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

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%

  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%

  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%
  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
Badunk said:
No it didn't. If you actually believe in capitalism, you have to let failing businesses, even banks, die when they lose billions of pounds. Since the banks were bailed out, governments aren't in a position to do it again. And have the banks learned their lesson? No they haven't.
Click to expand...

Do you know why car finance is so cheap right now? Dealers sell cars on credit, they sell these loans on, they are chopped up and packaged up, relying on everyone still making payments and the value of underlying asset not crashing. Sound very familiar
 
I find the drugs bit more than a tad tasteless but the rest is just a not overly funny attempt at humour.

Plenty of people on my Facebook feed making the rather tired 'Tories vote tomorrow' joke.
 
Mozza said:
Do you know why car finance is so cheap right now? Dealers sell cars on credit, they sell these loans on, they are chopped up and packaged up, relying on everyone still making payments and the value of underlying asset not crashing. Sound very familiar
Click to expand...
Preach!
 
Mozza said:
Do you know why car finance is so cheap right now? Dealers sell cars on credit, they sell these loans on, they are chopped up and packaged up, relying on everyone still making payments and the value of underlying asset not crashing. Sound very familiar
Click to expand...
Are you implying that car loans are about to bring the global financial system to its knees?
 
QuackQuack said:
Why would they be turned away? If they registered to vote before the deadline surely they would be able to vote.
Click to expand...
Apparently tellers may be using out of date register. Here's a facebook post by the Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour Party

https://www.facebook.com/NewcastleLabour/posts/1888008374806789

Important notice for anyone who has been turned away from a polling station:
The tellers may be using an out of date register. If you believe you have registered please go back to your polling station and insist the tellers ring the council to confirm you are registered.
Click to expand...
 
Scrolled through my facebook feed and I've seen nothing deratory towards Tory voters to my surprise. May well change come tomorrow, but all positive vibes..
 
Just two and bit hours left to numb myself enough to cope with the exit poll. I'm opening the Morgan's.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I find the drugs bit more than a tad tasteless but the rest is just a not overly funny attempt at humour.

Plenty of people on my Facebook feed making the rather tired 'Tories vote tomorrow' joke.
Click to expand...

Context is different though. It's in a (amazingly) non-satirical paper, in the middle of a very serious article about a related topic.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Your assertion was that the deficit had increased over the past seven years.




I remember the debates quite well, and on no single occasion did the official Leave campaign promote what you advocate. I think you know full well that such a course as you suggest is designed to suit your personal agenda, more than it represents the spirit of the result.
Click to expand...

You've worded this in such a weird way that I think you know that it is at best a tenuous point and at worst an outright lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...arage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

The long and the short of it is plenty of voters went to the polls believing that this was on the table and that was an opinion that at best was not discouraged by the Leave campaign and, at times, was promoted by very key figures within that campaign.

If Vote Leave (or Leave.EU) had been honest about this point then Leave would have lost the referendum. Again, I think this is another example of you extrapolating your knowledge of the EU and your views onto an electorate as a whole which obviously can not be of one mind.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Your assertion was that the deficit had increased over the past seven years.



I remember the debates quite well, and on no single occasion did the official Leave campaign promote what you advocate. I think you know full well that such a course as you suggest is designed to suit your personal agenda, more than it represents the spirit of the result.
Click to expand...
No I said that it was up over 7 years( I meant cumulatively). My point was that Tories have a higher deficit than Labour statistically they do because while they cut services they give large tax cuts to the rich. Even their good year(this year is worse than Labours normal year on that graphic.

Feck spirit. They guaranteed that we would get the £350m a week for the NHS and admitted they lied the day of the results. What ever their spirit was goes out the window when they admit that they lied.
 
Voted, the polling station was pretty quiet but as one person left another would come in which was good.

Went with my party, not the person and voted for Labour (even though they haven't got much chance of regaining control in my constituency).
 
Good to see that I'm not the only one who fecked up the Tory "majority" question.
 
Screw predictions about the result, let's get to the real business and predict turnout.

I'm going to say 68%.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
How about a referendum on the terms after the Brexit negotiation is complete then? Just to make sure the British people are getting what they actually wanted.
Click to expand...

Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Voted, the polling station was pretty quiet but as one person left another would come in which was good.

Went with my party, not the person and voted for Labour (even though they haven't got much chance of regaining control in my constituency).
Click to expand...
If Labour can't take your constituency, wouldn't a tactical vote for the nearest party to the Tories have made more sense? Too late now, mind!
 
Mozza said:
You think North Sea oil, robotics and the desktop computer had no effect on Thatchers economy?
Click to expand...
united-kingdom-gdp@3x.png

79-90 Thatcher period, a relatively modest GDP growth.

