UK General Election

Post by **bignote1** » April 15, 2015, 3:23 pm

BobHelm wrote:George Osbourne has only been Chancellor during a coalition Government. Never in one with a Conservative majority.
Many of the deep, deep cuts that George & David would have done with a free hand were impossible because the LD would /could not have supported them.
I don't agree. I think George would have done exactly the same on his own. He would have calculated the benefit to risk ratio and applied sufficient pain to start fixing the problem but not so much pain as to make the Conservatives unelectable at the next election. In that I think he has succeeded. Political parties don't like Hari Kiri.

They have already said that more cuts are to come - but have not been honest enough with the public to say where.
Despite promising, at the same time, to increase NHS spending.
And what has Labour given us in its manifesto? They have said they will get national debt falling and a surplus on the current budget as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Plans have timetables which the Conservatives and Lib Dems have provided. It almost sounds like they are struggling to do the sums and after 4 years and 10 months of their Parliament will say what they have been saying for the last 50 years "Don't worry it will be better next time"

The economy in England is still in the doldrums, zero hours contacts are welcome by the Conservatives so you have a workforce that will have no private pensions & pensioners that are reliant on the state for all things.
At the same time the highest rate of income tax is reduced.
I think the economy is in recovery direction. There is no one more hypocritical than the Labour Party. Labour Councils have been using zero hour contracts across the country for ages. Imo there is nothing wrong with them as long as the contract defines what it delivers for the employee and stamps out any abuses. I understand from my MP, Ian Duncan Smith has been told to sort that out.

If after the election the Conservatives are in a position to form a Government with the loons from UKIP then I dread to think what will become of the place by the next election after...
I wouldn't write that one off.

Post by **BobHelm** » April 15, 2015, 3:39 pm

bignote1 wrote:George Osborne on the other hand has only a short history but has been on form since day 1

From the graph shown by Jimbo above, it is pretty plain to see what that form is.
Rather than turn around borrowing it has continued to increased against GDP - a sure sign that the economy is not doing well, whatever gloss you try & put on it.

In your answers above.
1. Fine, don't agree - but you have no facts to back your claim up.
2. We are talking about the Conservatives, not Labour. they have not said HOW, that is the point.
3. The Conservatives NOT said that they will do anything about zero hours contracts. The have had 5 years to do so if they wanted to.

Post by **can123** » April 15, 2015, 4:13 pm

BobHelm wrote:
bignote1 wrote:George Osborne on the other hand has only a short history but has been on form since day 1
From the graph shown by Jimbo above, it is pretty plain to see what that form is.
Rather than turn around borrowing it has continued to increased against GDP - a sure sign that the economy is not doing well, whatever gloss you try & put on it.

In your answers above.
1. Fine, don't agree - but you have no facts to back your claim up.
2. We are talking about the Conservatives, not Labour. they have not said HOW, that is the point.
3. The Conservatives NOT said that they will do anything about zero hours contracts. The have had 5 years to do so if they wanted to.

You have been blinded by socialism, the principal aim of which is "degradation for all". The lowest common denominator is the desired aim and personal development/ achievement is to be frowned upon.

There is no ideal ratio of spending to GNP and it varies as according to the needs of the country at any given time. Your criticism of zero hours contracts is pathetic. They have always existed and are essential to creation of jobs especially in newly emerging businesses. You cannot bring yourself to praise the present government for huge growth in employment and their efforts to change the lifestyle of the lazy who seek to live life on benefits.

Just look at two great socialists - Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock. One making millions a year and in a job which allegedly aims to bring peace to the Middle East. This despite the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of countless people in that region. The other, a "fiery red" in his youth, now feeding at the trough in Brussels alongside his wife. The Labour party is for chancers.

Post by **BobHelm** » April 15, 2015, 4:35 pm

You are very wide of the mark indeed can123 & are putting thoughts as mine that are far from that.

So Tesco & Wetherspoon are 'emerging businesses' that requires the assistance of zero hours contracts??

I fail to see where wanting a fair employment contract for fair pay & conditions is in any way "degradation for all". So maybe you can explain that to me???

Unemployment rates have fallen identically in the USA & faster in Germany so don't try & say that the falling figures are as a result of the last Government & its' policies.
If that were true then the UK would have fallen faster than countries following very different policies.

Post by **Galee** » April 15, 2015, 4:50 pm

BobHelm wrote:You are very wide of the mark indeed can123 & are putting thoughts as mine that are far from that.

So you have a negative opinion of all political parties. Why bother to comment at all?
Maybe you support The Sh*t Stirring party?

