the EU

[Uncle Liam]

"In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

And my point is this..."

[eFestivals]

"In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

And my point is this..."

1939 returning?

[TheGayTent]

I loosely agree with you - but some people are smart enough to know that it was tory ideas that fucked the economy and not Labour ideas.

[eFestivals]

There will be ramifications for this in Ireland most certainly.

Talking of Ireland, I remember back at bail-out time both you and Nal said that Ireland's balance of payments was positive.

That's gotta be false, surely? Cos if it's true it gets to mean that no money had left Ireland, and therefore it would not need a bailout unless there's someone in Ireland sitting on all the disappeared cash.

[eFestivals]

No. Most people hold the opinion that labour were stupid enough to hold power for 13 years through the good times but increase the deficit and not save any for a rainy day - and worse actually believe they could prevent another cycle of boom and bust.

But Labour didn't increase the deficit. It was the bailouts and the economic crash which did that. You do know that Labour's economic plans were so 'fucked up' that Dave Moron and Gideon Oldbore planned to continue with them, don't you?

Yes, there's people stupid enough to believe that line, but there's plenty who are not that stupid too. Given that just about every economist now says that tory economics are making things worse and not better, they're on their own shakey ground.

On it's own that would be enough to prevent labour getting into power. But as I've said, add the wrong Miliband and Balls and they're simply unelectable.

and yet they're more electable than Brown, who the tories couldn't beat.

It's the Conservatives to lose, no doubt about that.

exactly - and lose they will, just as they did in 2010. Cos not winning is losing! Edited January 23, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

I'm not bothering to go round and round.

Bring this back up when David Dimbleby has finished his marathon election results night session...

[Uncle Liam]

1939 returning?

[lost]

But Labour didn't increase the deficit. It was the bailouts and the economic crash which did that.

[eFestivals]

Ed Balls came out on the Andrew Marr show and admitted this was a lie. Labour were running a 5.2% deficit before the crisis and then increased this to near 11% during the down turn

just about every govt runs a deficit. It's normally called "public borrowing" tho.

I'm talking about what even Dave Moron calls a "structural deficit" - the amount that's borrowed over the norm of what is borrowed.

Even Dave Moron is not promising to deal with the deficit, only the 'structural deficit'.

A 'structural deficit' is normally considered to be any borrowing over 8%, I think.

Edited January 23, 2013 by eFestivals

[Uncle Liam]

No. Most people hold the opinion that labour were stupid enough to hold power for 13 years through the good times but increase the deficit and not save any for a rainy day - and worse actually believe they could prevent another cycle of boom and bust.

On it's own that would be enough to prevent labour getting into power. But as I've said, add the wrong Miliband and Balls and they're simply unelectable.

Lib Dems will lose votes to the conservatives.

It's the Conservatives to lose, no doubt about that.

[kaosmark2]

With the current make-up of Lib Dems having a lot of centre-right politicians at the top I can't see all their votes going to Labour. There's several Lib Dem MPs in areas that have no chance of ever going red as well.

[lost]

just about every govt runs a deficit. It's normally called "public borrowing" tho.

I'm talking about what even Dave Moron calls a "structural deficit" - the amount that's borrowed over the norm of what is borrowed.

Even Dave Moron is not promising to deal with the deficit, only the 'structural deficit'.

A 'structural deficit' is normally considered to be any borrowing over 8%, I think.

[eFestivals]

anyway, Dave Moron, and his plans to steal employment rights and consumer rights from the people to the benefit of his big business buddies, while not addressing any of the real concerns that people of the UK have with the EU (such as lack of democracy, the CAP, etc).

He is not doing that for the benefit of the British people, he's doing it for his own political position and to further enrich his already rich and already getting richer mates.

[eFestivals]

yes its a structual deficit im taking about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9633508/Ed-Balls-Labour-ran-a-structural-deficit-in-2007.html

the crash started in early 2007, and given that the 2007 budgets were set in 2006 and it can't be known what the 2007 income is until long after 2007 has been and gone, that's a situation that any govt could get themselves into if economic conditions change.

[lost]

the crash started in early 2007, and given that the 2007 budgets were set in 2006 and it can't be known what the 2007 income is until long after 2007 has been and gone, that's a situation that any govt could get themselves into if economic conditions change.

[TheGayTent]

Why would the Lib Dems lose votes to the Conservatives? Most Lib Dems (or ex Lib Dems, such as myself) despised going into government with the Tories.

The height of Lib Dem popularity (apart from the spike post the first election debate) was under Charles Kennedy when the party specifically made itself an alternative to Labour. The Lib Dems reputation is in the toilet, they will get about ten seats at the next election, and those votes will go to Labour.

Of course, that might help the Tories because when the Lib Dem vote collapses, it might let the Tories in in certain seats where there is no serious Labour presence, but the idea of votes going to the Tories? Naive at best.

Edited January 23, 2013 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

You've either misread the situation in its entirety or misunderstood my post.

I said Lib Dems will lose seats to the Conservatives. They will.

What I didn't say, and perhaps should have, is that the Lib Dems will lose seats to Labour too.

The Lib Dems have what, something like 60 sitting MPs. I'd expect them to have around 35 after the next election. Not as huge a drop as the polls would have some believe but a significant drop. Of those 25 seats lost, I would guess they'll lose 15 to labour and 10 to the Conservatives.

Constituencies such as Solihull for example are bankers to swing from Lib Dem to Conservative.

Then there are the marginal constituencies in the south that will swing back to the Tories via ex labour voters returning to their party of choice.

I wasn't suggesting that all 2010 Lib Dem voters will suddenly choose to vote Conservative.

Edited to add: poorly worded previous post - I accept that.

[eFestivals]

still a structual deficit, though yes ill conceded your point that he could be incompetent rather than a liar

failing to be psychic is 'incompetent' now is it?

The bankers were incompetent, cos they had all the knowledge of what they were doing within their hands.

The likes of Balls not knowing what they're doing is not incompetence, it's simply him not knowing what was being hidden from him. If he was incompetent with that then so was every other person working in any finance role.

The one place that incompetence can be pinned on him is by the lack of regulation of the banks, but it's still the case that he was going along with the perceived wisdom of the time - while the likes of Dave Moron does not have that reasonable excuse for the complete absence of any new regulation to tighten up the holes that got us into this shit.

[kaosmark2]

The one place that incompetence can be pinned on him is by the lack of regulation of the banks, but it's still the case that he was going along with the perceived wisdom of the time

Edited January 23, 2013 by kaosmark2

[eFestivals]

That'd be my estimates. Maybe one or two seats less lost either way, but a significant number, with more going Labour's way but still some to the Tories.

there's not too many LibDem seats that have a 'natural' Labour voting electorate. Most of the seats that the LibDems have in England (and particularly in the south) have little chance of going Labour, as that would be the first time it's ever happened in those places.

Meanwhile they'll be some seats that the tories won last time from the LibDems which are quite likely to go back to the LibDems - such as Guildford which I've already mentioned.

In seats where the choice is effectively Tory or LibDem and the LibDems hold the seat currently, the LibDem vote will hold up pretty well (and in some cases increase).

[eFestivals]

That's pretty major incompetence though.

It is, but the simple fact is that they'd have not been in power if they weren't that incompetent. The 'perceived wisdom' of any time sets the agenda, and that 'wisdom' was and still is that there's no alternative to more Thatcherism.

Which just goes to show how fucking incompetent a huge number of people in thia country are!!!

Edited January 23, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

there's not too many LibDem seats that have a 'natural' Labour voting electorate. Most of the seats that the LibDems have in England (and particularly in the south) have little chance of going Labour, as that would be the first time it's ever happened in those places.

Meanwhile they'll be some seats that the tories won last time from the LibDems which are quite likely to go back to the LibDems - such as Guildford which I've already mentioned.

In seats where the choice is effectively Tory or LibDem and the LibDems hold the seat currently, the LibDem vote will hold up pretty well (and in some cases increase).

[eFestivals]

Piffle sadly for you.

For example Solihull, Wells, and Eastbourne will all swing to Conservative from Lib Dem.

how is something I've not said anything about, aside from agreeing withk in general terms, piffle?

Still, it's the standard poor quality tory analysis, and why we're fucked in the first place. You do know that if the tories had been in power for those 13 years instead of labour we'd be far FAR FAR more fucked now than we are, don't you?

[kaosmark2]

there's not too many LibDem seats that have a 'natural' Labour voting electorate. Most of the seats that the LibDems have in England (and particularly in the south) have little chance of going Labour, as that would be the first time it's ever happened in those places.

Meanwhile they'll be some seats that the tories won last time from the LibDems which are quite likely to go back to the LibDems - such as Guildford which I've already mentioned.

In seats where the choice is effectively Tory or LibDem and the LibDems hold the seat currently, the LibDem vote will hold up pretty well (and in some cases increase).

[TheGayTent]

how is something I've not said anything about, aside from agreeing withk in general terms, piffle?

Edited January 23, 2013 by TheGayTent