UK General Election 2015
Discussion
brickwall said:
This'll be a fascinating election. Just some quick take-aways from the polls, having spoken to some people close to the action:
- Cameron is a more popular PM choice than Miliband (though neither are rated highly), but Labour are a more popular party than the Tories. Ashcroft's polling of marginals makes for painful reading if you're a Tory.
- On balance, Labour are likely to benefit more than the Tories from the decimation of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP
- We could see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party, but Miliband is PM, if Labour lose lots of Scottish seats to the SNP
Most of all, it looks like it all could change by May.
54 seats predicted for SNP with Salmond stating that he will cease the convention where SNP MPs don't vote on English issues. - Cameron is a more popular PM choice than Miliband (though neither are rated highly), but Labour are a more popular party than the Tories. Ashcroft's polling of marginals makes for painful reading if you're a Tory.
- On balance, Labour are likely to benefit more than the Tories from the decimation of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP
- We could see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party, but Miliband is PM, if Labour lose lots of Scottish seats to the SNP
Most of all, it looks like it all could change by May.
Predict a riot. In the event that the SNP tail wags the dog could be a most unpopular time to be in power.
FiF said:
brickwall said:
This'll be a fascinating election. Just some quick take-aways from the polls, having spoken to some people close to the action:
- Cameron is a more popular PM choice than Miliband (though neither are rated highly), but Labour are a more popular party than the Tories. Ashcroft's polling of marginals makes for painful reading if you're a Tory.
- On balance, Labour are likely to benefit more than the Tories from the decimation of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP
- We could see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party, but Miliband is PM, if Labour lose lots of Scottish seats to the SNP
Most of all, it looks like it all could change by May.
54 seats predicted for SNP with Salmond stating that he will cease the convention where SNP MPs don't vote on English issues. - Cameron is a more popular PM choice than Miliband (though neither are rated highly), but Labour are a more popular party than the Tories. Ashcroft's polling of marginals makes for painful reading if you're a Tory.
- On balance, Labour are likely to benefit more than the Tories from the decimation of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP
- We could see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party, but Miliband is PM, if Labour lose lots of Scottish seats to the SNP
Most of all, it looks like it all could change by May.
Predict a riot. In the event that the SNP tail wags the dog could be a most unpopular time to be in power.
fblm said:
A LAB/SNP coalition? Oh dear god.
With Miliband as PM, and a commitment from Labour to reduce the current deficit to zero by the end of the Parliament. I'm not sure the coalition would last a full 5 years.On the assumption the SNP push Labour further to the Left in this scenario, I think we could also see:
a) The Blairite/centrist Labour MPs defecting to a re-born LibDems (or 'new' party formed of the remnants of LibDems and Labour defectors)
b) A resurgence in Scottish Tories, as right-wing SNP voters defect?
The other likely scenario in my head for May 2015 is we keep the current Conservative/Liberal coalition, but with:
a) A reduced majority
b) A lot more seats being very marginal (especially in Tory/Labour seats)
Would it survive?
AJS- said:
XJ Flyer
As you say no-one is advocating protectionism, and it won't happen. Personally I think that is a very good thing as the UK can't live in isolation.
It's perfectly possible to have a basic safety net and functioning public sector in an open, free market economy. The key word is basic - it should ensure that no-one starves or sleeps rough for simple lack of resources, that we have law and order and the necessary infrastructure for the country to function. It can't, and never should have provided and alternative to productive employment for huge swathes of the population, or attempt to solve every problem faced by the country. It shouldn't be funding pointless military adventures or foreign aid/bribery programmes, and it shouldn't be keeping an army of educated and capable people shuffling bits of paper around.
How are you going to get your 'productive employment' paying sufficient wages not to be dependent on socialist income support and protection solutions.Within the free market economic system,which are all about minimising wage costs,which you obviously support. As you say no-one is advocating protectionism, and it won't happen. Personally I think that is a very good thing as the UK can't live in isolation.
It's perfectly possible to have a basic safety net and functioning public sector in an open, free market economy. The key word is basic - it should ensure that no-one starves or sleeps rough for simple lack of resources, that we have law and order and the necessary infrastructure for the country to function. It can't, and never should have provided and alternative to productive employment for huge swathes of the population, or attempt to solve every problem faced by the country. It shouldn't be funding pointless military adventures or foreign aid/bribery programmes, and it shouldn't be keeping an army of educated and capable people shuffling bits of paper around.
