Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

Just a few examples..

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/ ... tory-lies/

[Absolute_Zero]

As a percentage of GDP is a defensible weighing of the deficit burden [more-so than pretending gross pay is net pay]... though not what he was originally projecting, certainly.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Tories distort to make the figures look better than they are, Labour misrepresent to make the figures look worse. And should Labour win, the roles and position will 180. Was it ever thus.

[(o)(o)]

As a percentage of GDP is a defensible weighing of the deficit burden [more-so than pretending gross pay is net pay]... though not what he was originally projecting, certainly.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Tories distort to make the figures look better than they are, Labour misrepresent to make the figures look worse. And should Labour win, the roles and position will 180. Was it ever thus.

It's like you didn't read what I said.

Sure all parties use spin and deception. The Tories however LIE day in day out.

Her'es that link again. This is only REBUKES of Tory LIES from official bodies. Keep multipying for thje real number!

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/ ... tory-lies/

Looked at your claim about balls.

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

Surely an error as Balls has nothing to gain by using the wrong methodology to achieve the same political argument.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/as2013/as2013_david.pdf (page 13)

[Absolute_Zero]

As a percentage of GDP is a defensible weighing of the deficit burden [more-so than pretending gross pay is net pay]... though not what he was originally projecting, certainly.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Tories distort to make the figures look better than they are, Labour misrepresent to make the figures look worse. And should Labour win, the roles and position will 180. Was it ever thus.

It's like you didn't read what I said.

Sure all parties use spin and deception. The Tories however LIE day in day out.

Her'es that link again. This is only REBUKES of Tory LIES from official bodies. Keep multipying for thje real number!

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/ ... tory-lies/

Looked at your claim about balls.

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

Surely an error as Balls has nothing to gain by using the wrong methodology to achieve the same political argument.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/as2013/as2013_david.pdf (page 13)

Balls is not stupid [privately Educated], he has economics wonks at his beck and call that scan every line. How you could portray delta gross minus inflation as relevant to anyone's real life, disregarding dramatic [at the low end] tax and benefits changes, as a "mistake", beggars belief. Sorry, I can't take you seriously as a two-eyed honest broker... though you doubtless think so.

By the by, I'm not defending the Conservatives per se... I usually side with the administration whatever the colour. Government is difficult, opposition is pathetically easy in difficult times.

[(o)(o)]

As a percentage of GDP is a defensible weighing of the deficit burden [more-so than pretending gross pay is net pay]... though not what he was originally projecting, certainly.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Tories distort to make the figures look better than they are, Labour misrepresent to make the figures look worse. And should Labour win, the roles and position will 180. Was it ever thus.

It's like you didn't read what I said.

Sure all parties use spin and deception. The Tories however LIE day in day out.

Her'es that link again. This is only REBUKES of Tory LIES from official bodies. Keep multipying for thje real number!

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/ ... tory-lies/

Looked at your claim about balls.

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

Surely an error as Balls has nothing to gain by using the wrong methodology to achieve the same political argument.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/as2013/as2013_david.pdf (page 13)

Balls is not stupid [privately Educated], he has economics wonks at his beck and call that scan every line. How you could portray delta gross minus inflation as relevant to anyone's real life, disregarding dramatic [at the low end] tax and benefits changes, as a "mistake", beggars belief. Sorry, I can't take you seriously as a two-eyed honest broker... though you doubtless think so.

Take it up with the IFS that's who I'm quoting.

You haven't produced a better explanation.

[pogo]

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

No, that’s not what it says. It says GROSS earnings were down, so ignores the significant improvements in NET earnings due to the personal allowance changes. And it only goes up to 2013, so misses out the last 18 months, the BEST third of this parliament. So badly wrong, badly out of date, and highly selective if used instead of more up to date figures.

Balls is not stupid, so he knows this is wrong. That he persists with it despite all the evidence against it shows how desperate Labour’s case is. They have to portray the last five years as a big failure, as to admit there was any sort of success (wages recovering, jobs and employment at record levels, GDP growth rebounding) would be admitting their prescriptions for the last five years, when they were predicting disaster, were very badly wrong.

