#1 trending video on YouTube: Amber Rudd shuts down my speech about arms sales to Saudi Arabia
"At a hustings in Rye on 3 June, where I am standing as an independent anti-corruption parliamentary candidate, a question was asked about law & order. Home Secretary Amber Rudd, in answering it referred to the Manchester terrorist attack. I took up the theme and referred to UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia & HSBC business there. She spoke to and handed a note to the chairman who removed the mic from me."
Many people just can't get it out of their heads that you cant spend what you don't have. But America has been in deficit since before the 1860s, 60m dollars in 1860 and around 440 bn today. Not having a deficit is intuitive and logical as it mainly applies to household finances. But it does not apply to government spending. America is far richer today then it was in 1860. The argument that you can't spend what you don't have says this can't be.
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Now let's create a government. It is only at this point that it becomes possible for one sector (private or government) to spend more than they earned or earn more than they spent. For example, say over its first year in existence, the government takes in £100 in tax revenues but doesn’t spend any of it. You might have something like this:
Government Budget Surplus and Private Sector Deficit Private Government Total Income £1000 £100 £1100 Spending £1100 £0 £1100 Balance -£100 +£100 £0
In this case, the private sector spent £1000 on the goods and services it created (which is what created the £1000 in income for them), plus they spent £100 for taxes. The government, meanwhile, earned £100 in income (via taxes), but spent nothing. The government budget is thus surplus, while the private sector has gone into debt–by the exact same amount, of course. It is impossible for it to work out any other way. The balances must add to zero because, as the last column indicates, total spending must equal total income in a closed system. And with the government in surplus, the private sector goes into debt.
On the other hand, look at what happens when the government spends in deficit:
Government Budget Deficit and Private Sector Surplus Private Government Total Income £1100 £0 £1100 Spending £1000 £100 £1100 Balance +£100 -£100 £0
Now it is the private sector that gets the surplus! In this scenario, the government has collected no taxes, but spent £100 on goods and services produced by the private sector. This creates enough income for the private sector for them to actually save money rather than go into debt.
What the above means is this: government deficits create private sector wealth, while government surpluses drain it. This is the clear maths not trickery. When the government spends in deficit, it does so by putting financial assets, usually in the form of Treasury bills, in the hands of the public; when it spends in surplus, the net quantity of Treasury bills held by the public declines. Thus, government deficits create the extra demand necessary.
This is not an example to show why governments should not collect taxes - of course they should, but rather why increasing the deficit in the right way is not the issue some politicians would have you believe.
The problem is, despite this simplification, it is still a bit long and more complicated than you can't spend what you don't have - it takes less than 10 seconds to say that and makes you feel smart because a lot of supposedly clever people including the top economists in the world, don't get it! How can anybody explain this when you are only ever allowed 30 seconds to answer questions as is the case in our election contests - better to trip politicians up for not knowing the price of milk!
I think Keynes was making this point when he explained about digging holes and filling them in, but of course it is better to spend money on things that benefit us, and Keynes would have said that too.
No need to explain the possible impact of deficit spending to a Cambridge Economics graduate - but I'm afraid that there are exports and imports(remember Greece) and who says that everything will move to a new equilibrium in the manner that you suggest, especially when you are taking(investment) from the corporate sector to transfer to the private sector. You might just shrink the whole cake so in your example private sector income and spending become £800 and £700 respectively.
Not only would have Keynes said it would have been better to spend things that benefit us rather than digging holes and filling them in but he did in the very same paragraph in the General Theory "indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Perhaps you might wish to show me where Keynes said that increasing corporate taxes would be an appropriate response to the Great Depression - I'm afraid I missed that bit of his work.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
So I would now expect there to be plenty of evidence of Corbyn talking to the IRA and trying to persuade them in private away from terrorism in the 15 years between coming an MP in 1983 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. We know that there is plenty of evidence that his public stance was to support the IRA/Sinn Fein position down the line with no public opposition or repudiation.
Could you now produce the evidence - otherwise I think we can take the position that what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Only leader talking about the real elephant in the room, our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
and has been for years
When is he expecting to start his difficult conversations with Messrs Putin, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas - his appearance on RT would suggest that human rights might be something of a one way street. I should add that I totally agree that we have been too soft on the Saudis - but Corbyn should know that it takes two or more sides to create a conflict.
Really interesting pair of "debates". I thought Jonathan Bartley was magnificent. He was positive, optimistic and spelled out a series of changes that make a lot of sense. Of course, his party won't win a large number of seats, but I can see how more people could be persuaded by his calm, sensible oratory and he'll win many more arguments than he loses.
