Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

It isn't as if economists agree on what the "healthy" level of deficit is anyway e.g. IMF warning that it isn't being cut fast enough.

I disagree, actually. The economic orthodoxy was certainly against the speed of deficit reduction undertaken by the coalition. The IMF didn't, as far as I'm aware, criticize the UK specifically for reducing the deficit too slowly; that was reserved for Eurozone countries who are in a very different economic situation to countries like the UK.

As an example, from their 2013 report on the UK:

Discretionary measures for this fiscal year amount to £10 billion. These will pose headwinds to growth, as expected, coming on top of domestic deleveraging and a weak external outlook, notably at a time when resources in the economy are underutilized.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Let's all go for 2025 then

Boo. Well, next time. Right, I'm jumping on either the Lammywagon or the Burnhammobile.

 

[cjp]

Didn't Burnham have some involvement in Mid Staffs? Tried to stop the inquiry or something?

 

[Biggzy]

Let's all go for 2025 then

Bah. That's really disappointing to hear as I felt he ticked most of the boxes, but I can understand why he won't run.

Didn't Burnham have some involvement in Mid Staffs? Tried to stop the inquiry or something?

He did which will probably count very much against him, as people within the party may feel he has far too much baggage.

 

[Tak3n]

lol, eastern Europe moaning

all the ammunition Cameron needs

 

[PJV3]

lol, eastern Europe moaning

all the ammunition Cameron needs

Free movement of people is off limits anyway.
Unless it's about benefits or something, can't read it on the phone.

 

[Tak3n]

Free movement of people is off limits anyway.

I agree, he will go for the 'no help' for four years, probably negotiate down to 3

 

[PJV3]

I agree, he will go for the 'no help' for four years, probably negotiate down to 3

It will be interesting if things go badly.

There's meant to be 2 million brits in spain alone or something. I assume they won't be best pleased getting told to go back where you came from.

 

[Tak3n]

It will be interesting if things go badly.

There's meant to be 2 million brits in spain alone or something. I assume they won't be best pleased getting told to go back where you came from.

as much as I want out of Europe, you know and I know that will never happen, the country would turn into a clusterfuck for years, Businesses will claim mass job losses etc etc, the world will end and all that...

if he makes it not so attractive to come here, I think that is about as good as it will get

 

[PJV3]

as much as I want out of Europe, you know and I know that will never happen, the country would turn into a clusterfuck for years, Businesses will claim mass job losses etc etc, the world will end and all that...

if he makes it not so attractive to come here, I think that is about as good as it will get

The vote is going to be tight, the anger is about them coming here at all, because the benefit thing is red herring really. They come here to work, earn a wedge for the family back home.

I wouldn't be amazed if we left.
This is where Cameron needed a bigger majority, a chunk of his party will kick off over a weak deal if he advises staying in.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Dan Jarvis sounds like a pretty top bloke - his reason for not running is that he has three little kids and their mother died in 2010, poor fuckers. A bit more experience will probably put him in good stead, anyway. Plus he's a sexy fucker.

Edit: Also IDS confirmed for DWP. This is the least shuffly reshuffle ever. I sort of wish they'd got someone else in there.

Edit 2:

It's NOT the FT like I thought, it's from the Telegraph. I like Priti Patel.

 

[RedShift]

Do we know where Boris is ending up yet? Or is he being kept in the back until he's done running London?

 

[Ding-Ding]

It's not my fault you don't understand economics.

Dear god please tell me you are joking. If you think borrowing 90bn per year is sustainable then you obviously live in cloud cuckoo land.

Especially as we are coming towards the end of an economic cycle, so the chances of recession is high. At which point our deficit will increase again and you can ball your eyes out screaming how everything is so unfair

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Do we know where Boris is ending up yet? Or is he being kept in the back until he's done running London?

Minister for Have I Got News For You.

 

[PJV3]

Shame about Jarvis but understandable.

Please dont even bother standing Tristram, even if I do occasionally shop at John Lewis.

 

[robb_w7]

Free movement of people is off limits anyway.
Unless it's about benefits or something, can't read it on the phone.

It will be about benefits

Im all for the free movement of people, it starts getting stupid when you can enter a country and claim and use the national services that you haven't paid a penny into

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Dear god please tell me you are joking. If you think borrowing 90bn per year is sustainable then you obviously live in cloud cuckoo land.

Especially as we are coming towards the end of an economic cycle, so the chances of recession is high. At which point our deficit will increase again and you can ball your eyes out screaming how everything is so unfair

Nobody is saying borrowing 90bn per year is sustainable. What they are saying is that when you reduce government spending, you damage growth. This should be fairly intuitive - one man's spending is another man's income. Cut spending, people have less income, people spend less, and you end up in a cyclical downwards spiral. The economy is still fragile - we only emerged from stagnation around 2-3 years ago, and arguably that stagnation was due to the fact the deficit was reduced far too quickly to begin with. We can now reduce that 90bn per year, especially now the economy is picking up, but trying to do it very quickly might make things worse by causing growth to drop back and starting the whole problem all over again.

