton fan) is worshipped on here just because he is labour and hates those nasty bankers paying billions of tax
If anyone shows any sign of being left wing / anti Tory then all of a sudden the good in them is being seen by some on this site. 6 months ago if we had a thread on Nicola Sturgeon / Salmond / SNP or Russell Brand they would have been universally panned. Now all of a sudden they are not too bad and speaking some sense. Would love to see what was being said on the Scottish independence thread about the SNP compared to what is being said now.
If anyone shows any sign of being left wing / anti Tory then all of a sudden the good in them is being seen by some on this site. 6 months ago if we had a thread on Nicola Sturgeon / Salmond / SNP or Russell Brand they would have been universally panned. Now all of a sudden they are not too bad and speaking some sense. Would love to see what was being said on the Scottish independence thread about the SNP compared to what is being said now.
Who's praising the idea of Scottish Independence now ? Surely the reason would have commented on it during the refferendum was because it was during the referendum ? It's now a general election with far broader issues at stake.
Oh, and I think most of us knew " Sturgeon / Salmond / SNP or Russell Brand" were left wing six months ago !!
My point is that people were all about keeping the SNP at arms length and prevent them from damaging the UK and all it stood for. Now many of the same are ok with them having a major say in dictating how a country should be run that they want no part of. It is an attitude of anyone but the Tories rather than reasoned debate as to what is best for the UK (which does currently include Scotland despite the fact that the SNP are trying to break away). Their sole interest will be their own agenda - why would they give a damm about our economy if they don't want to be held by it? We are trying to get out of debt and reduce a deficit and they just want to increase spending. Not surprised that they don't give a toss about how that would leave the economy for generations to come as if they have their way they will be long gone.
My point is that people were all about keeping the SNP at arms length and prevent them from damaging the UK and all it stood for. Now many of the same are ok with them having a major say in dictating how a country should be run that they want no part of. It is an attitude of anyone but the Tories rather than reasoned debate as to what is best for the UK (which does currently include Scotland despite the fact that the SNP are trying to break away). Their sole interest will be their own agenda - why would they give a damm about our economy if they don't want to be held by it? We are trying to get out of debt and reduce a deficit and they just want to increase spending. Not surprised that they don't give a toss about how that would leave the economy for generations to come as if they have their way they will be long gone.
I don't think the SNP "don't give a toss about how that would leave the economy" - they are simply proposing an end to austerity. I'm not sure I agree with them, but dismissing them and getting all upset that people are interested/supportive of their proposals beyond Scottish independence is strange.
In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism. Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all were in the aftermath of the financial crisis – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes. Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed; fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well.
People holding these beliefs came to be widely known in economic circles as “austerians” – a term coined by the economist Rob Parenteau – and for a while the austerian ideology swept all before it.
But that was five years ago, and the fever has long since broken. Greece is now seen as it should have been seen from the beginning – as a unique case, with few lessons for the rest of us. It is impossible for countries such as the US and the UK, which borrow in their own currencies, to experience Greek-style crises, because they cannot run out of money – they can always print more. Even within the eurozone, borrowing costs plunged once the European Central Bank began to do its job and protect its clients against self-fulfilling panics by standing ready to buy government bonds if necessary. As I write this, Italy and Spain have no trouble raising cash – they can borrow at the lowest rates in their history, indeed considerably below those in Britain – and even Portugal’s interest rates are within a whisker of those paid by HM Treasury.
On the other side of the ledger, the benefits of improved confidence failed to make their promised appearance. Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.
Meanwhile, all of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited. Widely touted statistical results were, it turned out, based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures – plus a few outright mistakes – and evaporated under closer scrutiny.
It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.
I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere. George Osborne and David Cameron boast that their policies saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis of soaring interest rates, apparently oblivious to the fact that interest rates are at historic lows all across the western world. The press seizes on Ed Miliband’s failure to mention the budget deficit in a speech as a huge gaffe, a supposed revelation of irresponsibility; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking, seriously, not about budget deficits but about the “fun deficit” facing America’s children.
Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No. This country is not different. The economics of austerity are the same – and the intellectual case as bankrupt – in Britain as everywhere else.
Oh dear, Krugman's been reduced to peddling his wares in the Graun as no one else wants to print his nonsense.