[(o)(o)]

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

No, that’s not what it says. [<- IT DOES] It says GROSS earnings were down, so ignores the significant improvements in NET earnings due to the personal allowance changes. And it only goes up to 2013, so misses out the last 18 months, the BEST third of this parliament. So badly wrong, badly out of date, and highly selective if used instead of more up to date figures.

We're talking about a statement MADE in 2013 you FREAK.

[(o)(o)]

IFS says calculaetion method was wrong but people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

No, that’s not what it says.

FREAK!

[pogo]

No, we’re talking about this one, by you, only yesterday.

people ARE £1600 down in real terms anyway.

So do you now accept this is false?

[tufty]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 86756.html

If the IFS’s projections are accurate, the average British family is worse off today than it was five years ago. That’s not a very comfortable record for Coalition ministers to defend in this May’s general election.
…
it is hardly unreasonable to argue that policy choices made by the Coalition after 2010 – particularly the Chancellor’s front-loaded fiscal consolidation – depressed the level of real economic output relative to where it would have been if a more gradual deficit reduction path had been followed. And, further, that this weakness in GDP fed through to lower living standards for a great many households. Even the OECD, in its recent report on the UK, quietly recognised that fiscal policy had been a serious drag on growth in 2010-11 and 2011-12 and that the diminishing impact of that early austerity is helping to support growth now.

[Absolute_Zero]

Anyone can play, here's the Channel 4 factcheck.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... eron/20367

Whether we are, or are not, worse off is arguable... what isn't is that Ed Balls' particular assertion is blatantly disingenuous.

Ergo, those that complain about "lies" on the one side whilst conveniently swallowing whole on the other, are exhibiting what's commonly known as hypocrisy. Again, both sides do it.

[pogo]

The Channel 4 piece seems the clearest deconstruction of it yet:

If he were using IFS figures, Mr Miliband would only be able to say that people are £2 a week worse off in real terms now than they were in 2010/11.

i.e. £100 a year, not the £1,600 they were claiming two months ago. Looked at another way there’s not even a £2 fall, per the IFS with their Average income back to around pre-recession level, with that ‘around’ being spun a number a ways. £2 is is only 0.4% of average incomes, so basically incomes are back to pre-recession levels, if not now then a couple of months ago, or a couple of months later. Ed Balls sticking to his £1,600 is just misleading.

The Channel 4 piece also makes a point I have made before, that low pay has played a part in the strong employment growth. If e.g. wages had kept growing ahead of inflation it would have cost jobs, kept unemployment high, delaying the recovery and stretching government finances so more austerity was needed. It was correct to focus on the economy, and so on employment, first, as once employment recovers/unemployment falls to pre-crisis levels wages will start growing normally again. Doing it the other way round and trying to boost wages before the economy recovered would have delayed the recovery and kept unemployment high.

[pogo]

So what did people think of the debate? I was listening on Radio 5, though it was hard to pay attention all the way through. No-one did badly which surely helped all the small parties, being able to command a national platform alongside the PM, however briefly. They were particularly helped by the format that meant they could say their piece or pieces and not be challenged and forced to defend them.

So e.g. the Greens could put forward their populist grab-bag of policies and not have to say how they would pay for them. Farange could make the ridiculous claim that the EU costs us money, while in fact we gain much more from it than we put in economically. He also was happy to emphasise how leaving the EU would make it easy to slash immigration by requiring work permits and visas, while not dealing with the problem that Brits would suddenly find themselves able to live and work overseas, maybe even take long holidays, as countries imposed reciprocal restrictions.

Both Cameron and Miliband did well, but that probably helped Miliband more. His quip that Cameron was more interested in the past not the future I think was particularly telling: while Cameron is happy to run on his record Miliband is still distancing himself from the record of the Labour administration he was part of, if only briefly. That will cost him as it’s still recent enough for people to remember, and we’ve not long recovered from the recession that started while he was in government.

[(o)(o)]

So what did people think of the debate?

Dunno not watching I don't pay ma TV tax.

[pogo]

So what did people think of the debate?

Dunno not watching I don't pay ma TV tax.

It was on the radio too. Probably available in iPlayer if you’re feeling especially masochistic.