General Election 2015

[Gunstar 513]

UKIP in the lead, which surprises me. The facts don't lie

Whenever I ask "who u voting for?" to people in my sixth form, all of them are like "UKIP!" for a laugh, indeed, the facts don't lie :D

[tweeeep 0]

UKIP in the lead, which surprises me. The facts don't lie

What, the fact that a quarter of the people who answered your poll are morons?

None of the parties are sadly, what I want represented, however, I will find myself probably voting Conservatives, purely because they aren't money-spending, loan-grabbing arseholes who's ties are more representative of the blood from the poor class.

That's a completely ridiculous view to hold, because it completely neglects to recognize the main driver behind government spending: fiscal multiplication. This is basically a term that is used to describe the returns on government funding; for example, a fiscal multiplier of 8 would mean that for every £1 the government spends on something that £8 will be returned to the economy. Different forms of government spending have different fiscal multipliers, with some being vastly more beneficial than others. The Tories basically assumed that all government spending had a fiscal multiplier of about 0.5, and cut everything across the board with little regard to the effects that it would have in the long run. If you do believe that austerity is the answer (which I don't), then you'd probably be best off voting for the lib dems, because their policy

Also, governments borrowing money really isn't an issue, and if you are worried about government debt voting conservative is a terrible idea. Two things worth noting about this:

1) Labour acquired debt as the result of a global financial crash for which they had little responsibility for (apart from not regulating the banks properly, for which the tories would have been far worse). Large scale borrowing happened then for two reasons; to bail out the banks (something I'm not convinced is a good idea, but the tories would have done this too), and to support those who were hardest hit by the recession. The first would have happened under either labour or conservative for sure. I'm not too sure about the latter, but that spending was necessary, because allowing the poorest in society to fall through the gaps due to the irresponsible behaviour of the top percent of the top percent just simply isn't okay.

2) The tories want to cut how much we are borrowing, apparently, and in order to do this they cut spending. That's the narrative they try to push, but in reality they are also pushing tax cuts. If you want to reduce the deficit, phasing tax rises along side spending cuts is the method to do it, not giving tax breaks to the richest. The only real hike in tax has been in the form of VAT, a regressive form of tax that hits the poorest the hardest. It becomes very apparent from this that cutting the deficit isn't the issue that the tories are really trying to deal with, but rather an ideological attack on the state.

Tories only win on the metric that government spending is inherently bad - and there is very little common sense that actually backs up this metric. Government spending has fiscal multiplier effects that ripple throughout the economy and, if governments focus their spending on fiscally beneficial things, can prove very beneficial. I actually believe that after a recession, spending more money on fiscally beneficial things is the best way to do things. This isn't much of a problem, seeing as how government loans are also not problematic - they are low interest, and not the same as private loans.

So yeah, even if you think austerity is the answer (it isn't), then the liberal democrats are probably a better vote, since all the tories stand for are tax cuts for the rich (which makes sense, because that's where all of their funding comes from).

I just wish there was, you know, a fascist party that actually stood for its actual ideals, not these "hitler did nothing wrong", "holocaust never happened" racist dick-fags, who believe nationalism is beating down everybody who isn't white and doesn't have a british accent.

How do you define fascism then? What should a fascist party stand for, if it isn't racist and authoritarian ideals? And that is pretty much what nationalism is, by definition: 'the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination'. I think you're thinking of patriotism, not nationalism.

Conservative in the past have proven that they know how to manage our banks well

.

That's a load of bollocks. Labour didn't regulate the banks very well, but here's a quote from George Osbourne before the financial crash:

"Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making….With its vision of a highly- educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity, Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the answers to the challenges of the new global economy.”

Just remember that Ireland ended up as an absolute fucking mess, and they required bailing out.

and I believe that they operate in the best way for ensuring high levels of economic development in this current capitalist 'market'. With the way the modern world works, relying on debt to ensure for faster development rates, the Conservative party are orientated on emphasising aspects of that without taking risks, (e.g deficit spending)

No, also wrong. The tories support risk taking of the financial sector through deregulation (and quantitative easing to an extent), which is arguably a bad thing because private entities act only in their own interests. Government spending isn't "risky" behaviour, banks lending out loans to people the shouldn't under a deregulated market is "risky" (remember that financial crisis in 2008?).

making Britain's economy sustainable and

lol

ensuring that the country keeps its top heavy based economy (Wealth distributed heavily towards a smaller amount of people) as it works.

This is the most ill formed view points I have ever read. Actually supporting wealth inequality is a terrible idea. Whilst I don't have the time to explain why people living in poverty whilst the rich get richer is bad, I will alert you to something called the "marginal propensity to consume". This is an idea used by economists that basically says that the poorer spend a larger proportion of their wealth than the rich, who hoard a large proportion of their wealth, meaning that economies will be much more active when high levels of wealth inequality are not present.

[Dave 2]

I'm afraid to comment because I'll probably get torn into.

[Happyface 0]

ill formed view points

Cool thanks for the opinion can't say I agree with you, but nice to know. All I'll say is that the idea of supporting top heavy economies has been misinterpreted, I wasn't implying I like the idea, but instead that for a capitalist country to function, it will always end up top heavy, it's how life works, some people will have lots more that others and without serious governmental action you can't stop that. What I was trying to get at is that it is unfair for the rich to have their wealth removed as it 'imbalances world trade' (Super tax is fine though, just not directly removing there wealth once they have it). I don't know where I stand on how beneficial it is to the world, but by having it, it makes more competition in the economic areas of life, making life a lot more interesting. It's definitely not fair to have poverty either but I believe you can have a world in which it is still top heavy and have much less poverty, but that matters how you define poverty. If you mean people who 'poor' then it will always exist but if you mean that poverty will be gone once everyone has access to clean water, housing ...... I think that is definitely possible. Look at Britain for example, a country with a top heavy economy, but are there really any people (excluding the homeless) who live without education, healthcare and access to clean water.