I thought Paul Nuttall was very good too. He broadly stuck to answering the questions he was given, which were split between condescending left-leaning voters and obvious supporters. So he had ones he could bat away by gainsaying and offering "statistics" and "research" and others he could tuck into and exploit free rein. Many of his policies are just so badly thought out, divisive and backwards that he's never likely to gain any more support than the narrow group of voters who enjoy that tye of rhetoric.
Bartley's party will win seats in future elections. Nuttall's will disappear.
I wouldn't waste your time, he gave me a flag earlier but didn't comment to say what he was offended about and why what I said was wrong - the same comment got over 20 likes so I'm not arsed
Undecided. Nobody really sticks out enough to feel passionate enough to want to vote for them. It's like the Charlton Athletic player of the year vote.
A few pots and kettles in the Middle East this morning with Qatar being cut adrift by Egypt, UAE, Bahrain and Saudi over their links to and support of terrorism. I'm surprised Saudi could keep a straight face when making their announcement.
This government has sanctioned 194 export licences for arms costing £3.3BN in the last 2 years to a Saudi regime that then uses them to bomb the hell out of the Yemen & continues to support Daesh.
On the other hand, we do then give aid (a tenth of what we make in arms sales) to Yemen to rebuild hospitals, homes, infrastructure etc., that our weapons destroyed the day before.
If this, or any future government, is really serious about tackling extremism then it needs to start by adhering to the Arms Trade Treaty to which we (and the US) are signatories. If they don't, then that speech from May yesterday means absolutely nothing.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
So I would now expect there to be plenty of evidence of Corbyn talking to the IRA and trying to persuade them in private away from terrorism in the 15 years between coming an MP in 1983 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. We know that there is plenty of evidence that his public stance was to support the IRA/Sinn Fein position down the line with no public opposition or repudiation.
Could you now produce the evidence - otherwise I think we can take the position that what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
No I can't and nor should I have to because my point was to counter outrage about talking to terrorists when that is how you open a path to resolve the problem. If you check my posts it is about the principle rather than the content - I don't have transcripts of the conversations and nor would you expect me to. Whilst talking worked with the IRA - I accept that wouldn't work with ISIS.
Many people just can't get it out of their heads that you cant spend what you don't have. But America has been in deficit since before the 1860s, 60m dollars in 1860 and around 440 bn today. Not having a deficit is intuitive and logical as it mainly applies to household finances. But it does not apply to government spending. America is far richer today then it was in 1860. The argument that you can't spend what you don't have says this can't be.
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Now let's create a government. It is only at this point that it becomes possible for one sector (private or government) to spend more than they earned or earn more than they spent. For example, say over its first year in existence, the government takes in £100 in tax revenues but doesn’t spend any of it. You might have something like this:
Government Budget Surplus and Private Sector Deficit Private Government Total Income £1000 £100 £1100 Spending £1100 £0 £1100 Balance -£100 +£100 £0
In this case, the private sector spent £1000 on the goods and services it created (which is what created the £1000 in income for them), plus they spent £100 for taxes. The government, meanwhile, earned £100 in income (via taxes), but spent nothing. The government budget is thus surplus, while the private sector has gone into debt–by the exact same amount, of course. It is impossible for it to work out any other way. The balances must add to zero because, as the last column indicates, total spending must equal total income in a closed system. And with the government in surplus, the private sector goes into debt.
On the other hand, look at what happens when the government spends in deficit:
Government Budget Deficit and Private Sector Surplus Private Government Total Income £1100 £0 £1100 Spending £1000 £100 £1100 Balance +£100 -£100 £0
Now it is the private sector that gets the surplus! In this scenario, the government has collected no taxes, but spent £100 on goods and services produced by the private sector. This creates enough income for the private sector for them to actually save money rather than go into debt.
What the above means is this: government deficits create private sector wealth, while government surpluses drain it. This is the clear maths not trickery. When the government spends in deficit, it does so by putting financial assets, usually in the form of Treasury bills, in the hands of the public; when it spends in surplus, the net quantity of Treasury bills held by the public declines. Thus, government deficits create the extra demand necessary.
This is not an example to show why governments should not collect taxes - of course they should, but rather why increasing the deficit in the right way is not the issue some politicians would have you believe.
The problem is, despite this simplification, it is still a bit long and more complicated than you can't spend what you don't have - it takes less than 10 seconds to say that and makes you feel smart because a lot of supposedly clever people including the top economists in the world, don't get it! How can anybody explain this when you are only ever allowed 30 seconds to answer questions as is the case in our election contests - better to trip politicians up for not knowing the price of milk!