97-2010 Blair. Peak in 2007 for GDP. Internet petty much drove all the growth in the 01-07 peak.

Here is the government spend chart:
government-spending-real-1967-2012.png

united-kingdom-government-spending@3x.png


So as you'll see Labour took the opportunity to spend the boom, rather than control it. They significantly increased the rate of government spend. The got carried away. They tried to keep their mantle and it's a major contributor to the level of cuts required now.

This is why voting is so damn complicated, because unless you have a background in economics and finance your chances of understanding the correlation and trends of politics is incredibly difficult.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Are you implying that car loans are about to bring the global financial system to its knees?
Click to expand...

No. Not large enough but it could play hell with the motor industry. Diesel cars are loosing value quicker than modeled for due to expected tax changes. That part of loans could crash the lot
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).
Click to expand...
If the public favour 'no deal', they should be allowed to say 'no deal'. Also, you wouldn't have to announce the referendum until after the negotiations are completed, or at least the key terms.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
And yet still a ton of cuts, imagine how bad it could be? Maybe you are looking at the wrong party to blame
Click to expand...
Tories are as much to blame for the state of the economy pre 2008 as Labour are

PIFYDaR.png


-5% GDP as a Deficit
Debt over 45% GDP

Labour in 2007? No, the Conservatives in 1995.

There was nothing particularly terrible about the state of the economy in 2007/08 before the crash. Debt was at 40% GDP, which was less than much of the 80's with the tories in power. The Deficit was around 4% GDP, again, better than the Tories were consistently posting.

Then came the crash. If that crash had happened under the Tories watch, we'd have been just as screwed.

Don't believe me, google it, there are endless discussions on the subject. Or read this

As more and more people discover the truth on social media, the deficit mythpromoters know the game is up. They clearly underestimated people’s ability to discover the truth and their enthusiasm to share it with others.

Below are the four overspending claims. The eight facts come from the Treasury, ONS, OBR, IMF, OECD and IFS. The claims are:

Claim One
When will you apologise for running a structural deficit even before the recession the recession?

Fact one, apologise for what for being a deficit denier? Structural deficits, budget deficits and government borrowings PSNB have occurred in nearly every year since records began. The fact is very rarely have we had surpluses - OBR page 104. According to this claim, we have been overspending for two centuries - nonsense. Also read Claim one.

Fact two, after ten years of growth in 2007 Labour had a structural deficit of virtually zero at - 0.4% and also budget deficit of - 0.4% OBR page 104.

Fact three, the IMF say the last time we Conservative were in office during 1979 - 1997 we had 18 structural deficits in 18 years. Therefore, we Conservatives also ran structural deficits before all three recessions that occurred during 1979 - 1997. Moreover, it is clear we never fixed the roof whilst the sun was shining.

Claim Two
When are Labour going to apologise for overspending?

No self-respecting economist would simply cherry pick a few years increase in the deficit during 1997 - 2007 and then have the Chutzpah to declare there was overspending in all of that period. This type of selective analysis is not only amateurish but it is also transparently biased and misleading. As in any other field or subject, the entire alleged period would have to be sampled before any such claim could be validated. The facts below are derived from the Treasury and ONS data collected by the OBR page 104.

Fact four, in the alleged period of Labour overspending 1997 to 2007 the structural deficit was cut by 82%, the budget deficit by 85%, PSNB borrowings by 32% and Debt by 16% - read claim two.

Compare this to our mythical outstanding financial record during 1979 and 1997 and you discover we Conservatives are in no position to lecture Labour.

Hence, in 1979, we inherited a Budget deficit of - 1.8% and by 1997 we actually increased it to - 2.7%, which is a huge increase of +50%. Likewise, we also increased the structural deficit by +29% but cut borrowings PSNB by only 17% and we cut the debt by a mere 3%.

Fact five, 1997 to 2007 Labour’s average budget deficits was virtually zero at - 0.1% per annum, the structural deficits was also - 0.1% whilst PSNB borrowings was mere 0.9%.

In contrast, our average budget deficit per annum was much higher at -1.9%, the structural deficit was a mere - 0.9% and borrowings PSNB was much higher at 3.3%.

Claim Three
If Labour were not running a structural deficit in the run up the recession, we would not have inherited the mess they created.

A structural deficit of virtually zero of - 0.4% or a budget deficit of also - 0.4% in 2007 was not the cause of a high budget deficit of - 7.6% and PSNB borrowings of 11.1% in 2010 - OBR March 2011 Page 141

Fact six, the IMF concluded the UK deficit increased because of a large fall in income GDP and output caused by the global banking crisis.