There are various glaring errors and inaccuracies in his article but the funniest has to be how he invoked the IMF's authority on something they said back in 2012 about how austerity didn't work, yet fails to include the fact that last month the IMF has praised the Coalition's economic policies.
He also fails to mention the case of France, which did adopt the policies that Krugman advocates and now has record high levels of unemployment and a faltering economy.
Looking at the austerity issue from a broader perspective I weird myself out. The reason being I can't see how some kind of austerity isn't needed, and in some form needs to continue. I say this because as I opined several pages ago, we have in one way or another consumed way beyond our means of affording it, by borrowing, and eventually there comes a reckoning. We can't really end austerity but the issue seems to be who carries the burden. Bringing it down to a personal level I have lived within my means, but I have seen previously lavish consumption by those who don't seem to be able to pay. I am in favour of austerity but not against the poorest who have not been the cause of the worldwide crash, but against all of us who slavishly trade up holidays, cars, televisions, houses, phones, tablets, lavish weddings and so on because we feel entitled, but want someone else to pay...a bit like being a football fan.
I agree with Fiish. The article by Krugman is so one sided it's silly. However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
Besides leap years, there needs to be hop, skip, and jump years
Tax payers to receive Nectar Points from HMRC
All vegetables sold in supermarkets, should be clearly marked “Strictly for oral use only”
We propose to make unicorns a protected species
It is proposed that all, leaflets, brochures, circulars, manifestoes, posters etc, used by any Political Party during an election, be collected up recycled and given to the local Food Banks for free distribution as toilet paper.
1. Health & Safety: We propose to ban Self Responsibilty on the grounds that it may be dangerous to your health.
2. M.P’s Expenses: We propose that instead of a second home allowance M.P’s will have a caravan which will be parked outside the Houses of Parliament. This will make it easier as flipping a caravan is easier than flipping homes
3. Eurofit: The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk. “As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution”
4. The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment
5. To help the Israel/Palestinian Problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead
6. European Union: It is proposed that the European Union end its discrimination by creating a “Court of Human Lefts” because their present policy is one -sided.
7. Education: We will increase the number of Women teachers throughout the education System as we are strong believers of ‘Female Intuition’
8. Immigration and Population: I propose that we cap the population of this country. We have too many people for such a small country, so we will Cap the number of people residing here at present rates (approximately 63 million, give or take 10 mill ) on the basis of one out, one in (excluding Births).
Regarding Immigration… Any Person who can prove that they or their descendants emigrated to the U.K before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we have to draw the line somewhere)
9. We will ban all forms of Greyhound racing. This will help stop the country going to the dogs.
10. Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on terror. Theirs nothing funny about this. however as we have not found any taliban terrorists in Derbyshire. Our Soldiers can all come home now.
Well after living in Maidstone for three years it turns out that my MP isn't in fact Helen Grant with a majority of 5,800 - despite the fact that when I lived five miles out of Maidstone, she was.
I found out yesterday, that I'm actually in the Faversham and Mid Kent Constituency and the sitting Tory MP had a majority of over 17,000.
All that worry about 'tactical voting' when in fact my vote matters not a jot. Still, at least now I have the Monster Raving Loony Party option.
Same constituency as myself... I think it must be one of the safest Tory seats in the country.
I agree with Fiish. The article by Krugman is so one sided it's silly. However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
What people really mean when they say stuff like this is that because his point of view doesn't coincide with what you want to hear you're going to disregard everything he says. Fortunately the Nobel Prize committee took a more open approach when awarding him his award for economics.
I agree on the second point about no one having already decided changing their mind or considering an alternative view supported by facts and figures, but aren't there still a huge amount of floating voters knocking about? I know I am.
I agree with Fiish. The article by Krugman is so one sided it's silly. However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
What people really mean when they say stuff like this is that because his point of view doesn't coincide with what you want to hear you're going to disregard everything he says. Fortunately the Nobel Prize committee took a more open approach when awarding him his award for economics.
I agree on the second point about no one having already decided changing their mind or considering an alternative view supported by facts and figures but aren't there still a huge amount of floating voters knocking about? I know I am.
Bournemouth dear chap, the whole point of what I said was to stop the sort of post you have just made.
Well after living in Maidstone for three years it turns out that my MP isn't in fact Helen Grant with a majority of 5,800 - despite the fact that when I lived five miles out of Maidstone, she was.