I think Keynes was making this point when he explained about digging holes and filling them in, but of course it is better to spend money on things that benefit us, and Keynes would have said that too.
No need to explain the possible impact of deficit spending to a Cambridge Economics graduate - but I'm afraid that there are exports and imports(remember Greece) and who says that everything will move to a new equilibrium in the manner that you suggest, especially when you are taking(investment) from the corporate sector to transfer to the private sector. You might just shrink the whole cake so in your example private sector income and spending become £800 and £700 respectively.
Not only would have Keynes said it would have been better to spend things that benefit us rather than digging holes and filling them in but he did in the very same paragraph in the General Theory "indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Perhaps you might wish to show me where Keynes said that increasing corporate taxes would be an appropriate response to the Great Depression - I'm afraid I missed that bit of his work.
Firstly, thanks for your response - I think it is healthy to discuss this because it has been absent from the debate so far.
My example was to explain the principle -it was as simplistic as I could make it. Greece is not the UK and as an economics graduate I would expect you to know that. When you pay for services it has to come from taxation - borrowing has to feed areas that create growth. You have to admit when you looked at how taxation and borrowing would happen in the Labour manifesto - it had Keynes written all over it. You still have to do it properly -that is a given.
Our Corporate taxes would still be at lower levels than our european competitors - you ought to be aware of that too. We could have zero corporation tax by your argument!
And we are not in the great depression, we are still in the aftermath of a global banking crisis that this government has managed to shift the blame onto public services for. We are in a period of slow growth that everybody who understands the economics of austerity predicted, the 2015 pay it all off target was always ridiculous. Growth is the way to pay it off. That is Keynes' solution. By the way, the last growth figures were 0.2% - this is because the government followed Milliband's austerity light proposals rather than the ones they fought the last election on - it shows they don't even believe what they say - but we had a choice of austerity and austerity light at the last election, in this we don't. Austerity has never worked anywhere when everybody is doing it!
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Not entirely sure that this is completely true because it ignores the fact that economic activity can unlock or create new resources. An individual who discovers oil under his land and figures out how to get it to the surface increases the total wealth without actually doing anything. He may get into debt in order to extract the oil but then there has to be an "adjustment" to the books to allow for this sudden increase in wealth, a small part of which, he uses to pay off the debt.
To a lesser extent the same applies to manufacturing processes where the output is hopefully more than the sum of the inputs. It probably does not apply to service based industries where money is simply shuffled around and nothing actually generated (as in the UK!).
To be honest I believe the Conservatives will win the election, what I am hoping for is that is with the same or a reduced majority. That would see the end of May who is useless. I don't trust her with the Brexit negotiation and it is too important an issue. If anybody wanted - I know nobody will but take my word for it - I have always praised Cameron for his prime ministerial qulaities, but May is a disaster. This has been clear in the election campaign - she called it because she had an open goal - but she had a majority which meant it was pointless. Then she has proceeded to wage the worst campaign by a major party in decades. Corbyn has trounced her in that respect and she doesn't deserve a bigger slice of the vote.
The upside would be that the tories would take the opportunity to get shot of her and put somebody in who can do a better job at this key time. I don't think this should be too difficult given her level of incompetence - they could appoint one of their office cleaners. So the election will be important as long as the Tories don't win big.
Won't be voting for him as it is essential that the excellent community MP Clive Efford retains his Eltham seat, and that's where my vote is going.
You can't vote green anyway, they pulled out of running in Eltham to help Efford as he's under real pressure this time around, I think he could fall, if no change in labour and conservative vote it'll come down to where the 1300 green votes go and the nearly 6500 ukip votes go, neither are standing.
If all greens vote labour and all ukip vote Tory then Efford's out by a few thousand so he needs at least a third of the UKIP vote I suspect.
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Not entirely sure that this is completely true because it ignores the fact that economic activity can unlock or create new resources. An individual who discovers oil under his land and figures out how to get it to the surface increases the total wealth without actually doing anything. He may get into debt in order to extract the oil but then there has to be an "adjustment" to the books to allow for this sudden increase in wealth, a small part of which, he uses to pay off the debt.
To a lesser extent the same applies to manufacturing processes where the output is hopefully more than the sum of the inputs. It probably does not apply to service based industries where money is simply shuffled around and nothing actually generated (as in the UK!).
Not in a closed market used in the example to simplify to explain the principle that borrowing can increase growth - he will only get a percentage of what money is there, although he can get a larger percentage of it than others - the example was a simplification because it is complex - Of course it is a open market so the wealth of a nation can be increased from the deficits of others. Germany has a suplus, but it is impossible mathematically, for all nations to have a surplus. If we are going to have a surplus - will take quite a while to achieve but possible - we need investment not shrinking of the economy.
A few pots and kettles in the Middle East this morning with Qatar being cut adrift by Egypt, UAE, Bahrain and Saudi over their links to and support of terrorism. I'm surprised Saudi could keep a straight face when making their announcement.
This government has sanctioned 194 export licences for arms costing £3.3BN in the last 2 years to a Saudi regime that then uses them to bomb the hell out of the Yemen & continues to support Daesh.
On the other hand, we do then give aid (a tenth of what we make in arms sales) to Yemen to rebuild hospitals, homes, infrastructure etc., that our weapons destroyed the day before.
If this, or any future government, is really serious about tackling extremism then it needs to start by adhering to the Arms Trade Treaty to which we (and the US) are signatories. If they don't, then that speech from May yesterday means absolutely nothing.
I think it shows that they can respond to criticism and pressure and it is outrageous that they have been let off the hook by too many governments, not just from this country, because of the importance of their oil. As for Qatar, why are we still having a World Cup there? They are terrorist funders as well as being human rights abusers!
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Not entirely sure that this is completely true because it ignores the fact that economic activity can unlock or create new resources. An individual who discovers oil under his land and figures out how to get it to the surface increases the total wealth without actually doing anything. He may get into debt in order to extract the oil but then there has to be an "adjustment" to the books to allow for this sudden increase in wealth, a small part of which, he uses to pay off the debt.
To a lesser extent the same applies to manufacturing processes where the output is hopefully more than the sum of the inputs. It probably does not apply to service based industries where money is simply shuffled around and nothing actually generated (as in the UK!).
Not in a closed market used in the example to simplify to explain the principle that borrowing can increase growth - he will only get a percentage of what money is there, although he can get a larger percentage of it than others - the example was a simplification because it is complex - Of course it is a open market so the wealth of a nation can be increased from the deficits of others. Germany has a suplus, but it is impossible mathematically, for all nations to have a surplus. If we are going to have a surplus - will take quite a while to achieve but possible - we need investment not shrinking of the economy.
OK - thanks. I think I understand what you mean now.
Won't be voting for him as it is essential that the excellent community MP Clive Efford retains his Eltham seat, and that's where my vote is going.
You can't vote green anyway, they pulled out of running in Eltham to help Efford as he's under real pressure this time around, I think he could fall, if no change in labour and conservative vote it'll come down to where the 1300 green votes go and the nearly 6500 ukip votes go, neither are standing.
If all greens vote labour and all ukip vote Tory then Efford's out by a few thousand so he needs at least a third of the UKIP vote I suspect.
Well all I can say is that Efford is a great community MP and also one of the leaders for reform in football. I hope as many Eltham based Lifers as possible will vote for him
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Not entirely sure that this is completely true because it ignores the fact that economic activity can unlock or create new resources. An individual who discovers oil under his land and figures out how to get it to the surface increases the total wealth without actually doing anything. He may get into debt in order to extract the oil but then there has to be an "adjustment" to the books to allow for this sudden increase in wealth, a small part of which, he uses to pay off the debt.
To a lesser extent the same applies to manufacturing processes where the output is hopefully more than the sum of the inputs. It probably does not apply to service based industries where money is simply shuffled around and nothing actually generated (as in the UK!).
Not in a closed market used in the example to simplify to explain the principle that borrowing can increase growth - he will only get a percentage of what money is there, although he can get a larger percentage of it than others - the example was a simplification because it is complex - Of course it is a open market so the wealth of a nation can be increased from the deficits of others. Germany has a suplus, but it is impossible mathematically, for all nations to have a surplus. If we are going to have a surplus - will take quite a while to achieve but possible - we need investment not shrinking of the economy.
OK - thanks. I think I understand what you mean now.
It is complicated - that is why you can't spend what you don't have resonates with so many people. It is a simple message that is easy to undertsand, even though it does not work when you are talking about national economics. That doesn't mean it is as simple as borrowing to create growth, you have to spend the money in the right way. Th edepate should be around economic principles not a simple phrase that isn't true though!
Won't be voting for him as it is essential that the excellent community MP Clive Efford retains his Eltham seat, and that's where my vote is going.
You can't vote green anyway, they pulled out of running in Eltham to help Efford as he's under real pressure this time around, I think he could fall, if no change in labour and conservative vote it'll come down to where the 1300 green votes go and the nearly 6500 ukip votes go, neither are standing.
If all greens vote labour and all ukip vote Tory then Efford's out by a few thousand so he needs at least a third of the UKIP vote I suspect.
Well all I can say is that Efford is a great community MP and also one of the leaders for reform in football. I hope as many Eltham based Lifers as possible will vote for him
Agreed and I've voted for him the last two elections (since I crossed the road into Greenwich from Lewisham), but I simply can't vote for Corbyn which a vote for Efford would be. I've tried to engage with him but he ignores me! I'm not sure he realises my road is in Greenwich as we seem to get the Lewisham leaflets from Labour (my side is Greenwich the houses opposite are Lewisham).
After yesterday's speech from May, I feel more confident in her. If I choose to vote, I will likely vote for Matt Hartley who is a pro Brexit MP standing in Eltham. Clive Efford though, according to a few people round here Is a really good representative, it's a shame that I can't bring myself to vote for that party. As @Rob7Lee said it'll be interesting to see where the UKIP vote goes here, my girlfriend is annoyed as she has always voted ukip and doesn't want to vote either labour or Tory. Also I can't believe the bloody BNP are running here.
Comments
Not only would have Keynes said it would have been better to spend things that benefit us rather than digging holes and filling them in but he did in the very same paragraph in the General Theory "indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing." Perhaps you might wish to show me where Keynes said that increasing corporate taxes would be an appropriate response to the Great Depression - I'm afraid I missed that bit of his work.
Could you now produce the evidence - otherwise I think we can take the position that what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I thought Paul Nuttall was very good too. He broadly stuck to answering the questions he was given, which were split between condescending left-leaning voters and obvious supporters. So he had ones he could bat away by gainsaying and offering "statistics" and "research" and others he could tuck into and exploit free rein. Many of his policies are just so badly thought out, divisive and backwards that he's never likely to gain any more support than the narrow group of voters who enjoy that tye of rhetoric.
Bartley's party will win seats in future elections. Nuttall's will disappear.
This government has sanctioned 194 export licences for arms costing £3.3BN in the last 2 years to a Saudi regime that then uses them to bomb the hell out of the Yemen & continues to support Daesh.
On the other hand, we do then give aid (a tenth of what we make in arms sales) to Yemen to rebuild hospitals, homes, infrastructure etc., that our weapons destroyed the day before.
If this, or any future government, is really serious about tackling extremism then it needs to start by adhering to the Arms Trade Treaty to which we (and the US) are signatories. If they don't, then that speech from May yesterday means absolutely nothing.
My example was to explain the principle -it was as simplistic as I could make it. Greece is not the UK and as an economics graduate I would expect you to know that. When you pay for services it has to come from taxation - borrowing has to feed areas that create growth. You have to admit when you looked at how taxation and borrowing would happen in the Labour manifesto - it had Keynes written all over it. You still have to do it properly -that is a given.
Our Corporate taxes would still be at lower levels than our european competitors - you ought to be aware of that too. We could have zero corporation tax by your argument!
And we are not in the great depression, we are still in the aftermath of a global banking crisis that this government has managed to shift the blame onto public services for. We are in a period of slow growth that everybody who understands the economics of austerity predicted, the 2015 pay it all off target was always ridiculous. Growth is the way to pay it off. That is Keynes' solution. By the way, the last growth figures were 0.2% - this is because the government followed Milliband's austerity light proposals rather than the ones they fought the last election on - it shows they don't even believe what they say - but we had a choice of austerity and austerity light at the last election, in this we don't. Austerity has never worked anywhere when everybody is doing it!
To a lesser extent the same applies to manufacturing processes where the output is hopefully more than the sum of the inputs. It probably does not apply to service based industries where money is simply shuffled around and nothing actually generated (as in the UK!).
However I have heard Jonathan Bartley on the radio several times in this campaign and agree with @Chizz remarks above.
Won't be voting for him as it is essential that the excellent community MP Clive Efford retains his Eltham seat, and that's where my vote is going.
The upside would be that the tories would take the opportunity to get shot of her and put somebody in who can do a better job at this key time. I don't think this should be too difficult given her level of incompetence - they could appoint one of their office cleaners. So the election will be important as long as the Tories don't win big.
If all greens vote labour and all ukip vote Tory then Efford's out by a few thousand so he needs at least a third of the UKIP vote I suspect.