As I've said what you're describing is a 21st century Chinese type economy to fit in with a global free market economy that is run on Chinese Communist Party lines which just happens to fit in with the type of Capitalism which the Cons want.IE exploitation of the working class to make a few at the top rich in which the slashing of social security provision is just seen as a way to increase desperation levels amongst it.
As opposed to 1960's America.In which social provision was there for those who needed it together with sufficient income levels to pay for private cover thereby not to need it in most cases.The difference being that America certainly wasn't lumbered with having to work in the global free market economy of today run along Communist lines with even that safety net subject to increased spending under Kennedy's leadership not cuts.
Assuming UKIP is all about the former type of economy and not the trying to recreate the latter,then as I said expect to see a Labour government.Which is the natural ( justified ) reaction of the working classes assuming they aren't turkey's voting for Christmas as was the case when they put Thatcher into power.
As for the global free market economy that you are obviously describing v the Fordist economy that I'm describing.Are you really suggesting the former is superior to the latter.
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04vs348/panorama-ap...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eULOTP6CA
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 December 17:41
In the same way that Hong Kong, Australia, Japan etc manage to have relatively open economies and a functioning state. You have people and businesses paying a percentage of their income/profits in taxation.
Any industry that is currently exporting or doing business overseas is already competitive internationally with the huge tax burden imposed on UK activity.
Yes I think free market capitalism is better than Fordist capitalism in that it gives a more efficient allocation of resources and hence creates more wealth. There are problems with it, but these can be mitigated with a small state as I describe above.
I can't watch your videos as I'm at work at the moment, but how would you go about implementing this Fordist capitalism in modern Britain?
Any industry that is currently exporting or doing business overseas is already competitive internationally with the huge tax burden imposed on UK activity.
Yes I think free market capitalism is better than Fordist capitalism in that it gives a more efficient allocation of resources and hence creates more wealth. There are problems with it, but these can be mitigated with a small state as I describe above.
I can't watch your videos as I'm at work at the moment, but how would you go about implementing this Fordist capitalism in modern Britain?
AJS- said:
In the same way that Hong Kong, Australia, Japan etc manage to have relatively open economies and a functioning state. You have people and businesses paying a percentage of their income/profits in taxation.
Any industry that is currently exporting or doing business overseas is already competitive internationally with the huge tax burden imposed on UK activity.
Yes I think free market capitalism is better than Fordist capitalism in that it gives a more efficient allocation of resources and hence creates more wealth. There are problems with it, but these can be mitigated with a small state as I describe above.
I can't watch your videos as I'm at work at the moment, but how would you go about implementing this Fordist capitalism in modern Britain?
I think the idea that there 'are problems' with the idea of the global free market economy,from the point of view of maintaining living standards,in the developed western type economies,is an understatement Australia included.Any industry that is currently exporting or doing business overseas is already competitive internationally with the huge tax burden imposed on UK activity.
Yes I think free market capitalism is better than Fordist capitalism in that it gives a more efficient allocation of resources and hence creates more wealth. There are problems with it, but these can be mitigated with a small state as I describe above.
I can't watch your videos as I'm at work at the moment, but how would you go about implementing this Fordist capitalism in modern Britain?
www.news.com.au/finance/business/car-industry-clos...
'Allocation' of resources in that case means effectively a foreign aid scam in favour of cheap labour far eastern employment to make a few at the top rich.While putting our own workforce on the dole or in low paid employment thereby requiring all the socialist types of income subsidies to try to compensate for the loss of well paid jobs.
How does Fordism work simply if it is sold here then it is made here wherever possible at civilised western wage rates that feed back into the economy and pay for western expectations regarding income protection,retirement funding and health care,in addition to all the other costs of living in a developed western economy.As opposed to yet more of the same old Con and CBI rhetoric that the global free market economy is good for us.
XJ Flyer said:
AJS- said:
XJ Flyer
So trade barriers and import taxes?
Unless you want the country to eventually go the way of Greece absolutely.So trade barriers and import taxes?