Post by **BobHelm** » April 15, 2015, 4:58 pm

& so your contribution is to criticize me for not believing politicians then Galee.
Do you think that is a more positive contribution than mine??

Post by **JimboPSM** » April 15, 2015, 10:33 pm

Here are a few charts for those who may be interested in what their money is worth to mull over; the GBP/USD exchange rate by Governing UK party and US President since 1981, the Sterling Effective Exchange Rate Index (EERI)since 1980 and the US Dollar Index (DTWEXM) since 1973 – for comparison to the Sterling EERI above.

GBP/USD exchange rate by Governing UK party and US President since 1981
Sterling Effective Exchange Rate Index since 1980
- Note: The source of the Sterling Effective Exchange Rate Index is the Bank of England “Statistical Interactive Database - interest & exchange rates data” section (Jan 2005 = 100).
  - http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/ ... de3951.y=4
To provide some form of comparison to the EERI above, this is a chart of the US Dollar Index (DTWEXM) since 1973 (Note: includes comments reflecting some small part of the contempt and derision that I have for supply side [voodoo] economics and the economic illiterates and mental midgets who continue to promote it).

US Dollar Index (DTWEXM) since 1973

While the contents of the above charts are factual they only paint a partial picture and caution should be exercised in drawing too many conclusions from them without additional relevant context.

While I can’t recall many politicians ever talking about how successful their policies are in terms of what the domestic currency is actually worth in international purchasing power it is one of the major factors that I judge them on and one that I believe expats with UK sourced pensions and other GBP assets should also be judging them on.

Post by **bignote1** » April 15, 2015, 11:47 pm

BobHelm wrote:You are very wide of the mark indeed can123 & are putting thoughts as mine that are far from that.
Could you put some flesh on the bones. What are your thoughts? What you have said means nothing to me.

So Tesco & Wetherspoon are 'emerging businesses' that requires the assistance of zero hours contracts??
Where did can say that

I fail to see where wanting a fair employment contract for fair pay & conditions is in any way "degradation for all". So maybe you can explain that to me???
Where did can say that? Perhaps you can explain that to me..

Unemployment rates have fallen identically in the USA & faster in Germany so don't try & say that the falling figures are as a result of the last Government & its' policies.
If that were true then the UK would have fallen faster than countries following very different policies.
This statement really does bring your pathetic argument to a conclusion if you think UK-5.7% unemployment, Germany 4.8%, USA-5.5% are significantly different you are grasping at straws and answering questions which weren't even asked but there are always some people who refuse to let the truth stand in the way of a good argument.
Lots more to say in answer to your last post to me when I get to UT on Friday

Post by **bignote1** » April 17, 2015, 5:57 pm

BobHelm wrote:
bignote1 wrote:George Osborne on the other hand has only a short history but has been on form since day 1
From the graph shown by Jimbo above, it is pretty plain to see what that form is.
Rather than turn around borrowing it has continued to increased against GDP - a sure sign that the economy is not doing well, whatever gloss you try & put on it.

I think you have a nerve telling a poster he doesn't have a grasp of economics and politics Your shortfall is economics and political history.
Of course borrowing hasn't gone down for the following reasons
History......In 2008 UK's GDP was $2857bn. In 2010 after Browns reign it was $2208bn. Over 2 years it had fallen by a massive $649bn. The Labour Government had completely trashed the economy.
Economics......What happens when an economy gets shrunk to one step above bankruptcy? People lose their jobs. They stop going to pubs and restaurants, buying goods, they get more reluctant to spend money. Then Companies large and small make less money so what do they do? They cut expenses and people and as a result of all these things tied together with our largest trading partner having financial problems of their own (reducing our exports to them) the GDP goes down but the debt doesn't. It remains and still has to be serviced by an economy in tatters.
If you thought the Conservatives were going to wave a magic wand in 2010 after the hand they had been dealt you are naïve. If I put my mind to it I could most probably get drunk in 2 hours but I couldn't get sober in the same time.
As a result of the decimated economy the Conservatives inherited I think it was your comment on a previous post "On the domestic front "I actually think Mr Blair and Mr Brown didn't do a bad job" laughable.
When the Conservatives came to power they adopted an approach I endorsed.
Sometimes you have to grab the bull by the horns and ride it properly.
The economy is not doing well?????
In 2014 the UK economy grew at the fastest rate in 9 years It grew 2.8% in 2014 up from 1.7% in 2013. In 2014 The Bank of England revised upwards its forecast for UK GDP growth to 3.5%
That's not gloss that's fact and I live there and see strong recovery signs all around me.
I think all this demonstrates that the Labour party in Government are not fiscally credible
Try this but be patient it takes a while to load
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... hiefs.html

Post by **bignote1** » April 17, 2015, 6:00 pm

I haven't forgotten the other issues they are on tomorrows agenda

Post by **jackspratt** » April 17, 2015, 7:24 pm

bignote1 wrote: History......In 2008 UK's GDP was $2857bn. In 2010 after Browns reign it was $2208bn. Over 2 years it had fallen by a massive $649bn. The Labour Government had completely trashed the economy.

