Politics Thread!

[merman]

Tory economic policy has cost every household £4000

in 2010 before the election, economic growth was at 1.4%. It was only AFTER the emergency budget of one Mr Gideon Osborne that growth ground to a halt. The IMF agrees, austerity was too deep too soon.

The jobs miracle is not down to Iain Duncan Smith

The employment rate has gone from 72.2% to 73.3% - that's 500,000 more people in work. And that's how many people became self-employed in the last year. The only problem is, the earnings of self-employed people have plummeted.

[pogo]

Not this nonsense again. Yes, the IMF said the UK cut too much too soon. But they then corrected themselves when the UK economy (and so Tory economic policies) did much better than the IMF predicted, and they had to admit they were wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -year.html

In a mea culpa on Tuesday, Mr Blanchard admitted the IMF’s previous predictions were “too pessimistic”. However, he insisted that it was the IMF’s job to point out risks.

“It is fair to say that our forecast was too pessimistic, and indeed growth has been much stronger than we had forecast,” he said. “I think it has to be said that we are in the business of forecasting. Forecasting is an imperfect science and sometimes we over-estimate or under-forecast.”

As for employment, no self-employment isn’t up by half a million. It is “little changed at 4.52 million” according to the ONS over the year, while the number in government training and employment schemes fell by a fifth.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labou ... Employment

[zip accident]

while the number in government training and employment schemes fell by a fifth.

Good news at last.

[pogo]

The good news is the falling unemployment, and so rising employment, as that leads not only to people finding work but also those in work having more opportunities to find better work: go from part time to full time, or self employed to being an employer if they want to. It also leads to wage rises in real terms as firms have to pay more to recruit and keep staff.

If it stays like this unemployment should hit 5% soon, and then or around then stabilise as we hit full employment. Wage growth has already picked up and will pick up again as firms find it harder and harder to recruit and retain staff. That will feed through to inflation forcing the BoE to take action and raise interest rates, which will drive up the pound, keeping inflation in check so living standards improve further.

Of course it could all go pear shaped. We have an election and who knows who will be in charge after, and what they will do. And Greece seems almost certain to exit the euro in May, unless the rest of the eurozone suddenly come to their senses and compromise.

[merman]

Not this nonsense again. Yes, the IMF said the UK cut too much too soon. But they then corrected themselves when the UK economy (and so Tory economic policies) did much better than the IMF predicted, and they had to admit they were wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -year.html

In a mea culpa on Tuesday, Mr Blanchard admitted the IMF’s previous predictions were “too pessimistic”. However, he insisted that it was the IMF’s job to point out risks.

“It is fair to say that our forecast was too pessimistic, and indeed growth has been much stronger than we had forecast,” he said. “I think it has to be said that we are in the business of forecasting. Forecasting is an imperfect science and sometimes we over-estimate or under-forecast.”

As for employment, no self-employment isn’t up by half a million. It is “little changed at 4.52 million” according to the ONS over the year, while the number in government training and employment schemes fell by a fifth.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labou ... Employment

Media myth - Britain faced a financial crisis in 2010

Growth was UP before Osborne's emergency budget.
The Office For Budget Responsibility categorically states that GDP went DOWN by 1% in 2011 because of the Tories. And that could be downplaying how serious the cuts were.

The 500,000 self-employed figure is from Job Centre Plus statistics. It's real.

[pogo]

Yes, Wren-Lewis is entertaining, but often wrong. His assertion that the UK with a deficit of 10% and rising did not have to address the deficit is fanciful, had no support then or now from mainstream parties, and is him trying to rewrite history. Way back in 2010 many on the left (though to their credit not the Labour party, at least not initially) repeatedly asserted that austerity/cuts would not work, would just massively increase unemployment and prolong the recession.

But none of this happened, the economy is now recovering, so they have switched to saying cutting the deficit was unnecessary and ideological. As if the deficit didn’t matter, or it was some artificial political construct devised by the Tories to bludgeon Labour with. No, the deficit, and the debt it generates, are very real. We currently pay more in debt interest than we do on defence, and only a fool would say that is not a problem that needs addressing.

Or they say the government didn’t need to cut because increased spending/tax cuts would pay for themselves: do nothing about the deficit and it would come down anyway as growth reduced it to zero. But this is even worse: it’s a philosophy that originated with the US Republican party in the in the 1980s, promoted most famously by George W Bush with his tax cuts and spending increases he said would pay for themselves. But they didn’t they just massively ballooned the deficit.

[gravy]

haha, Shapps accused of wikipedia sock puppetry.

Brilliaant the accusations are both for bigging himself up and doing down cabinet colleagues.

After his blatant lying about his commercial work overlapping his MP career it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ory-rivals

[gravy]

Follow up lols in a libdem press release

Grant is a wonderful guy - he is a credit to the Conservative Party, a fine sportsman and reads a book a day. We could all learn a lot from him.

He has led the Tories with exemplary skill and if, like me, you have been lucky enough to meet him – you know you have been touched by greatness. Quite simply, a colossus.

This Press Release has been edited by Wikipedia user Contribsx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93562.html

And here:

Asked for his views, Clegg said: “Well, Grant Shapps has fervently denied that he had anything to do with it. He himself does not have the time apparently to edit his own Wikipedia entry. I’m prepared to believe him. It could have been someone else. Michael Green for instance.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... dia-affair

[(o)(o)]

Tory economic policy has cost every household £4000

in 2010 before the election, economic growth was at 1.4%. It was only AFTER the emergency budget of one Mr Gideon Osborne that growth ground to a halt. The IMF agrees, austerity was too deep too soon.

Well yeah.. the economy was in recovery when CONDEM took over, then it went into reverse under the Tories. Labours proposal to halve the deficit in one term was better for the UK economy and widely endorsed by economists, whereas Osbournes deep fast slash and hack programme was widely criticised.

Repeating lies doesn't alter reality, but CONDEM supports have an Orwellian mentality, pretending none of this ever happened.

Leading economists say coalition's austerity policies have damaged UK economy

LSE's John Van Reened agreed, arguing:

"UK GDP is about 15% below where we would have expected on pre-crisis trends... Premature austerity has damaged UK welfare and, as I and others argued at the time, delaying consolidation would have left the UK in a much stronger position than it is today."

It's panned out pretty much as expected.. and the IFS warn the COLOSSAL cuts are yet to come.

Also in the news today, record numbers of people relying on foodbanks - over 1 million people, including 400k children, and many are workers on zero hours/low pay etc. EMPLOYMENT IS UP ON PAPER WOOHOO !!

I think another term of this Tory govt could be disasterous for the UK.

They are also playing a very dangerous game pitching the SNP against Labour extremely irresponsible. Gotta give Milliband credit for a united Britain against separatist.. that's a pretty principled stand he took right there

[merman]

It's panned out pretty much as expected.. and the IFS warn the COLOSSAL cuts are yet to come.

Also in the news today, record numbers of people relying on foodbanks - over 1 million people, including 400k children, and many are workers on zero hours/low pay etc. EMPLOYMENT IS UP ON PAPER WOOHOO !!

I think another term of this Tory govt could be disasterous for the UK.

They are also playing a very dangerous game pitching the SNP against Labour extremely irresponsible. Gotta give Milliband credit for a united Britain against separatist.. that's a pretty principled stand he took right there

Cameron is trying to bamboozle people with his "1 penny in every pound saved". Truth is, there is very little room to cut more without doing severe damage.

Look at social care - more than a million elderly people do not get basic personal care, including help to get up and get washed & dressed. But the Tories will CUT SOCIAL CARE further.

Another term of Tory cuts and privatisation of healthcare would be disastrous.

The SNP should have a say at Westminster, since Westminster decides on much that affects Scotland.

[pogo]

LSE's John Van Reened agreed, arguing:

"UK GDP is about 15% below where we would have expected on pre-crisis trends... Premature austerity has damaged UK welfare and, as I and others argued at the time, delaying consolidation would have left the UK in a much stronger position than it is today."

It's panned out pretty much as expected.. and the IFS warn the COLOSSAL cuts are yet to come.

No, again this is wrong. First it didn’t pan out as expected. Here e.g. is the famous letter from economists, (including Prof Wren-Lewis) condemning Tory plans:

This cut is described as efficiency savings. But in macroeconomic terms it is just a cut by another name. It will lead directly to job losses and indirectly to further falls in spending through the standard multiplier process.
At a time when recovery is delicate it could even affect confidence to the degree that we are tipped back into recession – with much larger job consequences.