I found out yesterday, that I'm actually in the Faversham and Mid Kent Constituency and the sitting Tory MP had a majority of over 17,000.
All that worry about 'tactical voting' when in fact my vote matters not a jot. Still, at least now I have the Monster Raving Loony Party option.
Same constituency as myself... I think it must be one of the safest Tory seats in the country.
It's the 79th-safest Tory seat
Hmm - this does depend on Constituency sizes though.
Just been looking these up. There are 22 Constituencies who have an electorate of under 55,000.
17 of them are Wesh Constituencies and 5 of them Scottish. To me this means that a single vote in those constituencies has more power than say the highest populated 22 constituencies which are all English.
East Ham for instance has more than double the number of voters as three Welsh constituencies.
I agree with Fiish. The article by Krugman is so one sided it's silly. However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
What people really mean when they say stuff like this is that because his point of view doesn't coincide with what you want to hear you're going to disregard everything he says. Fortunately the Nobel Prize committee took a more open approach when awarding him his award for economics.
I agree on the second point about no one having already decided changing their mind or considering an alternative view supported by facts and figures but aren't there still a huge amount of floating voters knocking about? I know I am.
I am well aware of Krugman's credentials as an economist. I know because some of his books were on our prescribed course texts for my degree, specifically for the modules surrounding macroeconomic and international economic theory. His Nobel prize came thanks to his work on trade and economic geography theory and I don't pretend that as an economic theorist his work is anything other than excellent.
He is, however, challenged by many in the field on his commentary on real-world economic activity and his views on applying Keynesian methods to cure real-world economic crises. He freely admits to being left-wing and sadly his bias infects his commentary in the media. As I mentioned in my previous post, he made a series of quite basic and obvious errors in his article and not for the first time. His analysis that the UK economy has been gloom and doom whilst the countries that have rejected austerity have prospered by comparison is demonstrably false.
I agree with Fiish. The article by Krugman is so one sided it's silly. However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
What people really mean when they say stuff like this is that because his point of view doesn't coincide with what you want to hear you're going to disregard everything he says. Fortunately the Nobel Prize committee took a more open approach when awarding him his award for economics.
I agree on the second point about no one having already decided changing their mind or considering an alternative view supported by facts and figures but aren't there still a huge amount of floating voters knocking about? I know I am.
Bournemouth dear chap, the whole point of what I said was to stop the sort of post you have just made.
I wasn't successful. Never mind carry on.
Rightio.
Not suggesting he's not left leaning and therefore it should be read in that context but if you could be bothered to read and think about what he was saying he also backs up his opinions on the success or otherwise of austerity with other sources, economists views, graphs, facts, figures, etc. You know, the sort of thing that seems to be an anathema to those who promote the Labour bankrupted the UK, Labour can't be trusted with the ecomony, Labour caused the financial meltdown line...
...other sources, economists views, graphs, facts, figures, etc. You know, the sort of thing that seems to be an anathema to those who promote the Labour bankrupted the UK, Labour can't be trusted with the ecomony, Labour caused the financial meltdown line...
I'll carry on as suggested though.
If you're talking about the people who say that Labour caused the global financial crisis, then you'll be glad to know that no one actually thinks that this is the case.
What people do suggest is that Labour were running a fiscal policy that was only sustainable if GDP growth continued to be as strong as it was in the first part of last decade. There are also other criticisms of Labour's spending (for example the crowding out of the private sector). These criticisms are backed up by "other sources, economists views, graphs, facts, figures, etc.".
There is also a growing trend amongst Labour's supporters that because there was a global financial crisis, any criticism of Labour's policies can be ignored, and it unfortunately does stifle real debate on the subject. As a graduate of this field, I liken this to people using Creationism to stifle the discussion and teaching of natural selection.
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
But he could "stay in No 10" without winning a majority. In that case, should he be dumped?
I think a lot of people might not really grasp the concept of campaigning. It means getting yourself and your message out there. It is relevant to show that Miliband is getting more hits/searches - he is and has been doing much more of what Cameron should be doing in this election. In a week's time people vote.
Precisely, Cameron's passion is seriously lacking, Not really passionate enough to be priminister!
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
But he could "stay in No 10" without winning a majority. In that case, should he be dumped?
People seem to be making a case for Red Ed to be PM without getting a majority, so doesn't it work both ways? As it happens, in the result of deadlock I would expect the Tories to step back and let Labour try and run a minority government as the smaller party. Wait 6 months for it to fall apart and win a majority at an Autumnal election (thats if Labour dont want to do the same as power would be a poisoned chalice with a minority).
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
But he could "stay in No 10" without winning a majority. In that case, should he be dumped?
I guess it depends on how the dice fall. If he and Clegg are able to muddle together another coalition, however unlikely that seems, I doubt either any other Tory or LibDem would want to touch it as Coalition seems to have stained both party leaders. Otherwise unless he can put together some kind of minority government (with backing from DUP or elsewhere) then yeah he'll have to jump.
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
But he could "stay in No 10" without winning a majority. In that case, should he be dumped?
I guess it depends on how the dice fall. If he and Clegg are able to muddle together another coalition, however unlikely that seems, I doubt either any other Tory or LibDem would want to touch it as Coalition seems to have stained both party leaders. Otherwise unless he can put together some kind of minority government (with backing from DUP or elsewhere) then yeah he'll have to jump.
This suggests that maybe the Tories will be happy with a leader who has twice failed to win a majority and who has effectively handed in his resignation (albeit a five-year notice period). It's going to be interesting to watch him twisting in the wind, with various successors sniping from all angles, if he ends up as a lame duck version of the Cameron we have had for the last five years.
Should the Conservatives ditch David Cameron if he fails - again - to win a majority?
Yes. He has indicated as such he has no intention of fighting another election after this one so I imagine he will step down immediately as Tory leader if he does not stay in Number 10.
But he could "stay in No 10" without winning a majority. In that case, should he be dumped?
People seem to be making a case for Red Ed to be PM without getting a majority, so doesn't it work both ways? As it happens, in the result of deadlock I would expect the Tories to step back and let Labour try and run a minority government as the smaller party. Wait 6 months for it to fall apart and win a majority at an Autumnal election (thats if Labour dont want to do the same as power would be a poisoned chalice with a minority).
Yes, you're absolutely right. But what I am asking is, would the Tories ditch him if he fails to win a majority, even if he remains as PM? Or, putting it another way, how would the Tories react to a situation whereby they fail to win a majority for 28 years (1992-2020) or even more?)
Comments
Oh, and I think most of us knew " Sturgeon / Salmond / SNP or Russell Brand" were left wing six months ago !!
The austerity delusion
by Paul Krugman
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism. Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all were in the aftermath of the financial crisis – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes. Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed; fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well.
People holding these beliefs came to be widely known in economic circles as “austerians” – a term coined by the economist Rob Parenteau – and for a while the austerian ideology swept all before it.
But that was five years ago, and the fever has long since broken. Greece is now seen as it should have been seen from the beginning – as a unique case, with few lessons for the rest of us. It is impossible for countries such as the US and the UK, which borrow in their own currencies, to experience Greek-style crises, because they cannot run out of money – they can always print more. Even within the eurozone, borrowing costs plunged once the European Central Bank began to do its job and protect its clients against self-fulfilling panics by standing ready to buy government bonds if necessary. As I write this, Italy and Spain have no trouble raising cash – they can borrow at the lowest rates in their history, indeed considerably below those in Britain – and even Portugal’s interest rates are within a whisker of those paid by HM Treasury.
On the other side of the ledger, the benefits of improved confidence failed to make their promised appearance. Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.
Meanwhile, all of the economic research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited. Widely touted statistical results were, it turned out, based on highly dubious assumptions and procedures – plus a few outright mistakes – and evaporated under closer scrutiny.
It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.
I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere. George Osborne and David Cameron boast that their policies saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis of soaring interest rates, apparently oblivious to the fact that interest rates are at historic lows all across the western world. The press seizes on Ed Miliband’s failure to mention the budget deficit in a speech as a huge gaffe, a supposed revelation of irresponsibility; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking, seriously, not about budget deficits but about the “fun deficit” facing America’s children.
Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No. This country is not different. The economics of austerity are the same – and the intellectual case as bankrupt – in Britain as everywhere else.
continued on the link above
There are various glaring errors and inaccuracies in his article but the funniest has to be how he invoked the IMF's authority on something they said back in 2012 about how austerity didn't work, yet fails to include the fact that last month the IMF has praised the Coalition's economic policies.
