At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
As you say - this is the second time you claimed that Corbyn's aim is 'not to beat the Tories' or 'win the election' but to 're-make' the Labour Party in his own image, and that losing doesn't matter to him.
Do you have the slightest evidence to support this - i.e. something he has said or written for example - or is it just your opinion (or possibly the opinion of someone you've read)?
But it makes no sense. If Labour does badly on June 8th Corbyn's chances of 're-making' the Labour Party are very probably over (and what would be the point of 're-making' it anyway if not to win elections?). Only if he does better than predicted or expected will he have much chance of remaining leader to 're-make' anything. And why do you think he's been an MP for 34 years if not in the hope of winning elections?
You may believe that his chances of doing well are slim but suggesting that he 'does not want to beat the Tories' or 'win the election' and losing doesn't matter to him seems pretty baseless.
Another Project Fear election? Really? The people who complain most about Project Fear (Brexiters, Tories, Kippers) are the worst perpetrators of promoting fake news fear-mongering about swarms of Muslims or how the Lefties want to take away your sovereignty.
@Cordoban Addick Maybe it's me, but I thought I had made it clear that the point of my post was to highlight what I perceived as 'sensationalism' in your post comparing the agendas of the BNP and the Tory party. I was also pointing out that you were incorrect in interpreting my voting intentions.
I was not using my post to persuade people to vote Labour, so why would I have given you any reasons when that was not the point of my post?
But, as you have raised it, I am in the same position as many others that have posted previously e.g. @ShootersHillGuru
My inclination is to vote Labour but I cannot, at this stage, commit to doing so. At the risk of being repetitive, Corbyn is not positioning himself to win the election either now or, as was originally thought, in 2020. His prime aim is to first change and re-fashion the Labour party into what he believes it should be. His vision is too left-wing for me: whilst I may have been of that view when I was younger, common-sense and real-life have modified my views.
So ... at this stage ... I don't know how I will vote. As I have emphasised, I intensely dislike the politics of fear and prefer political parties to emphasise the positives of their own policies. Corbyn has far from convinced me at this stage, nor do I believe he will.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
When I was 26 the monthly statistic on the economy that used to generate headlines and be pored over by politicians and ‘commentators’ was the ‘UK Balance of Payments’ - the difference between what the UK receives in income from exports and services and what leaves the country to pay for imports and services from abroad.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
I'm not sure you can legitimately make that comparison. First off, in the main it is individuals and companies that are acquiring imports rather than Government (stuff like US fighter planes excepted). So, if Mini import components to build Minis they pay actual money for them, there is no long-term credit element. Of course, in these days of globalisation, the waters are muddied further by the fact that vast swathes of UK industry is foreign owned. So, maybe if Mini is importing tyres made by Michelin in France, it's not ultimately UK plc that pays for them but BMW in Germany. In any event, setting aside any export credit guarantees from the exporting country and time lags in the payment process, the producer is getting actual real money. The issue is that they will probably want payment in Euros or whatever and the UK importer will have to buy Euros with GBPs in order to pay for the goods. All the time the pound is falling in value, that process becomes more expensive for us. But the process will only stop when pounds become an unacceptable currency for anybody to deal in. In this regard the Government's debt levels, while horrendous, are neither here nor there.
Sorry, but that's bollocks!
The Conservative Party bang on about being the only ones who can be trusted with the economy. George was going to clear the debt by 2020 but it's OK, because we're all in this together. Instead, they have more than doubled the debt and what have we got to show for it? Are we building hospitals, schools, homes, prisons or infrastructure. A few moves on the latter, but mostly still all talk.
And yet the debt has spiralled to a level that would have the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times all seething with rage and spewing bile IF Labour had done exactly the same thing. No mind that they may actually have spent it on something tangible, other than in areas that most benefit the outside interests of a number of MPs and their friends.
It was worse than that;
"...after the general election in 2010, George Osborne changed course from Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget by introducing spending cuts aimed at eliminating the deficit.
His original target was to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.
In December 2014, this was changed to target a balance by the third year of the rolling five year period (that is, by 2017).
Then in autumn 2015 this was changed to be a surplus by 2020-1 and then keep running a surplus "in normal times".
Then in autumn 2016 this was changed to be a target to reduce net borrowing to below two per cent of GDP by 2020-21..."
This is one example of why I question what those like @Huskaris mean exactly when they say they consider the Tories a safer pair of hand with the economy.
At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
As you say - this is the second time you claimed that Corbyn's aim is 'not to beat the Tories' or 'win the election' but to 're-make' the Labour Party in his own image, and that losing doesn't matter to him.
Do you have the slightest evidence to support this - i.e. something he has said or written for example - or is it just your opinion (or possibly the opinion of someone you've read)?
But it makes no sense. If Labour does badly on June 8th Corbyn's chances of 're-making' the Labour Party are very probably over (and what would be the point of 're-making' it anyway if not to win elections?). Only if he does better than predicted or expected will he have much chance of remaining leader to 're-make' anything. And why do you think he's been an MP for 34 years if not in the hope of winning elections?
You may believe that his chances of doing well are slim but suggesting that he 'does not want to beat the Tories' or 'win the election' and losing doesn't matter to him seems pretty baseless.
I've come to the conclusion that his chances are not over if Labour lose the election. In fact, I believe that he will fight to stay in position ... and may well do.
I believe that his prime aim is to re-fashion the Labour party ... obviously if he wins an election in the meantime, he will not turn it down. But even he knows this is unlikely, hence what I believe is his ulterior motive.
As to why it is my opinion that he is seeking to re-fashion the Labour party rather than win an election, that is my reading of what is happening. It is certainly shared by many others as I have seen such views also reflected in the media.
Am I right? Who knows, but I do not think that I am far from the truth.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
When I was 26 the monthly statistic on the economy that used to generate headlines and be pored over by politicians and ‘commentators’ was the ‘UK Balance of Payments’ - the difference between what the UK receives in income from exports and services and what leaves the country to pay for imports and services from abroad.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
I'm not sure you can legitimately make that comparison. First off, in the main it is individuals and companies that are acquiring imports rather than Government (stuff like US fighter planes excepted). So, if Mini import components to build Minis they pay actual money for them, there is no long-term credit element. Of course, in these days of globalisation, the waters are muddied further by the fact that vast swathes of UK industry is foreign owned. So, maybe if Mini is importing tyres made by Michelin in France, it's not ultimately UK plc that pays for them but BMW in Germany. In any event, setting aside any export credit guarantees from the exporting country and time lags in the payment process, the producer is getting actual real money. The issue is that they will probably want payment in Euros or whatever and the UK importer will have to buy Euros with GBPs in order to pay for the goods. All the time the pound is falling in value, that process becomes more expensive for us. But the process will only stop when pounds become an unacceptable currency for anybody to deal in. In this regard the Government's debt levels, while horrendous, are neither here nor there.
Sorry, but that's bollocks!
The Conservative Party bang on about being the only ones who can be trusted with the economy. George was going to clear the debt by 2020 but it's OK, because we're all in this together. Instead, they have more than doubled the debt and what have we got to show for it? Are we building hospitals, schools, homes, prisons or infrastructure. A few moves on the latter, but mostly still all talk.
And yet the debt has spiralled to a level that would have the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times all seething with rage and spewing bile IF Labour had done exactly the same thing. No mind that they may actually have spent it on something tangible, other than in areas that most benefit the outside interests of a number of MPs and their friends.
It was worse than that;
"...after the general election in 2010, George Osborne changed course from Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget by introducing spending cuts aimed at eliminating the deficit.
His original target was to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.
In December 2014, this was changed to target a balance by the third year of the rolling five year period (that is, by 2017).
Then in autumn 2015 this was changed to be a surplus by 2020-1 and then keep running a surplus "in normal times".
Then in autumn 2016 this was changed to be a target to reduce net borrowing to below two per cent of GDP by 2020-21..."
This is one example of why I question what those like @Huskaris mean exactly when they say they consider the Tories a safer pair of hand with the economy.
They may be terrible at meeting fiscal targets, but they've proven brilliantly effective at changing them.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
When I was 26 the monthly statistic on the economy that used to generate headlines and be pored over by politicians and ‘commentators’ was the ‘UK Balance of Payments’ - the difference between what the UK receives in income from exports and services and what leaves the country to pay for imports and services from abroad.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
I'm not sure you can legitimately make that comparison. First off, in the main it is individuals and companies that are acquiring imports rather than Government (stuff like US fighter planes excepted). So, if Mini import components to build Minis they pay actual money for them, there is no long-term credit element. Of course, in these days of globalisation, the waters are muddied further by the fact that vast swathes of UK industry is foreign owned. So, maybe if Mini is importing tyres made by Michelin in France, it's not ultimately UK plc that pays for them but BMW in Germany. In any event, setting aside any export credit guarantees from the exporting country and time lags in the payment process, the producer is getting actual real money. The issue is that they will probably want payment in Euros or whatever and the UK importer will have to buy Euros with GBPs in order to pay for the goods. All the time the pound is falling in value, that process becomes more expensive for us. But the process will only stop when pounds become an unacceptable currency for anybody to deal in. In this regard the Government's debt levels, while horrendous, are neither here nor there.
Sorry, but that's bollocks!
The Conservative Party bang on about being the only ones who can be trusted with the economy. George was going to clear the debt by 2020 but it's OK, because we're all in this together. Instead, they have more than doubled the debt and what have we got to show for it? Are we building hospitals, schools, homes, prisons or infrastructure. A few moves on the latter, but mostly still all talk.
And yet the debt has spiralled to a level that would have the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times all seething with rage and spewing bile IF Labour had done exactly the same thing. No mind that they may actually have spent it on something tangible, other than in areas that most benefit the outside interests of a number of MPs and their friends.
It was worse than that;
"...after the general election in 2010, George Osborne changed course from Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget by introducing spending cuts aimed at eliminating the deficit.
His original target was to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.
In December 2014, this was changed to target a balance by the third year of the rolling five year period (that is, by 2017).
Then in autumn 2015 this was changed to be a surplus by 2020-1 and then keep running a surplus "in normal times".
Then in autumn 2016 this was changed to be a target to reduce net borrowing to below two per cent of GDP by 2020-21..."
This is one example of why I question what those like @Huskaris mean exactly when they say they consider the Tories a safer pair of hand with the economy.
They may be terrible at meeting fiscal targets, but they've proven brilliantly effective at changing them.
And presentation too. If you ran a soup kitchen for the homeless every night, and fifty people turned up, and you spent £50 each day on the enterprise. Then if 100 souls started turning up every night and you increased your spending to £51 each day, you could trumpet it as spending more than ever on the people of the street. This seems to be the Tory approach to presentation.
Indeed. I fail to see any redeeming qualities the Tories may have now that their 'record' of being a financially competent party has been well and truly debunked. Unless you're one of the handful of people who consider leaving the EU no matter what the financial or human costs an absolute priority. Otherwise unless you are on 150k a year income and hold shares in multinationals and all the corporations that will benefit from Brexit and from privatisation, everyone else will be left worse off.
Cordoban Addick said: At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
Cordoban Addick said: At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
Where has this come from, I have never said this.
Its mine ... I don't know how but all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters.
@Cordoban Addick Maybe it's me, but I thought I had made it clear that the point of my post was to highlight what I perceived as 'sensationalism' in your post comparing the agendas of the BNP and the Tory party. I was also pointing out that you were incorrect in interpreting my voting intentions.
I was not using my post to persuade people to vote Labour, so why would I have given you any reasons when that was not the point of my post?
But, as you have raised it, I am in the same position as many others that have posted previously e.g. @ShootersHillGuru
My inclination is to vote Labour but I cannot, at this stage, commit to doing so. At the risk of being repetitive, Corbyn is not positioning himself to win the election either now or, as was originally thought, in 2020. His prime aim is to first change and re-fashion the Labour party into what he believes it should be. His vision is too left-wing for me: whilst I may have been of that view when I was younger, common-sense and real-life have modified my views.
So ... at this stage ... I don't know how I will vote. As I have emphasised, I intensely dislike the politics of fear and prefer political parties to emphasise the positives of their own policies. Corbyn has far from convinced me at this stage, nor do I believe he will.
Thanks for the response. We are going to have to disagree on the first bit.
On the second bit I neither said, indicated or alluded that you post was intended to persuade people to vote Labour. But you have clearly stated that you prefer positive political discourse (a view I respect). On the back of this I have asked you to provide some positive political discourse on behalf of the party you had said you usually supported, Labour.
You described your inclination (which is very close to my own) but you were unable to provide any positives which I think in a way supports my original assertion that we should vote for anybody but the Tories. I could not give you loads of positive reasons why you should vote for anybody else other than the Tories, but I could give you lots of reasons why you shouldn't vote for the Tories.
That is all I have to do go on at the moment, so for me that is what I will use to inform my opinions. To quote Keynes When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
A longer conversation could be about our changing society and how negative reinforcement has overtaken positive endorsement, fact and evidence. See fake news, alt-facts and post-truth for its most recent incarnations.
I would, naturally, blame Margaret Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch for this becoming the norm and do see the irony of using a negative to decry the use of negativity.
If a person is predominantly voting as an anti Tory then I suppose tactical voting is the order of the day. if you live in a seat with a massive Tory majority, then I suppose voting according to whichever other candidate you like best is the order of the day, or to encourage some people to keep on keeping on, or even to ensure the Monster Raving Looneys get more votes than the BNP's or whoever the latest fascist party are supposed to be.
Cordoban Addick said: At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
Where has this come from, I have never said this.
Its mine ... I don't know how but all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters.
Apologies Cordoban Addick
You do go in for a bit of exaggeration stonemuse - "all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters" - something went wrong with my last post when quoting something you said, but you managed to reply almost immediately.
The left are desperate for the Torys to privatise the NHS so that their annual prediction for the last 26 years that 'The Tories want to privitise the NHS' actually comes true
Cordoban Addick said: At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
Where has this come from, I have never said this.
Its mine ... I don't know how but all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters.
Apologies Cordoban Addick
You do go in for a bit of exaggeration stonemuse - "all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters" - something went wrong with my last post when quoting something you said, but you managed to reply almost immediately.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
I'm not sure you can legitimately make that comparison. First off, in the main it is individuals and companies that are acquiring imports rather than Government (stuff like US fighter planes excepted). So, if Mini import components to build Minis they pay actual money for them, there is no long-term credit element. Of course, in these days of globalisation, the waters are muddied further by the fact that vast swathes of UK industry is foreign owned. So, maybe if Mini is importing tyres made by Michelin in France, it's not ultimately UK plc that pays for them but BMW in Germany. In any event, setting aside any export credit guarantees from the exporting country and time lags in the payment process, the producer is getting actual real money. The issue is that they will probably want payment in Euros or whatever and the UK importer will have to buy Euros with GBPs in order to pay for the goods. All the time the pound is falling in value, that process becomes more expensive for us. But the process will only stop when pounds become an unacceptable currency for anybody to deal in. In this regard the Government's debt levels, while horrendous, are neither here nor there.
Sorry, but that's bollocks!
The Conservative Party bang on about being the only ones who can be trusted with the economy. George was going to clear the debt by 2020 but it's OK, because we're all in this together. Instead, they have more than doubled the debt and what have we got to show for it? Are we building hospitals, schools, homes, prisons or infrastructure. A few moves on the latter, but mostly still all talk.
And yet the debt has spiralled to a level that would have the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times all seething with rage and spewing bile IF Labour had done exactly the same thing. No mind that they may actually have spent it on something tangible, other than in areas that most benefit the outside interests of a number of MPs and their friends.
You have misunderstood entirely what I was attempting to say. Which was all about the balance of payments figures in isolation. Government debt will be of no concern in that regard - and that regard only. That's why I started the sentence "In this regard...".
Government debt, of course, has other issues. In particular, that it still needs to keep getting higher. YET it can only do so if someone is prepared to buy the UK Govt. Gilts. As soon as they are not, we will be in the deep brown stuff. However, we probably still have a way to go. Govt. debt while high is still "only" 80% of our GDP. Japan's for example is 225%. What is interesting is that the percentage of debt owned by overseas Govts. has declined markedly in percentage terms. Down from around 60% to 30%. Our debt is currently held by insurance companies (read pension funds) 30%, the Bank of England (yes, I know) 26% and banks and building societies 10%. I hold some too but I don't think I figure in the stats. Now, if we seriously want to do anything about it there are only three choices: increase GDP so the percentage gets lower, increase taxes or cut expenditure or a combination of all three. The perennial problem with cutting expenditure is how and where? Around 32% of the whole budget goes on welfare spending, around 19% on health and around 13% on education. The others eight sectors of spending are minute in comparison. Defence, the biggest of the others, is only 6%. It is inevitable that the big spenders are going to have to take yet more haircuts. And/or taxes will go up. What other options are there?
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm y on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
Sorry, but that's bollocks!
The Conservative Party bang on about being the only ones who can be trusted with the economy. George was going to clear the debt by 2020 but it's OK, because we're all in this together. Instead, they have more than doubled the debt and what have we got to show for it? Are we building hospitals, schools, homes, prisons or infrastructure. A few moves on the latter, but mostly still all talk.
And yet the debt has spiralled to a level that would have the Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times all seething with rage and spewing bile IF Labour had done exactly the same thing. No mind that they may actually have spent it on something tangible, other than in areas that most benefit the outside interests of a number of MPs and their friends.
It was worse than that;
"...after the general election in 2010, George Osborne changed course from Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget by introducing spending cuts aimed at eliminating the deficit.
His original target was to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.
In December 2014, this was changed to target a balance by the third year of the rolling five year period (that is, by 2017).
Then in autumn 2015 this was changed to be a surplus by 2020-1 and then keep running a surplus "in normal times".
Then in autumn 2016 this was changed to be a target to reduce net borrowing to below two per cent of GDP by 2020-21..."
This is one example of why I question what those like @Huskaris mean exactly when they say they consider the Tories a safer pair of hand with the economy.
I have decided to boycott all political discussions on here, including Brexit, even though I voted remain, something I believe many others on here have decided too. Debating politics on here seems to be similar to debating religion, with people having views so entrenched that they can not ever consider changing their mind, probably in part due to the nature of text rather than a face to face discussion. I have left wing friends that I get along with really well and have proper political debates with that I would consider fruitful, on here, bar a handful with people like @SDAddick, I have been really disappointed with the way the "discussions" unfold. No doubt this will be seen as waving the white flag, but I really don't have the appetite for it.
So ... having caught up with the last few pages, it seems that:
- if you vote Tory, you are supporting a party that only cares about the rich and is willing to let lots of people die. - if you vote Labour, you are a caring person who is sensitive to the needs of others.
What a load of sanctimonious crap. It really is not as simple as making sweeping statements. There are many nuances on both sides and it is insulting to 'ordinary' people to make such generic comments.
Incidentally, and before people make what they may feel is the obvious comment, I am, by nature, a Labour supporter. But just denigrating an entire swathe of the population as all being the same, just because they vote in a particular way, is completely wrong.
A lot of people are voting Tory because they think they're the most stable party or the most financially competent or the ones who are going to get the best Brexit deal. Those reasons may be true.
But there is a cost for voting Tory and it will be counted in human misery. They have gone beyond reducing the welfare state to a safety net and have knowingly allowed thousands of people to slip into abject poverty. Our NHS and social services are on life support and being kept alive only by those volunteering their free time or working unpaid over their hours. Eventually, if the Tories get another 5 years, we will pass the breaking point. I would rather sort this out now rather than wait until the cataclysmic failure across the country's social services leads to a maelstrom of deaths, suffering, crime and social unrest.
The Tory party have always had a faction where what you describe has been on the agenda. Fortunately this rabid right wing of the party has been held at bay by a largely credible and effective opposition and a general move for all parties to the centre ground.
It would appear that the politics of the whole western world is shifting to the right in large steps. That combined with a discredited and largely ineffective opposition, the Tories on the right of the party are taking their place in the sun.
I agree with everything you have written.
For all of Cameron's flaws he anchored the party to the centre. He enacted several liberal reforms including same sex marriage in spite of opposition from the right of the party, who would often give him a harder time than the Opposition, behind closed doors at least.
But the world has moves rightwards, but not for any good reason. A group of very rich, very powerful people want to divert attention away from the fact that they are the prime source of inequality, misery and corruption and have done this by convincing people across Europe and the USA that it is in fact poor people, Muslims and the disabled who are in fact to blame for their misery and when the left and centre parties attempt to defend these vulnerable groups they are called loonies and traitors.
But I thought it was the 'poor' people who voted for Trump and Brexit?
You lucky bastard, I've been here five years and they only hung me the right way up yesterday. Which was fair enough considering what I did.
What do you think was being observed here by Monty Python in that sketch?
Or Labour. They are all the same, except perhaps the unelectable Greens.
From The Telegraph and other papers
''Encouraging motorists to trade in their petrol cars for diesel vehicles was one of the last Labour government’s biggest environmental mistakes.
Barry Gardiner, the shadow Environment minister, said the party was trying to cut CO2 emissions when it introduced new vehicle tax rates in 2001.
It meant that motorists switched to diesel vehicles and parts of the country saw a big increase in nitrogen dioxide and other harmful chemicals in the atmosphere.
Mr Gardiner said: “Hands up — there's absolutely no question that the decision we took was the wrong decision. But at that time we didn't have the evidence that subsequently we did have.”
''Labour’s election manifesto is being drawn up by an aide who once called for all banks to be nationalised and Britain to have a three-day week, it can be revealed.
Andrew Fisher, who joined Jeremy Corbyn’s team days after he won the Labour leadership, is understood to be leading the party's selection of policies for the election campaign.
He has previously suggested companies should be banned from sacking people and workers should be given powers to take over their businesses.''
Comments
I was not using my post to persuade people to vote Labour, so why would I have given you any reasons when that was not the point of my post?
But, as you have raised it, I am in the same position as many others that have posted previously e.g. @ShootersHillGuru
My inclination is to vote Labour but I cannot, at this stage, commit to doing so. At the risk of being repetitive, Corbyn is not positioning himself to win the election either now or, as was originally thought, in 2020. His prime aim is to first change and re-fashion the Labour party into what he believes it should be. His vision is too left-wing for me: whilst I may have been of that view when I was younger, common-sense and real-life have modified my views.
So ... at this stage ... I don't know how I will vote. As I have emphasised, I intensely dislike the politics of fear and prefer political parties to emphasise the positives of their own policies. Corbyn has far from convinced me at this stage, nor do I believe he will.
"...after the general election in 2010, George Osborne changed course from Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget by introducing spending cuts aimed at eliminating the deficit.
His original target was to achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of a rolling five-year forecast period.
In December 2014, this was changed to target a balance by the third year of the rolling five year period (that is, by 2017).
Then in autumn 2015 this was changed to be a surplus by 2020-1 and then keep running a surplus "in normal times".
Then in autumn 2016 this was changed to be a target to reduce net borrowing to below two per cent of GDP by 2020-21..."
From newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/tories-used-budget-deficit-attack-labour-so-why-havent-they-fixed-it-yet
This is one example of why I question what those like @Huskaris mean exactly when they say they consider the Tories a safer pair of hand with the economy.
At least Corbyn is, in the main, honest. The problem is, as I have said before, his aim is not to win the election but to re-fashion the Labour Party in his own image.
Where has this come from, I have never said this.
On the second bit I neither said, indicated or alluded that you post was intended to persuade people to vote Labour. But you have clearly stated that you prefer positive political discourse (a view I respect). On the back of this I have asked you to provide some positive political discourse on behalf of the party you had said you usually supported, Labour.
You described your inclination (which is very close to my own) but you were unable to provide any positives which I think in a way supports my original assertion that we should vote for anybody but the Tories. I could not give you loads of positive reasons why you should vote for anybody else other than the Tories, but I could give you lots of reasons why you shouldn't vote for the Tories.
That is all I have to do go on at the moment, so for me that is what I will use to inform my opinions. To quote Keynes When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
A longer conversation could be about our changing society and how negative reinforcement has overtaken positive endorsement, fact and evidence. See fake news, alt-facts and post-truth for its most recent incarnations.
I would, naturally, blame Margaret Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch for this becoming the norm and do see the irony of using a negative to decry the use of negativity.
if you live in a seat with a massive Tory majority, then I suppose voting according to whichever other candidate you like best is the order of the day, or to encourage some people to keep on keeping on, or even to ensure the Monster Raving Looneys get more votes than the BNP's or whoever the latest fascist party are supposed to be.
You do go in for a bit of exaggeration stonemuse - "all of his post is attributing comments to the wrong posters" - something went wrong with my last post when quoting something you said, but you managed to reply almost immediately.
Government has failed to act on air pollution, says Labour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39678321
Government debt, of course, has other issues. In particular, that it still needs to keep getting higher. YET it can only do so if someone is prepared to buy the UK Govt. Gilts. As soon as they are not, we will be in the deep brown stuff.
However, we probably still have a way to go. Govt. debt while high is still "only" 80% of our GDP. Japan's for example is 225%. What is interesting is that the percentage of debt owned by overseas Govts. has declined markedly in percentage terms. Down from around 60% to 30%. Our debt is currently held by insurance companies (read pension funds) 30%, the Bank of England (yes, I know) 26% and banks and building societies 10%. I hold some too but I don't think I figure in the stats.
Now, if we seriously want to do anything about it there are only three choices: increase GDP so the percentage gets lower, increase taxes or cut expenditure or a combination of all three. The perennial problem with cutting expenditure is how and where? Around 32% of the whole budget goes on welfare spending, around 19% on health and around 13% on education. The others eight sectors of spending are minute in comparison. Defence, the biggest of the others, is only 6%. It is inevitable that the big spenders are going to have to take yet more haircuts. And/or taxes will go up. What other options are there?
Guillotine? They really don't know how to rid themselves of the swivel-eyed loon brigade, do they?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k?shareToken=fb3f64f193c30332c4e0cbfc05d6317e
What do you think was being observed here by Monty Python in that sketch?
From The Telegraph and other papers
''Encouraging motorists to trade in their petrol cars for diesel vehicles was one of the last Labour government’s biggest environmental mistakes.
Barry Gardiner, the shadow Environment minister, said the party was trying to cut CO2 emissions when it introduced new vehicle tax rates in 2001.
It meant that motorists switched to diesel vehicles and parts of the country saw a big increase in nitrogen dioxide and other harmful chemicals in the atmosphere.
Mr Gardiner said: “Hands up — there's absolutely no question that the decision we took was the wrong decision. But at that time we didn't have the evidence that subsequently we did have.”
''Labour’s election manifesto is being drawn up by an aide who once called for all banks to be nationalised and Britain to have a three-day week, it can be revealed.
Andrew Fisher, who joined Jeremy Corbyn’s team days after he won the Labour leadership, is understood to be leading the party's selection of policies for the election campaign.
He has previously suggested companies should be banned from sacking people and workers should be given powers to take over their businesses.''