[tweeeep 0]

-Wealth inequality doesn't cause competition, it reduces it. When people are unable to easily join or leave a market due to lack of wealth, you have less competition, very simply.

-There are people who live in poverty in the UK. Over 900000 people in this country use food banks. Getting people to have access to water and housing is a very basic thing that needs to be done, and I agree that is a reasonable metric on which to judge whether or not we have eliminated poverty or not. These things require government spending, and the tories are cutting welfare for many people who need it. People have committed suicide with mere pounds to their name; people with mental health problems are being failed by the system; many disabled people are being told to work in jobs they can't do. If you want to eliminate poverty, this will require some form of wealth redistribution.

-A capitalist society will always have some level of wealth inequality, and I highly doubt anyone will try to challenge you on that point. Hell, most left wingers are fine with a certain level of wealth inequality. The level to which this inequality occurs is what is being debated. However, advocating "top heavy" economies in the sense that we do nothing to challenge a widening wealth gap is bad, as I outlined in my previous post explaining that people with less money spend a higher percentage of their wealth, resulting in more economic activity.

Wealth inequality exists on a level that people don't quite realise - I'm not advocating communism, or for completely equal distribution of wealth, but it is bad at the moment, and getting worse:

[Stiqqy 592]

Wtf UKIP majority? Who is voting on this poll, the over-sixties league?

trolls mostly.

[Wist 376]

making Britain's economy sustainable and

lol

Actually, Britain's economy is probably one of the most sustainable in Europe, so this isn't as moot a point as you unfairly dismiss it as. Britain has a reasonably well-educated workforce, pretty decent investment in most modern technologies including IT and carbon-based industry, and a generally young workforce. By comparison, Germany are getting old, Japan are getting old, and if China's export slowdown continues, China will get old before they get rich, which will be hilarious to watch.

A better response would be does this have anything to do with the Tory government? No, of course it doesn't. Ironically, the seeds of all of this (at least relating to Britain) were sown during the era of New Labour, who sadly have retreated like the American center-l̶e̶f̶t̶ right into a small box and surrendered to either bigots or madmen who insist on the return to 1960s Britain.

[tweeeep 0]

I guess it depends on your definition of sustainability. We can't continue going on like we are with regards to our economy which heavily relies on fossil fuel consumption, which is where my comment came from. You are right in the fact that our economy is otherwise sustainable, with no thanks to the tories.

Also, do you consider New Labour to be center left? I'm pretty sure I'd put them as center right tbh, seeing as they oversaw the mess that was the privatisation of the rail system, deregulation of the financial system, and not properly tackling tax loopholes. I'm really not a massive fan of them.

[VENGA BUS 2,027]

mah boys tweep and wist on point.

Also I'd definitely call New Labour centre-right.

Without drifting into ad hom, it seems a lot of the Tory arguments here are founded in absolute economic illiteracy. The irony is that the Tories use this illiteracy to gain votes, and by perpetuating false narratives e.g treating the government budget like a household one

As has been said, a top heavy economy is -awful-. It results in cronyism, as oligarchs wield greater power over government, which results in less competition and a poorer end result for the consumer. I'm in Australia at the mo, and whilst it's not booming as it was, the high minimum wage - like $16 p/h, or about £9-£10, ignoring purchasing parity (brought in to address wealth inequality) - has been great. Demand is high as consumers have money to spend, and growth has been strong, as people actually have money to spend.

To put this in perspective, analysts are worried that Australia is no longer as great an investment, as some China issues linger over Australia (which require addressing). Australia's growth has stagnated under a Liberal (read: Tory, in Australia) government to 2.5% p/a. To put this in perspective, the British Tories are banging on about how amazing they've been, by achieving a growth rate of 2.6%. Previously growth was around 6%. 2.6% is shit. If my dick grew by 2.6%, the difference would be marginal - only about half an inch xDDDDDDddDD1!!!! :glad2:

[Shadow 0]

there's exactly 6 parties you can vote for, just roll a die.

[Wist 376]

Sorry, I did mean center-right, I'll chalk that up to writing at midnight

[Scrobbesbyrig 422]

Some dumbass liberal fuck-tard shit

[Jak 1,381]

zieg heil

I will of course be voting and I will likely be spoiling my vote at this election. No current political party with enough clout represents my views enough and after the fucking travesty that has been the Liberal Democrats following the previous election I will not risk my vote on a party I slightly err towards again. I have been thinking about voting Green but since my current constituency has been a labour stronghold since 1945 and shows absolutely no movement on that I believe spoiling most adequately represents my view.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Guest

[Scrobbesbyrig 422]

Okay, I'll be honest, that got me.

[ShadowFalcon 2]

I'll just put this short:

Honestly, Labour is best of the possible bunch - Green party are nice and have some good policies and are like a much better Labour party imo but; They aren't likely to win, some policies are downright fucking stupid and just natalie bennett in general :glad2:

fuck ukip, tory and the rest

fuck ed milliband

bring back tony benn, bring back labour pre 2000s.