General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Brexit has actually played relatively little part in the campaign though.

Labour has offered a tonne of nostalgic renationalisation, albeit with the ongoing costs left out, and 25bn/yr in additional borrowing (still won't reverse Osborne's benefits policies tho). It sounds nice do voters, but falls down on the maths. They've got a pass, however, because Theresa May led off with a money grab on the elderly and minimal new investment. To say nothing of the authoritarian stuff.

It's been a PR fiasco for much of the time as well.

The Lib Dems have at least shown some imagination with their manifesto, even if i oppose them on the EU. They deserve more credit than Labour on the NHS in particular.

 

[Ubik]

Some pretty odd results throughout that YouGov model. I know they're saying it got the EUref right (though they still managed to put out a 10,000 sample poll on the night showing a remain +4 win, but anyway), but forecasting a constituency-by-constituency election with 4+ parties standing in each is different to a binary choice across the country.

 

[Sweet Square]

The only way to reduce the overall debt is to spend less than you earn, i.e. balance the budget. When/if they can balance the budget, then you are in position to increase spending.

Where are you getting this from ?

 

[altodevil]

People are suffering big time under austerity - it's a failure. People should be living and living well, otherwise what is the point? We need to increase government spending to ensure a happier population in my opinion.

 

[Adzzz]

If only economic models worked out exactly as planned.

This only immediately disproves the idea they fix things, anyone can get it wrong, getting it knowingly wrong and ruining public services in the process is the clear and obvious danger surely?

 

[Raees]

The only way to reduce the overall debt is to spend less than you earn, i.e. balance the budget. When/if they can balance the budget, then you are in position to increase spending.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

https://qz.com/69302/austerity-is-bad-economic-policy/

the trouble with austerity is that it is contractionary—that is, austerity tends to slow down the economy. In bad economic times, people can’t get jobs because businesses aren’t hiring, and businesses are not hiring because people aren’t spending. So in bad economic times, it adds insult to injury when the government does less spending, less hiring, and taxes more money out of the pockets of those who would otherwise spend.

The contractionary effect of austerity creates a dilemma, not only because a slower economy is painful for the people involved—that is, just about everyone—but also because tax revenue falls when the economy slows down, making it harder to rein in government debt.

 

[Dobba]

Brexit has actually played relatively little part in the campaign though.

Labour has offered a tonne of nostalgic renationalisation, albeit with the ongoing costs left out, and 25bn/yr in additional borrowing (still won't reverse Osborne's benefits policies tho). It sounds nice do voters, but falls down on the maths. They've got a pass, however, because Theresa May led off with a money grab on the elderly and scant little in new investment. To say nothing of the authoritarian stuff.

It's been a PR fiasco for much of the time as well.

What planet do you live on and do they do direct flights from Earth?

 

[Raees]

Thing is @Sassy Colin you're treating an economy as how you would manage the economy of a household.. it is much more complex than that.

 

[rcoobc]

Tories sort out the mess? Is that why public services are collapsing and the deficit has gone up?

The deficit has come down greatly. We could have broken even this parliament without Brexit. Debt to GDP has gone up severely however.

 

[Raees]

Thing is @Sassy Colin you're treating an economy as how you would manage the economy of a household.. it is much more complex than that.

 

[Adzzz]

The deficit has come down greatly. We could have broken even this parliament without Brexit. Debt to GDP has gone up severely however.

Yeah, I misspoke.

 

[SteveJ]

Don't forget, Damen und Herren: forced poverty makes you 'aspirational' and 'independent'.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Some pretty odd results throughout that YouGov model. I know they're saying it got the EUref right (though they still managed to put out a 10,000 sample poll on the night showing a remain +4 win, but anyway), but forecasting a constituency-by-constituency election with 4+ parties standing in each is different to a binary choice across the country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/31/yougov-poll-predicting-hung-parliament-brave

Interesting article.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Wow, so May's really not going to show? I'm definitely watching now.

 

[rcoobc]

The only way to reduce the overall debt is to spend less than you earn, i.e. balance the budget. When/if they can balance the budget, then you are in position to increase spending.

Government debt is 90% GDP

Would you rather have 0 deficit, and 0% growth,
Or 5% deficit and 5% growth.
Or 10% deficit and 10% growth.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What planet do you live on and do they do direct flights from Earth?

On the supposedly 'zero cost' renationalisation of three major industries, they've been given a very easy time indeed. Similarly with the extent of their borrowing proposals.

 

[Sweet Square]

Thing is @Sassy Colin you're treating an economy as how you would manage the economy of a household.. it is much more complex than that.