Those on the left kept repeating this down the years – that Tory cuts would lead to a further recession and worsening unemployment – until the economy recovered with very healthy job growth. It didn’t pan out as expected; at least not as expected by those on the left.

Second the “15% below” is based on drawing straight line through GDP up to 2008 and then assuming we should have kept on growing at that rate. I.e. what would have happened if we did not have a recession. Well, it may be news to Mr Reened, but the recession happened. Even without it growth was on an unsustainable path, funded by excessive borrowing, and would have slowed. Saying we are somehow 15% worse off because of Tory economic policy has no basis in fact.

[pogo]

The SNP should have a say at Westminster, since Westminster decides on much that affects Scotland.

The SNP are on course to get under 5% of the vote nationally, so should in theory have that much say. And only on the things that apply to Scotland: as Scotland has its own education, health etc. systems the SNP should logically sit out such debates and votes.

We all know what’s going to happen though. As no party is likely to get a majority it will need another coalition. The SNP as the third largest party due to the concentration of their votes in relatively small constituencies will almost certainly be part of any coalition. And they have ruled out one with the Tories so it will be a SNP–Labour coalition/pact/understanding.

The only question is how will the SNP use it. Will they let Labour implement most of its manifesto or will they insist their own more extreme policies are put in place? Will they only participate on votes that affect Scotland or will they try and influence even English and Welsh laws that have nothing to do with them? Will they work for the benefit of the UK as a whole or insist on extra rewards for Scotland, whether more cash or boondoggles like HS3 starting at Scotland, as a price for their cooperation?

[The ghost of raids past]

Well Salmond showed his true colours with the boast that he would be writing the Labour Budget.

[Dio]

Cameron's current stance though is quite astonishing. Fundamentally he is actually campaigning against the union, if you logically analyse his statements.

Assuming the SNP does walk over all of Scotland, then the line Cameron's selling in England of "Vote Tory to stop the evil SNP having any influence in government" is logically exactly the same as saying "If England votes Tory Scotland's democratic choice of representation will be absolutely, completely ignored".

Saying that whether or not Scotland gets any representation in UK government is dependent on England's choice of government...? That's an outright campaign for Scottish independence. Salmond must be laughing his arse off. If the Tories win, there's another referendum in 2017 or 2018 and Scotland is off. I just don't see how this ends any other way (unless Cameron actually has a mare).

[VNVObit]

That's a an amazing u-turn as previously he was saying vote SNP to reduce Labour's chances

Well Salmond showed his true colours with the boast that he would be writing the Labour Budget.

as for the quote, it was a throwaway joke in a speech (Cameron obviously didn't hear the laughter afterwards) poking fun at the Scottish Labour partyhttp://news.sky.com/story/1470211/salmo ... over-video

The SNP should have a say at Westminster, since Westminster decides on much that affects Scotland.

The SNP are on course to get under 5% of the vote nationally, so should in theory have that much say. And only on the things that apply to Scotland: as Scotland has its own education, health etc. systems the SNP should logically sit out such debates and votes.

We all know what’s going to happen though. As no party is likely to get a majority it will need another coalition. The SNP as the third largest party due to the concentration of their votes in relatively small constituencies will almost certainly be part of any coalition. And they have ruled out one with the Tories so it will be a SNP–Labour coalition/pact/understanding.

The only question is how will the SNP use it. Will they let Labour implement most of its manifesto or will they insist their own more extreme policies are put in place? Will they only participate on votes that affect Scotland or will they try and influence even English and Welsh laws that have nothing to do with them? Will they work for the benefit of the UK as a whole or insist on extra rewards for Scotland, whether more cash or boondoggles like HS3 starting at Scotland, as a price for their cooperation?

So in essence you are parroting Cameron who says he wants Scotland part of the UK but with no voice (5% are still entitled to comment and have their voice heard - it's part of being in a democracy). As for votes that don't effect Scotland, I can't think of any as even the examples you give can cause problems for Scotland creating a 2 tier country between 2 parts of the UK and create internal movement to Scotland or potentially resurrect the independence campaign That'd look good on Cameron's CV !!!!.