Fact seven, a recession causes the deficit to increase because as income falls; tax revenues also decline; consequentially as businesses cuts back the unemployment rate rises, which causes government expenditure to increase because more people start to claim unemployment benefits and as result the budget deficit rises. This automatic chain reaction occurs in every recession and it occurred in 2008 triggered off by the global banking crisis - its basic economics.

Finally, it also increased because of the bank bailouts and the fiscal stimulus - read claim three.

Claim Four
Labour was running the biggest structural deficit in the G7 before the recession.

Hence, Andrew Marr asked Ed Balls:

“It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit of any of the G7 countries?” - Marr 30th January 2011.

Fact eight, it was misleading to say: “It is true to say, is not” because at that time (January 2011) the IMF and OECD said the UK did not have the biggest structural deficit. The IMF stated that the 2006 structural deficit was the third highest at - 2.6% and in 2007 it was the second biggest at - 3%. The OECD concluded the same thing as confirmed by the IFS who stated:

“On the OECD measure, the UK had a structural deficit of 3.5% of national income in 2007. This was the third highest among the G7 countries and the sixth highest among the 26 OECD countries” - IFS page 10 paragraph 3.

The 2006 and 2007 structural deficits was later changed to the biggest only when the IMF published its October 2012 data because the ONS then decided to double its figures - read claim four

So as not to mislead, it is very important to point out there are two structural deficits. The first is the actual measure based on the budget deficit, which George Osborne plans to eliminate, and was virtually zero at - 0.4% in 2007. The second is the OECD and IMF measure based essentially on the ONS PSNB borrowings figure.

To conclude, the claims simply fail to stand up to the facts and even if a few or all of the Labour MP’s admit to overspending; it does not change or nullify the facts from the Treasury, ONS, OBR, IMF, OECD and IFS.

The overspending myth is over because the facts are not going away. As wise man once said:

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”

― Aldous Huxley

Hence, if like me you believe people are entitled to the truth; share this on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, WhatsApp and email; so the truth can be discovered by all; now and in the future. As the Bard said:

“Tell the truth and shame the devil”

― William Shakespeare
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/finally-the-overspending-_b_7591088.html
 
Turnout would have to be about 70% for a hung parliament, right?

Taking current polling data into account, I mean.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Turnout would have to be about 70% for a hung parliament, right?

Taking current polling data into account, I mean.
Click to expand...
Depends who turns out! The assumption during the EU referendum that high turnout was good for Remain, but it turned out (BAHAHA) that it was Brexity non-voters turning out more than younglings. 2015 was 66%, EUref was 72%.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Internet petty much drove all the growth in the 01-07 peak.
Click to expand...
Have you got any evidence for this claim? As far as I'm aware, most economists believe the integration of Eastern Europe, the development of the global supply chain, the opening up of China/ access to cheap labour, and migration to be the key factors. As well as a credit binge, obviously.

The dotcom bubble was just a blip in there somewhere.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Sounds awfully like one of those do-over EU referenda, so i think i'll pass. Additionally, such a vote could well incentivise Brussels to offer us bad terms; the assumption being that the public would favour such over a No Deal. I want the best that can be achieved, even if that requires a modest financial contribution over the long term (although not 100bn to pass go :)).
Click to expand...

This is another weird point that Brexit has dragged up.

I am under the impression that 'do-overs', as you put it, are the cornerstone of our democracy. Every five years, at least, we go to the polls and have the chance to say 'well we buggered that one up, I'm picking something different'. Why should Brexit be such a special case that the public are denied what is a democratic right to voice their opinion? If Brexit isn't such a special case then why do we bother to have elections at all anymore? After all, whoever is elected today will be elected 'by the will of the people' so what right do the people have to kick them out again? And why is the line in the sand we drew on Jun 23rd 2016 such an unshakeable and immovable solid point? And why did chief 'ISH DA WILL OF DA PEOPLE' disciple Nigel Farage say on live TV on the night that 52/48 was not the end of the fight?

It seems to me that the primary opposition to a second referendum is based in a fear that the public might have realised they had been duped by then.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
And yet still a ton of cuts, imagine how bad it could be? Maybe you are looking at the wrong party to blame
Click to expand...
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?
 
rcoobc said:
The fact is, the Tories have had 7 years to get us back into black and they have failed. They've failed so badly, they've given up in fact.

Now they want to wreck the economy again with Brexit.

We are living on a bubble caused by 8 years of Quantitative Easing. The Tories cut services at one end, whilst the Bank of England pumped money into banks at the other.

And when the bubble pops, we'll be sitting on 90% Government debt.

The economy is ridiculously lopsided, with an over reliance on banking and little manufacturing to speak of. We have few "crown jewel" companies outside of banking and insurance to provide growth.

Why should anyone trust the economy with the Conservatives?
Click to expand...

And that will be Labour's fault when it happens, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.