 

[phisheep]

Do we know where Boris is ending up yet? Or is he being kept in the back until he's done running London?

I guess he'll get something useless like the duchy of Lancaster until he has done with being mayor.

 

[Jezbollah]

Let's all go for 2025 then

Bugger.

(but good on him though)

 

[CharmingCharlie]

Edit: Also IDS confirmed for DWP. This is the least shuffly reshuffle ever. I sort of wish they'd got someone else in there.

To be expected it would have been nice to have perhaps got someone else into the DWP that could look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. At this point I would probably breath a sigh of relief if Satan himself was made Welfare minister over the delusional psychopath that is Iain Duncan Smith. But IDS has a sustained program of welfare destruction to do so obviously Cameron wants him to carry on with it uninterrupted.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Nobody is saying borrowing 90bn per year is sustainable. What they are saying is that when you reduce government spending, you damage growth. This should be fairly intuitive - one man's spending is another man's income. Cut spending, people have less income, people spend less, and you end up in a cyclical downwards spiral. The economy is still fragile - we only emerged from stagnation around 2-3 years ago, and arguably that stagnation was due to the fact the deficit was reduced far too quickly to begin with. We can now reduce that 90bn per year, especially now the economy is picking up, but trying to do it very quickly might make things worse by causing growth to drop back and starting the whole problem all over again.

But I believe Ding Dong's point wasn't about how £90bn is a problem now, but rather how it was a problem to have that sort of deficit when the economy was doing well - because then when it goes back, there's less room to manouvre. (Though it didn't hit £90bn+ til after the recession - it was about £50bn for the several years before).

 

[PJV3]

Bugger.

(but good on him though)

Maybe he could shadow May at the Home office, put her under pressure. It's a heavy duty brief that would give him a higher profile, Or Health.

I'm scratching my head now, I can't think of anyone. The ones we know about don't appeal to me at all.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Go 19th century on their ass and make Mandelson leader.

 

[JonathanEx]

Go 19th century on their ass and make Mandelson leader.

No because I'd like to be able to vote Labour again in the future

 

[PJV3]

No because I'd like to be able to vote Labour again in the future

Lol, everybody loves the prince of darkness.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Go 19th century on their ass and make Mandelson leader.

Hasn't been a hundred years yet, dracula's castle is not scheduled to reappear

It's NOT the FT like I thought, it's from the Telegraph. I like Priti Patel.

Was she the awful woman trying to advocate the death penalty on question time a while back?

 

[Moosichu]

Hasn't been a hundred years yet, dracula's castle is not scheduled to reappear



Was she the awful woman trying to advocate the death penalty on question time a while back?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5aodBfdFTA

Yes. She is.

The good old, 'capital punishment is a deterrent despite all evidence showing the contrary'

 

[PJV3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5aodBfdFTA

Yes. She is.

Oh joy.

The next 5 years are going to he positively inspiring.

 

[Tak3n]

Oh joy.

The next 5 years are going to he positively inspiring.

Next 10, as labour have almost already conceded defeat for the next election already. Would be a huge turnaround and very very unlikely, so brace yourself for 10 years

 

[Moosichu]

Next 10, as labour have almost already conceded defeat for the next election already. Would be a huge turnaround and very very unlikely, so brace yourself for 10 years

I don't get why though? So much can happen in 10 years? Surely the SNP has shown that there is a place for a very competent left-wing party that could take the country by storm.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Next 10, as labour have almost already conceded defeat for the next election already. Would be a huge turnaround and very very unlikely, so brace yourself for 10 years

Tories will do the usual. Implode from the inside.

 

[FlammableD]

I don't get why though? So much can happen in 10 years? Surely the SNP has shown that there is a place for a very competent left-wing party that could take the country by storm.

In left wing Scotland, sure.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't get why though? So much can happen in 10 years? Surely the SNP has shown that there is a place for a very competent left-wing party that could take the country by storm.

Where will they get the votes from, though? In 2010 Scotland was already primarily voting for a left wing party, so the SNP had somewhere to "steal" votes from. Where would a more-left-wing party in England get the votes required from? Even if we work on the assumption that every Green voter would prefer a more left wing Labour (which is an unreasonable expectation), they still wouldn't be close to beating the Tories, let alone getting a majority. A few in this thread have suggested they'll get the votes from people that currently don't vote, but that seems like a pretty huge gamble to me.

 

[PJV3]

Next 10, as labour have almost already conceded defeat for the next election already. Would be a huge turnaround and very very unlikely, so brace yourself for 10 years

Cheers

You never know, sometimes I think too much can be read into things. A lot depends on the Libdem's getting their act together and getting tactical voters back. There's plenty of downsides coming but I'm trying not to get depressed about it.

I avoided using the Macmillan quote but it is apt.

 

[pulsemyne]

Pity about Jarvis but understandable. Makes me respect the guy even more. A good man trying to do what he thinks his family most needs. His wife died of cancer by the way.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Nobody is saying borrowing 90bn per year is sustainable. What they are saying is that when you reduce government spending, you damage growth. This should be fairly intuitive - one man's spending is another man's income. Cut spending, people have less income, people spend less, and you end up in a cyclical downwards spiral. The economy is still fragile - we only emerged from stagnation around 2-3 years ago, and arguably that stagnation was due to the fact the deficit was reduced far too quickly to begin with. We can now reduce that 90bn per year, especially now the economy is picking up, but trying to do it very quickly might make things worse by causing growth to drop back and starting the whole problem all over again.

The stagnation in the early part of the last parliament was largely down to a shift that the private sector was undertaking as it weaned itself of public sector capital spending to instead be self sufficient. That has been done now so there will be litle chance of going through another period of stagnation. Recession is now the main danger as sooner or later the markets will re-evaluate their true worth. Hell, a downturn could be even sooner as we are coming up to crunch time for the ECB

 

[Number45]

I don't get why though? So much can happen in 10 years? Surely the SNP has shown that there is a place for a very competent left-wing party that could take the country by storm.

But hasn't the media spin north of the border been in favour of that, pretty much from the off? Not to mention the surge of nationalism (this isn't meant to come across as a negative, so apologies if it does) that resulted from a pretty damn good independence campaign as well.

Would it be enough south of the border, where they're already facing an uphill struggle when the general perception is that the tories policies are working? Difficult to say for sure, but I'm not convinced.

They seem to me to be in a tough position - short term plan would seem to be less left-leaning right now?

 

[PJV3]

But hasn't the media spin north of the border been in favour of that, pretty much from the off? Not to mention the surge of nationalism (this isn't meant to come across as a negative, so apologies if it does) that resulted from a pretty damn good independence campaign as well.

Would it be enough south of the border, where they're already facing an uphill struggle when the general perception is that the tories policies are working? Difficult to say for sure, but I'm not convinced.

They seem to me to be in a tough position - short term plan would seem to be less left-leaning right now?

The right is covered, Tory UKIP and Libdem's.

Wealth creation doesn't have to be a shift to the right. 10 years of cuts will probably open up some breathing room for a look at inequality.

I don't believe all the Tory voters in this election are like the social Darwinian loons who write angry letters in the Telegraph or Conservative Home.

 

[Number45]

Is the assumption that they'll privately concede defeat for the next election then, and hope they get a consistent message (and obviously that it all goes to shit over the next 5+ years) so that they'll be in a position to challenge as a more left-wing party in the longer term?

I would think a lot of people within the party will be keen for a better showing next time out, but I guess I don't know (I'm new to this, I've thought and read more about politics in the last 10 days than I have in the previous 20+ years as an eligible voter) whether the consensus within the party is that moving their policies one way or the other is the best way to achieve it.

It seems difficult to take too many positives from this result. :/

 

[CharmingCharlie]

I think Labour might stand a chance in 2020 but it will rely on some things outside of their control. Firstly if the Tories really fuck things up and rip themselves apart over this EU referendum and if living standards don't improve markedly in the next five years then the door might be open to Labour again.

The key thing Labour need to do though is get a leader that is ELECTABLE. I personally believe one of the big reasons Labour lost this time around is because people could just not see Ed Milliband as their Prime Minister.

I think this has always been Labours problem is they make absolutely insane choices for leaders. This is why I think Labour will struggle in 2020 even if the Tories fuck things up. Right now none of the candidates being put forward to the leadership contest come across as "Prime Minister" material. The closest they had was Dan Jarvis and he has ruled himself out.

 

[Tak3n]

Is the assumption that they'll privately concede defeat for the next election then, and hope they get a consistent message (and obviously that it all goes to shit over the next 5+ years) so that they'll be in a position to challenge as a more left-wing party in the longer term?

I would think a lot of people within the party will be keen for a better showing next time out, but I guess I don't know (I'm new to this, I've thought and read more about politics in the last 10 days than I have in the previous 20+ years as an eligible voter) whether the consensus within the party is that moving their policies one way or the other is the best way to achieve it.

It seems difficult to take too many positives from this result. :/

They are going for the centre vote again, but they are already arguing, some feel they need to go back to the Blair times, so feel they need to go far away from that....