The millionth time I've posted this video on here

Spoiler

 

[11101]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

https://qz.com/69302/austerity-is-bad-economic-policy/

the trouble with austerity is that it is contractionary—that is, austerity tends to slow down the economy. In bad economic times, people can’t get jobs because businesses aren’t hiring, and businesses are not hiring because people aren’t spending. So in bad economic times, it adds insult to injury when the government does less spending, less hiring, and taxes more money out of the pockets of those who would otherwise spend.

The contractionary effect of austerity creates a dilemma, not only because a slower economy is painful for the people involved—that is, just about everyone—but also because tax revenue falls when the economy slows down, making it harder to rein in government debt.

The key is where you spend the money. There is currently far too much wasted on inefficiency and red tape, a lot of it produced under Blair's government. Strip that away under austerity and invest in real growth areas like infrastucture and public services. May doesn't seem to get the latter and Corbyn definitely doesn't get the former.

 

[Kentonio]

The key is where you spend the money. There is currently far too much wasted on inefficiency and red tape, a lot of it produced under Blair's government. Strip that away under austerity and invest in real growth areas like infrastucture and public services. May doesn't seem to get the latter and Corbyn definitely doesn't get the former.

Ah yes, the phantom 'waste' like the thousands of police who we no longer have, and the 8 hours a night doctors and nurses used to waste sleeping when they could have been working.

 

[Raees]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/14006/economics/can-labour-be-blamed-for-the-economic-crisis/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...-New-Labour-spend-too-much-in-government.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

 

[Ubik]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/31/yougov-poll-predicting-hung-parliament-brave

Interesting article.

It's definitely brave, I don't think they've emphasised the uncertainty enough (the Times didn't, certainly) but they should be seeing some of these results and querying it. Canterbury is down as a tossup, I'm guessing based on the student population, but having lived there myself I'm pretty sure it's not going to be anywhere close to two points.

 

[Adzzz]

Ah yes, the phantom 'waste' like the thousands of police who we no longer have, and the 8 hours a night doctors and nurses used to waste sleeping when they could have been working.

Not to mention the schools where teachers have to bring in pens and paper because the budgets have been cut, then eviscerated.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Watching that May laughing video with the sound off, the range of sweeping emotions is mad. It starts with utter fear, segues into her trying to pull off bravado and ends in utter fear again.

 

[villain]

ELI5 what red tape means please?

 

[Smores]

Ah so we do have Daily Mail readers on the caf.....

 

[11101]

Ah yes, the phantom 'waste' like the thousands of police who we no longer have, and the 8 hours a night doctors and nurses used to waste sleeping when they could have been working.

The best I can find posting on my cellphone. There is a graph on Bloomberg somewhere that shows a huge jump in 1997/8 too.

 

[Dobba]

 

[Adzzz]

ELI5 what red tape means please?

over the top rules for reasons unknown

 

[Sassy Colin]

Thing is @Sassy Colin you're treating an economy as how you would manage the economy of a household.. it is much more complex than that.

Not according to this

Government debt is 90% GDP

Would you rather have 0 deficit, and 0% growth,
Or 5% deficit and 5% growth.
Or 10% deficit and 10% growth.

If only life was so simple

 

[villain]

The best I can find posting on my cellphone. There is a graph on Bloomberg somewhere that shows a huge jump in 1997/8 too.

Did you show this graph to prove his point about public sector employees?

over the top rules for reasons unknown

Interesting, I guess when it's as broad as that it can be applied to anything.

Sounds like political jargon just for the sake of it to me.

 

[rcoobc]

This would be a good maths question:

Government debt starts at 90% of GDP.

Each year, the government takes in 35% of GDP as tax receipts.

You are given the choice each year of spending 37% GDP, 35% GDP or 33% GDP as government spending. Any deficit will be added to the total debt, and any surplus will reduce it.

When spending 37% GDP, the total GDP of the state will grow by 4%. When spending 35% of GDP, the total GDP will grow by 2%. When spending 33% GDP, the total GDP of the state will shrink by 1%.

There is no interest on the debt.

You are tasked with bringing the debt down to 75% of GDP within 15 years. What is the optimum strategy for doing so?

 

[Adzzz]

If only economic models worked out exactly as planned.

If only life was so simple

Lot's of if only's and very little in the way of solid answers, the vagaries you posit lead to this:

if there was two ways of doing something, both of which can result in the same economic situation, one of which is defined by spending on public services, etc. and the other wasn't, leading to poverty and misery, which would you pick?

 

[Adzzz]

Interesting, I guess when it's as broad as that it can be applied to anything.

Sounds like political jargon just for the sake of it to me.

That's part of the problem, it is pops up everywhere in unexpected places, the work-place, schools, government, virtually all walks of life. Jargon, is a good way of thinking about it, as is the word bollocks.