Wow - I understood that Australia was relatively insulated from the Global Financial Crisis (GFC):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_ ... E2%80%9308

but didn't realise that the UK was equally fortunate.

Post by **GT93** » April 18, 2015, 3:28 am

I think the British corporate sector deserve much of the "credit" for the mess that contributed to Labour being chucked out. Any government is going to be heading for big trouble when truly world champion losers such as Fred the Shred are running amok.

David Cameron was fortunate that the basket case captains of industry were I think by and large gone by the time he arrived. However it looks like he has to deal with the basket case politicians such as the buffoon standing in South Thanet.

Post by **bignote1** » April 18, 2015, 11:46 am

You are right a lot of the damage was done by the corporate sector. But who let them do it. The Labour Chancellor....Ed Balls when he made such a pigs ear of deregulating the Banking Sector.
I don't want to leave the EU but I would say this; we are a proud, inventive, adaptable, clever nation and being outside the EU would only temporarily phase us, it wouldn't destroy us as some would feel.
I wouldn't agree that Nigel is a buffoon. If you are looking for Buffoons try the members for Doncaster North and Morley and Outwood.
Imo Nigel served the UK well in the European Parliament always railing against padded budgets, overspending, and over-regulation. If you haven't seen it this might be worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtahavoPMnc

Post by **bignote1** » April 18, 2015, 12:48 pm

BobHelm wrote: In your answers above.
1. Fine, don't agree - but you have no facts to back your claim up.
2. We are talking about the Conservatives, not Labour. they have not said HOW, that is the point.
3. The Conservatives NOT said that they will do anything about zero hours contracts. The have had 5 years to do so if they wanted to.

1.I said "I thinkGeorge would have done exactly the same." I think means I'm speculating not making a claim so couldn't possibly have any facts. However you said "the deep cuts George and David would have donewith a free hand. That's a claim so perhaps you could show me your facts to back it up.
2.Conservatives and Lib Dems have pledged to pay off the deficit by 2017/18. Labour says it will do so "as soon as possible in the next Parliament" Oh! So it could be 2020 then. If they follow their usual route I fully anticipate in 2020 they will say yes I know we haven't paid it off but don't worry it will be better next time. Their excuse of the last 50 years.
The HOW without the WHEN isn't worth a damn. It's their attempt to be unaccountable.
3. Yes they had 5 years to do so but fullfact.org stats question if it is necessary. By the way Labour had 13 years to create a land of milk and honey for its people. What did they accomplish?
The stats according to fullfact are
The statistics do not and cannot show the existence of an epidemic (Eds word) in zero hours contracts.
The statistics do show that 66% of the people on zhc's fall into the category "does not want more hours" or even the majority of them are dissatisfied. In the UK 1 in 43 employed people have a zhc. Ed calls this an epidemic but I suppose if you worship at the Ed Milliband alter everything he says is gospel.

I have been reading some of the Labour Party's manifesto and I see if in power they will be promoting faith schools.
You can't beat a good dose of educational apartheid can you.

Post by **JimboPSM** » April 18, 2015, 1:27 pm

In an earlier post I incorrectly assumed that the data I was using was for calendar years when in fact it was for fiscal years; the fiscal year for the UK government runs from 1st April to 31st March; e.g. the 2015 Financial Year will run from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016.

Due to the timing of the UK elections that resulted in a change of government (i.e. Margaret Thatcher (4 May 1979), Tony Blair (2 May 1997) and David Cameron (11 May 2010) the fiscal years and the years of government that they represent from 1979 to date are quite close.

I take the view in finance (including politics and economics) that that It is better to look at data and its graphical representation over longer periods of time in conjunction with other relevant information to get the big picture before jumping to any conclusions – cherry picked numbers, particularly when taken out of context, are invariably disingenuous and misleading.

These are a series of charts which provide a better overall presentation of what happened in the UK economy from the start of the Thatcher Government to date with the respective governments shown (Public Net Debt figures include projections based on latest available information however, as with all projections, they should be treated with caution).

This is a chart of the Net Debt from 1979 to 2014 with estimates for 2015 & 2016, it should be noted that while the numbers are correct in nominal terms, without being adjusted for inflation, the chart representation becomes increasingly distorted as the years progress.

Much of the distortion in the above chart can be removed by measuring it as a percentage against the relative parameter of GDP as below:

Another meaningful way of comparing the numbers is to compare the change in them each year, however it should be noted that this change (known as the Annual Net Borrowing requirement) is still affected by inflation but as the change is the net of revenues and expenditures its impact is proportionately less:

It should be noted that the net borrowing during the Thatcher & Major years benefitted to the tune of some £69 billion as the “family silver” was sold off – this is material as it reduced net borrowing by some 22% during those years and is something that was a one off and cannot be repeated (once it’s gone, it’s gone).

While growth in GDP may be important, its value can be considerably diminished if the international purchasing value of the currency falls; as can be seen from the chart below the pound slumped considerably during the Thatcher and Major years (a feature of supply side [voodoo] economics, similar falls were experienced by the US Dollar during the second term of Reagan and both terms of Bush 43).

Notes re charts, data and sources:

Shading is used on the area on the right of the charts to show the period since the major financial crash in 2008 (from which the world is still recovering).

These are the data tables used in the above charts:

• UK Net Debt and Net Borrowing:

• UK GDP data:

The major sources for Net Debt and GDP data above were:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

http://www.measuringworth.com/

Additionally the analysis of privatisation receipts came from the following paper:

THE UK’S PRIVATISATION EXPERIMENT: THE PASSAGE OF TIME PERMITS A SOBER ASSESSMENT
David Parker, Emeritus Professor, Cranfield University School of Management

The source of the Sterling Effective Exchange Rate Index is the Bank of England “Statistical Interactive Database - interest & exchange rates data” section (Jan 2005 = 100); this data is only available from 1980.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/ ... de3951.y=4

Post by **BobHelm** » April 18, 2015, 1:38 pm

My objection to zero hours contracts is quite simple.
Employers who are using these contracts are using the money I am paying in tax to subsidise their labour costs.
There are currently 700,000 people employed on zero hour contracts. Office for National Statistics suggests that this figure might actually be 1.4 million for all contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours.
That could be 350,000 people in full time employment, paying income tax & their companies paying into the welfare system. Currently neither is happening & the employees are undoubtedly drawing on the welfare system rather than contributing.
Sports Direct International, for example,has 90% of its' staff on zero hours contracts.

The statistic you quote saying that 66% of zero hours contacts did not want more hours was based on a survey of 456 people on those contracts. 0.06% of the workers. Bound to reveal highly accurate data that...

Even ACAS suggest to companies employing labour on zero hours contracts that it should look at other methods of employing labour.

Post by **BobHelm** » April 18, 2015, 2:18 pm

Thanks for the charts, Jimbo. Interesting reading.

The other place on the economy that the Conservatives Government has failed pretty spectacularly is on real average wages. They have managed to get them down to the lowest level this century.

Post by **bignote1** » April 18, 2015, 3:28 pm

The Labour Government trash the economy, as a result Companies downsize, some even close so fewer jobs on the market and unemployment goes up. As a result wages go down.......market forces and simple economics. Many Companies in the first 2-3 years of Conservative Government offered their employees a cut in pay or a cut in hours or job losses. Most people given that choice chose the pay or hours option both of which reduced earnings.
The Labour Government not only left the country in a shambles they reduced the earnings of Brits for the next five years. Its only recently that wages have started outpacing inflation.

Post by **BobHelm** » April 18, 2015, 3:43 pm

Oh dear not the old Blame the last Government again.
You claim that the Conservative Government are doing wonderfully when most of the facts suggest otherwise.
You also seem to have totally forgotten that the Financial crisis ever occurred.
Look what happened to the American economy at that time - under the conservative stewardship of Bush.
Ever countries economy was in crisis then, not just the UK because of a Labour Government.

What has happened since then in, for example Germany, has outpaced the UK by a long way though.

Post by **Earnest** » April 18, 2015, 3:45 pm

BobHelm wrote:That could be 350,000 people in full time employment, paying income tax & their companies paying into the welfare system. Currently neither is happening & the employees are undoubtedly drawing on the welfare system rather than contributing.
Sports Direct International, for example,has 90% of its' staff on zero hours contracts.

So you're saying the Welfare State subsidises the companies that retain employees on zero hours contracts? Interesting perspective.

I don't think you're ever going to create a stable economy if you underpin it with such a method of employment.