 

[Tak3n]

I think Labour might stand a chance in 2020 but it will rely on somethings outside of their control. Firstly if the Tories really fuck things up and rip themselves apart over this EU referendum and if living standards don't improve markedly in the next five years then the door might be open to Labour again.

The key thing Labour need to do though is get a leader that is ELECTABLE. I personally believe one of the big reasons Labour lost this time around is because people could just not see Ed Milliband as their Prime Minister.

I think this has always been Labours problem is they make absolutely insane choices for leaders. This is why I think Labour will struggle in 2020 even if the Tories fuck things up. Right now none of the candidates being put forward to the leadership contest come across as "Prime Minister" material. The closest they had was Dan Jarvis and he has ruled himself out.

They should just get David miliband in, by whatever means

 

[PJV3]

They should just get David miliband in, by whatever means

I could only put up with that if he's actually taking on board some of the feelings within the party.

If he goes full Blair then plenty of the base will do an SNP and give up. He can't afford to lose them if he wants to win back ground.

A bit of compromise and some listening.

 

[Deadman]

2020 is already lost. Boris sweeps to power.


They have 10 years to find a good leader.

 

[Omikaru]

I think this has always been Labours problem is they make absolutely insane choices for leaders. This is why I think Labour will struggle in 2020 even if the Tories fuck things up. Right now none of the candidates being put forward to the leadership contest come across as "Prime Minister" material. The closest they had was Dan Jarvis and he has ruled himself out.

I think all parties are guilty of this.

Remember that the LibDems chose Charles Kennedy before they got Clegg. The Tories threw William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith (who didn't even last a term), and Michael Howard at Tony Blair before they wound up with Cameron. The Greens voted in Natalie Bennett who, while very smart, is not the kind of person you want at a debate. Same goes for Leanne Wood, as lovely as she is, I just don't think she's the right leader to grow that party. And don't forget UKIP, who had The Lord Pearson of Rannoch leading the party in-between Nigel Farage's two stints as leader.

Heck, even the SNP, who have had two excellent leaders in a row, had a pretty poor leader in John Swinney at the turn of this century, and the options to replace him were even worse, so bad that Alex Salmond came back for another go (and subsequently led a minority, and then majority, SNP government in Holyrood).

So you know, yeah, Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband were unelectable, as was Gordon Brown, but I think all the parties have served up lemon leaders in recent memory, sometimes in succession.

 

[PJV3]

I think all parties are guilty of this.

Remember that the LibDems chose Charles Kennedy before they got Clegg. The Tories threw William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith (who didn't even last a term), and Michael Howard at Tony Blair before they wound up with Cameron. The Greens voted in Natalie Bennett who, while very smart, is not the kind of person you want at a debate. Same goes for Leanne Wood, as lovely as she is, I just don't think she's the right leader to grow that party. And don't forget UKIP, who had The Lord Pearson of Rannoch leading the party in-between Nigel Farage's two stints as leader.

Heck, even the SNP, who have had two excellent leaders in a row, had a pretty poor leader in John Swinney at the turn of this century, and the options to replace him were even worse, so bad that Alex Salmond came back for another go (and subsequently led a minority, and then majority, SNP government in Holyrood).

So you know, yeah, Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband were unelectable, as was Gordon Brown, but I think all the parties have served up lemon leaders in recent memory, sometimes in succession.

Gordon Brown was incredibly electable at one stage, he bottled an election and shit started hitting the fan.

 

[Jackpot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

George Galloway to challenge Bradford West election result

Former MP George Galloway has announced he has started legal proceedings to challenge his general election defeat.

Mr Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour's Naz Shah, who he has alleged made "false statements" during the campaign to affect the result.

He also claimed "widespread malpractice" involving postal voting meant the result must be "set aside".

A Labour spokesman said the action was "pathetic and without any foundation".

Mr Galloway won the Bradford West seat in a by-election in 2012, but lost to Ms Shah - who secured a majority of more than 11,000 in last week's general election.

ugh, but what else do you expect from such a scumbag?

 

[Audioboxer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844



ugh, but what else do you expect from such a scumbag?

Every time I look up the word cunt in a dictionary it just says George Galloway. Either someone's tampering with dictionaries or that's simply the definition of the word.

 

[Real Hero]

It's a shame really because a some of what Galloway has to say is true and worth listing to, but he's becoming more and more intolerable with age and he's becoming an argument against his views. I had to write him off when I saw he had a Russia Today show, he's clearly an egomaniac.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Every time I look up the word cunt in a dictionary it just says George Galloway. Either someone's tampering with dictionaries or that's simply the definition of the word.

I forget what that word is, when a brand name becomes a synonym of its product - like "hoover" for vacuum cleaner or "biro" for a ball point pen or "tannoy" for public speakers - that's basically Galloway, I think. It's not that "cunt" means Galloway, it's actually the other way around.