 

[Kentonio]

The best I can find posting on my cellphone. There is a graph on Bloomberg somewhere that shows a huge jump in 1997/8 too.

We're a country with a constantly rising population and needs to be met. That rise in public sector employment before 2008 also went hand in hand with a comparable rise in GDP. How exactly does this equal 'waste' to you?

 

[Sassy Colin]

Lot's of if only's and very little in the way of solid answers, the vagaries you posit lead to this:

if there was two ways of doing something, both of which can result in the same economic situation, one of which is defined by spending on public services, etc. and the other wasn't, leading to poverty and misery, which would you pick?

But the last Labour government spent money like it was going out of fashion and look where we ended up. They presided over one of the most sustained periods of economic growth ever seen, but failed to put anything aside for a rainy day (no more boom and bust remember, or rather the biggest bust seen since the 30s), the Tories put the ground work in but Labour reaped the benefits. We could not have carried on spending at that rate. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

 

[saivet]

Corbyn supports Arsenal and doesn't think we'll make top 4 next season. Lost my vote.

 

[matherto]

The deficit was bound to go down after the recession hit, ostensibly we're recovering, even if we're not really.

 

[Adzzz]

But the last Labour government spent money like it was going out of fashion and look where we ended up. They presided over one of the most sustained periods of economic growth ever seen, but failed to put anything aside for a rainy day (no more boom and bust remember, or rather the biggest bust seen since the 30s), the Tories put the ground work in but Labour reaped the benefits. We could not have carried on spending at that rate. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If you look at the link posted on the other page, you'll see the GDP% growth chart that sadly is embedded on the telegraph page at the bottom, where you'll see that the pattern was fairly uniform apart from some boons under New Labour, before the crash, which labour didn't cause. So the Tories didn't really lay the ground-work for anything, if Black Wednesday had happened under John Smith I suspect we'd still be hearing about it today. The point is, Austerity was brought in and has brought public services to their knees, wage growth is over - workers rights are all but done, and you're arguing that Labour is bad with money, when the reality is so are the Tories, the tories just play the cnut and punish the poor. There is no justification for it, that's my point.

 

[Damien]

True but May hasn't show up at all and even her "public appearances" are closed off to anyone other than those who will cheer her. For someone whose entire public image is based around how strong she is, she isn't half frightened of being taken to account. Then again, she always found a way to shirk responsibility when she was, by all accounts, a useless home secretary.

Yeah. I remember when she went to that industrial estate and the journalists were shut in a room, away from the PM, only being let out to ask a small number of questions which they couldn't record.

Or the time she spoke to a room of people in a building in Leeds. Though the people in the building weren't local or people who worked in the office, they were people invited by the party and after the workers had left for the day.

Or the time she listed a rally in Scotland as a children's birthday party in a village hall so locals wouldn't be aware of it.

Or the time she visited a factory in Derbyshire, only, for some reason there weren't any factory workers there and she only answered a few questions from journalists.

When asked today why she wasn't debating, she came up with four different excuses, not being able to stick to one. These are:

First of all, I’ve been taking Jeremy Corbyn on directly, week in, week out, in prime minister’s questions.

Where these basically consist of her making a joke out of the questions he asks to guffaws and backslapping from her back benches.

Yes, public scrutiny is for an election campaign. That’s why taking questions from members of the public who are going to be voting on 8 June is so important. That’s what I enjoy doing during the campaigns. And I think that’s really important. That is why I’ve been doing that up and down the country.

Yeah, so important that she's hiding most of the time.

I think debates where the politicians are squabbling among themselves doesn’t do anything for the process of electioneering. I think it’s about getting out and about, meeting voters and hearing directly from voters.

See above.

I’m interested in the fact that Jeremy Corbyn seems to be paying far more attention to how many appearances on telly he’s doing. I think he ought to be paying a little more attention to thinking about Brexit negotiations. That’s what I’m doing, to make sure we get the best possible deal for Britain.

There it is. Putting focus back on Brexit again.

Her slogan for a large part of the campaign was strong and stable. So strong, she's hiding behind the media letting them argue for her. So strong, she shirks interactions with the public. So strong, she resorts to nasty jibes about the opposition and members of their family rather than speak about her manifesto and the positives in it and reasons to vote for her.

As for stability, a PS4 firmware update is more stable.

 

[Damien]

Will be very, very interesting to see the shift if Corbyn performs well tonight. If Rudd for whatever reason struggles, and comes off worse, May's avoiding the debate will make her seem very, very weak and incapable by comparison.

I can't help but think tonight won't go well for Corbyn. Him being there and May sending a lackey can only lead to labour losing a couple of points to the minor parties.

I do think this was the right move. However, no matter how he does at the debate he'll be panned by the papers with no mention of May avoiding it.