Going down the protectionist route has been tried. Ever read about the 1930s?
problem is, free trade only works when all parties are on a level(ish) playing field.
as soon as you look at the US, China, Russia, etc then you can start to understand whilst the principal is great, there are fundamental issues that need to be accounted for.
everybody loves to use the words 'state subsidized' but no matter what you call it, everybody does something that creates an unlevel base.
the UK's biggest failing is we have pretty much followed the letter and even inference of non-subsidy agreements when it's pretty clear others have either ignored or hidden their use, hence we end up with the kind of un-balance we see now.
Add to this the climate change bulls
t and hey presto, we put ourselves at a massive disadvantage (relative to china/US/etc).
the biggest single issue facing the UK's industrial base is energy costs, and if this is not sorted soon, we might as well kiss goodbye to manufacturing.
as soon as you look at the US, China, Russia, etc then you can start to understand whilst the principal is great, there are fundamental issues that need to be accounted for.
everybody loves to use the words 'state subsidized' but no matter what you call it, everybody does something that creates an unlevel base.
the UK's biggest failing is we have pretty much followed the letter and even inference of non-subsidy agreements when it's pretty clear others have either ignored or hidden their use, hence we end up with the kind of un-balance we see now.
Add to this the climate change bulls
t and hey presto, we put ourselves at a massive disadvantage (relative to china/US/etc).the biggest single issue facing the UK's industrial base is energy costs, and if this is not sorted soon, we might as well kiss goodbye to manufacturing.
And there is only one party standing up to the climate change bs and the consequent mess that the three main parties ably assisted by the Greens have got us into.
Arguments about EU and immigration and Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies plus what have you should pale into the background when we consider the disaster that is the Climate change act.
Of course the next point that comes out is the perennial "it's the economy stupid!"
Well yes it is the economy and you ain't going to have a decent chance of really fixing that without a sensible, reliable and affordable energy supply, stupid!
Arguments about EU and immigration and Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies plus what have you should pale into the background when we consider the disaster that is the Climate change act.
Of course the next point that comes out is the perennial "it's the economy stupid!"
Well yes it is the economy and you ain't going to have a decent chance of really fixing that without a sensible, reliable and affordable energy supply, stupid!
Scuffers said:
problem is, free trade only works when all parties are on a level(ish) playing field.
as soon as you look at the US, China, Russia, etc then you can start to understand whilst the principal is great, there are fundamental issues that need to be accounted for.
everybody loves to use the words 'state subsidized' but no matter what you call it, everybody does something that creates an unlevel base.
the UK's biggest failing is we have pretty much followed the letter and even inference of non-subsidy agreements when it's pretty clear others have either ignored or hidden their use, hence we end up with the kind of un-balance we see now.
Add to this the climate change bullst and hey presto, we put ourselves at a massive disadvantage (relative to china/US/etc).
the biggest single issue facing the UK's industrial base is energy costs, and if this is not sorted soon, we might as well kiss goodbye to manufacturing.
Why let facts get in the way of a strongly held belief?as soon as you look at the US, China, Russia, etc then you can start to understand whilst the principal is great, there are fundamental issues that need to be accounted for.
everybody loves to use the words 'state subsidized' but no matter what you call it, everybody does something that creates an unlevel base.
the UK's biggest failing is we have pretty much followed the letter and even inference of non-subsidy agreements when it's pretty clear others have either ignored or hidden their use, hence we end up with the kind of un-balance we see now.
Add to this the climate change bulls
t and hey presto, we put ourselves at a massive disadvantage (relative to china/US/etc).the biggest single issue facing the UK's industrial base is energy costs, and if this is not sorted soon, we might as well kiss goodbye to manufacturing.
"Economy on target for strongest growth in six years as manufacturing output storms ahead"
Figures from a year ago (after all energy prices are falling at the moment so I can't use this years figures
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-25...
Or over longer term?
"Although the manufacturing sector's share of both employment and the UK's GDP has steadily fallen since the 1960s, data from the OECD shows that manufacturing output in terms of both production and value has steadily increased since 1945. A 2009 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, citing data from the UK Office for National Statistics, stated that manufacturing output (gross value added at 2007 prices) has increased in 35 of the 50 years between 1958 and 2007, and output in 2007 was at record levels, approximately double that in 1958."
No-one has yet managed to explain why manufacturing is more important than other sectors either.
Scuffers said:
Because the figures were revised down from a growth of 3% to 2.6% you think that justifies your view that the entire manufacturing industry is about to collapse?The doom is strong in this one
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff