• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Who are you voting for in the general election 2017?

Patm026 said:
I will be voting for the party that doesn't support terrorism or terrorists. So that is Corbyn out. The SNP doesn't matter here in England, The Lib Dems are a complete waste of time. UKIP have done their bit and are no longer relevant, so I guess that leaves the Tories.
Click to expand...
oh dear - band-wagons are on fire at the moment aren't they. I have seen plenty of references where Corbyn has stated that he does not support any terrorist organisations. He's called out for a review of arms dealing with our "friends" in middle east that Tories have voted against and has campaigned throughout his life to bring about peace - he is a peace-maker after all rather than a war-monger where no-one ever wins.
Where can I find a genuine record of Corbyn stating that what you recycle here is correct?

Voting Tory on the other hand seems like curtains for NHS, public services, support of our most vulnerable, environment (nothing much in their manifesto on this one) and more. Help me to see the positives of voting Tory for someone who values health & public services as older-age encroaches?
 
JRTwalker said:
oh dear - band-wagons are on fire at the moment aren't they. I have seen plenty of references where Corbyn has stated that he does not support any terrorist organisations. He's called out for a review of arms dealing with our "friends" in middle east that Tories have voted against and has campaigned throughout his life to bring about peace - he is a peace-maker after all rather than a war-monger where no-one ever wins.
Where can I find a genuine record of Corbyn stating that what you recycle here is correct?
Click to expand...
You could try the Daily Hate Mail but you are unlikely to find what you're looking for.
 
dbr10 said:
Yes I remember the headline. It was stupid even then. There are not, and never were, any valid comparisons with Greece. The financial crisis was made on Wall Street, not in Downing Street. Labour did not cause the collapse of Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros; the sub prime market in American; the failure of AIG; the collapse of Spain and Portuguese banks. Nor were they resonsible for the South Sea Bubble - but George Osborne was responsible for the slowest recovery since then. In Most recoveries - even the depression in the 1930s - output recovered after four years. From 2010 it took six years for the economy to recover. In the meantime, the lost output is lost forever. What Labour were responsible for was doing nothing to curb inflated asset prices. They should have taken demand out of the economy by raising taxes and/or interest rates. But there was an election approaching...
Click to expand...

Labour did not cause the global crisis, you are right.
However, when the crash hit we were already deep in the red from over borrowing (and 300billion of Browns beloved PFI wasn't even included in the borrowing figures). This severely limited the governments room for manoeuvre - tax cuts and public infrastructure projects are best in a downturn but you can't do this when you have 'run out of money'. This was largely due to Brown's supreme arrogance in believing that this was okay as he had 'abolished boom and bust' in contravention of all known economic laws.

Incidentally, I am at a loss to understand why anyone believes that the Tories have cut spending. Other parties repeat this lie over and over and people believe it instead of checking for themselves (it isn't as though politicians have a good track record of veracity!). Treasury figures in the attachment show real terms changes over the last 20 years and everything but welfare (small reduction due to fewer claimants and lower benefits) and education (small reduction due to lower government payments to universities) have increased. The recovery would have been much quicker if public spending had really been cut, though this would have had considerable social implications as our society has become very dependent on tax and spend. Would anyone have wanted a quicker recovery at the expense of health, education etc.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_chart_gallery
 
I'm very interested to see the voting demographics in this election today. If the Labour rallies have motivated the 18-30 year olds to vote, the result could be very different to the previous foregone conclusion. How much of a part to play will Brexit have? Will constituencies with a predominantly remain vote prefer Labour over Tory to avoid the "No deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric of which many are sick?

What about the UKIP vote that seems to have died away and migrated back to the tories?

Lots of questions, and 10pm tonight when John Curtice appears on the BBC and gives us their opinion will be a very interesting point in time...
 
midnightrider said:
Labour did not cause the global crisis, you are right.
However, when the crash hit we were already deep in the red from over borrowing (and 300billion of Browns beloved PFI wasn't even included in the borrowing figures). This severely limited the governments room for manoeuvre - tax cuts and public infrastructure projects are best in a downturn but you can't do this when you have 'run out of money'. This was largely due to Brown's supreme arrogance in believing that this was okay as he had 'abolished boom and bust' in contravention of all known economic laws.
Click to expand...
I agree. You need to maintain aggregate demand in a downturn, otherwise the economy contracts further. As I mentioned elsewhere Labour rightly criticised Major's PFI programmes while in opposition, but then greatly expanded them when in Government. They were poor value for money, and the reason for using them was to fiddle debt off the PSBR.
Incidentally, I am at a loss to understand why anyone believes that the Tories have cut spending. Other parties repeat this lie over and over and people believe it instead of checking for themselves (it isn't as though politicians have a good track record of veracity!). Treasury figures in the attachment show real terms changes over the last 20 years and everything but welfare (small reduction due to fewer claimants and lower benefits) and education (small reduction due to lower government payments to universities) have increased. The recovery would have been much quicker if public spending had really been cut, though this would have had considerable social implications as our society has become very dependent on tax and spend. Would anyone have wanted a quicker recovery at the expense of health, education etc.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_chart_gallery
Click to expand...
I will study the link. I am not sure that cuts to Public spending would have helped if they reduced demand in the economy. Of course, there is the important difference between current spending and infrastructure spending. Public spending is not just welfare, but also contracts for private sector firms. In a downturn you need to maintain demand, through the Public sector, if the private sector isn't doing it, to maintain tax receipts and reduce welfare spending because fewer people need it.
 
tim2000s said:
I'm very interested to see the voting demographics in this election today. If the Labour rallies have motivated the 18-30 year olds to vote, the result could be very different to the previous foregone conclusion. How much of a part to play will Brexit have? Will constituencies with a predominantly remain vote prefer Labour over Tory to avoid the "No deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric of which many are sick?

What about the UKIP vote that seems to have died away and migrated back to the tories?

Lots of questions, and 10pm tonight when John Curtice appears on the BBC and gives us their opinion will be a very interesting point in time...
Click to expand...

Yes it will. I will avoid TV and radio today, but intend to catch that.
 
midnightrider said:
This was largely due to Brown's supreme arrogance in believing that this was okay as he had 'abolished boom and bust' in contravention of all known economic laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, looking back, the natural 7 year cycle doesn't seem so bad now does it? At least everyone had their 'day' with boom and bust, savers and borrowers alike.
 
Back
Top