He also fails to mention the case of France, which did adopt the policies that Krugman advocates and now has record high levels of unemployment and a faltering economy.
I say this because as I opined several pages ago, we have in one way or another consumed way beyond our means of affording it, by borrowing, and eventually there comes a reckoning.
We can't really end austerity but the issue seems to be who carries the burden. Bringing it down to a personal level I have lived within my means, but I have seen previously lavish consumption by those who don't seem to be able to pay.
I am in favour of austerity but not against the poorest who have not been the cause of the worldwide crash, but against all of us who slavishly trade up holidays, cars, televisions, houses, phones, tablets, lavish weddings and so on because we feel entitled, but want someone else to pay...a bit like being a football fan.
However, there really is no point spending ages pulling it apart.
I think most of us know which way we are going to vote and no amount of "facts/figures" & debate is going to change that, bar perhaps the odd exception.
To use a US phrase that he'd be familiar with, "We're still only in the third innings."
http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/
Besides leap years, there needs to be hop, skip, and jump years
Tax payers to receive Nectar Points from HMRC
All vegetables sold in supermarkets, should be clearly marked “Strictly for oral use only”
We propose to make unicorns a protected species
It is proposed that all, leaflets, brochures, circulars, manifestoes, posters etc, used by any Political Party during an election, be collected up recycled and given to the local Food Banks for free distribution as toilet paper.
2. M.P’s Expenses: We propose that instead of a second home allowance M.P’s will have a caravan which will be parked outside the Houses of Parliament. This will make it easier as flipping a caravan is easier than flipping homes
3. Eurofit: The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk. “As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution”
4. The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment
5. To help the Israel/Palestinian Problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead
6. European Union: It is proposed that the European Union end its discrimination by creating a “Court of Human Lefts” because their present policy is one -sided.
7. Education: We will increase the number of Women teachers throughout the education System as we are strong believers of ‘Female Intuition’
8. Immigration and Population: I propose that we cap the population of this country. We have too many people for such a small country, so we will Cap the number of people residing here at present rates (approximately 63 million, give or take 10 mill ) on the basis of one out, one in (excluding Births).
Regarding Immigration… Any Person who can prove that they or their descendants emigrated to the U.K before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we have to draw the line somewhere)
9. We will ban all forms of Greyhound racing. This will help stop the country going to the dogs.
10. Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on terror. Theirs nothing funny about this. however as we have not found any taliban terrorists in Derbyshire. Our Soldiers can all come home now.
I agree on the second point about no one having already decided changing their mind or considering an alternative view supported by facts and figures, but aren't there still a huge amount of floating voters knocking about? I know I am.
I wasn't successful. Never mind carry on.
Just been looking these up. There are 22 Constituencies who have an electorate of under 55,000.
17 of them are Wesh Constituencies and 5 of them Scottish. To me this means that a single vote in those constituencies has more power than say the highest populated 22 constituencies which are all English.
East Ham for instance has more than double the number of voters as three Welsh constituencies.
He is, however, challenged by many in the field on his commentary on real-world economic activity and his views on applying Keynesian methods to cure real-world economic crises. He freely admits to being left-wing and sadly his bias infects his commentary in the media. As I mentioned in my previous post, he made a series of quite basic and obvious errors in his article and not for the first time. His analysis that the UK economy has been gloom and doom whilst the countries that have rejected austerity have prospered by comparison is demonstrably false.
Not suggesting he's not left leaning and therefore it should be read in that context but if you could be bothered to read and think about what he was saying he also backs up his opinions on the success or otherwise of austerity with other sources, economists views, graphs, facts, figures, etc. You know, the sort of thing that seems to be an anathema to those who promote the Labour bankrupted the UK, Labour can't be trusted with the ecomony, Labour caused the financial meltdown line...
I'll carry on as suggested though.
What people do suggest is that Labour were running a fiscal policy that was only sustainable if GDP growth continued to be as strong as it was in the first part of last decade. There are also other criticisms of Labour's spending (for example the crowding out of the private sector). These criticisms are backed up by "other sources, economists views, graphs, facts, figures, etc.".
There is also a growing trend amongst Labour's supporters that because there was a global financial crisis, any criticism of Labour's policies can be ignored, and it unfortunately does stifle real debate on the subject. As a graduate of this field, I liken this to people using Creationism to stifle the discussion and teaching of natural selection.