Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

[gruffalo]

Surely the point of question time is to ask questions because you don't already know the answer?

Therefore would it not be best to have a 100% undecided audience so they could ask questions that will help them make their minds up on which way to vote?

Just a thought.

[Esseesse]

ninjacost said:

I won't be watching it because they have not included farage even though ukip are way ahead of lib dem in the polls.

+1

[edh]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Like it or not, the UK ran up big national debt during the 13 years that labour were in office, and it is currently undergoing the pain / hardship needed to carry on paying every day living expenses, whilst paying off that debt at the same time.
If anyone needs to know why times are hard `now' they should address that question to labour.

Fraser Nelson doesn't let the Tories off the hook



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/t...

of course that's not the full term - I believe the Tories are borrowing ~£200bn more than they forecast in 2010.

[HonestIago]

Anyone know if I can watch "Ask Nigel Farage" on iplayer if I live in Scotland? Will watch the main QT programme beforehand for as long as I can stomach it!

[fido]

edh said:

Fraser Nelson doesn't let the Tories off the hook



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/t...

of course that's not the full term - I believe the Tories are borrowing ~£200bn more than they forecast in 2010.

I notice the Labour die-hards trotting out the 'Tories left more debt etc." Obviously it plays into those who don't understand what a 'deficit' is or are just plain innumerate. And that includes many MPs I would have thought.

In 2010, the incoming government were left with a structural deficit of approximately £150bn per annum.

They've managed to reduce this by about £15bn-£20bn a year, whilst having to balance tax cuts [to encourage growth] and public (leftist?) opinion on austerity measures, NHS etc. Over 4 years this means the deficit alone (without taking into account interest payments) has added £150bn + £130bn + £110bn + £90bn + .. to the total. Unfortunately you cannot easily zero the deficit as you could with a household budget.

[BGARK]

gruffalo said:

Surely the point of question time is to ask questions because you don't already know the answer?

Therefore would it not be best to have a 100% undecided audience so they could ask questions that will help them make their minds up on which way to vote?

Just a thought.

Good idea!

I think it should be renamed "Dictator Time"

[Bluebarge]

ninjacost said:

I won't be watching it because they have not included farage even though ukip are way ahead of lib dem in the polls .in

BlackLabel said:

It's the QT leaders' debate tonight.

The Conservatives and Labour aren't happy with the make up of the audience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/bbc-q...

But not in terms of seats - Lib Dems are on course for 27/28, UKIP 3. That puts them on a par with Plaid Cymru in terms of electoral relevance.

[edh]

fido said:

edh said:

Fraser Nelson doesn't let the Tories off the hook



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/t...

of course that's not the full term - I believe the Tories are borrowing ~£200bn more than they forecast in 2010.

I notice the Labour die-hards trotting out the 'Tories left more debt etc." Obviously it plays into those who don't understand what a 'deficit' is or are just plain innumerate. And that includes many MPs I would have thought.

In 2010, the incoming government were left with a structural deficit of approximately £150bn per annum.

They've managed to reduce this by about £15bn-£20bn a year, whilst having to balance tax cuts [to encourage growth] and public (leftist?) opinion on austerity measures, NHS etc. Over 4 years this means the deficit alone (without taking into account interest payments) has added £150bn + £130bn + £110bn + £90bn + .. to the total. Unfortunately you cannot easily zero the deficit as you could with a household budget.

Yup - Fraser Nelson that "Labour die-hard"..

It wasn't a £150bn "structural" deficit in 2010 btw - Obviously your comment plays into those who don't understand what a "structural deficit" is..

[Esseesse]

Bluebarge said:

ninjacost said:

I won't be watching it because they have not included farage even though ukip are way ahead of lib dem in the polls .in

BlackLabel said:

It's the QT leaders' debate tonight.

The Conservatives and Labour aren't happy with the make up of the audience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/bbc-q...

But not in terms of seats - Lib Dems are on course for 27/28, UKIP 3. That puts them on a par with Plaid Cymru in terms of electoral relevance.

So what? It's about the number of people that a politician speaks for. I thought the argument for FPTP was to maintain a link to constituencies. What is the argument for simulating FPTP on a political Q&A programme?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Labour didn't borrow money, so much as steal it from the UK working person. But in the end, even after inheriting the biggest peacetime surplus ever handed to an incoming administration, plus, selling off the UK`s gold reserves, and raiding working people pensions, they managed to blow all the countries money, and left the famous notet saying `the money is all gone'
Just like last time labour were in, they left the following government, and people of the UK to clear up (and pay) for the abject mess they left behind (just like they always, always do
The UK and its working people, cannot AFFORD another labour government.

[Slaav]

fido said:

edh said:

Fraser Nelson doesn't let the Tories off the hook



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/t...

of course that's not the full term - I believe the Tories are borrowing ~£200bn more than they forecast in 2010.

I notice the Labour die-hards trotting out the 'Tories left more debt etc." Obviously it plays into those who don't understand what a 'deficit' is or are just plain innumerate. And that includes many MPs I would have thought.

In 2010, the incoming government were left with a structural deficit of approximately £150bn per annum.

They've managed to reduce this by about £15bn-£20bn a year, whilst having to balance tax cuts [to encourage growth] and public (leftist?) opinion on austerity measures, NHS etc. Over 4 years this means the deficit alone (without taking into account interest payments) has added £150bn + £130bn + £110bn + £90bn + .. to the total. Unfortunately you cannot easily zero the deficit as you could with a household budget.

Being a little bit of a Tory boy, I use the household budget as an anology all the time!

The example I use is people doing 'quite well' and with 1st class jobs on a good career progression. As a result, they ramp up mortgage to stupid max levels, have an aga, cars, gardener, school fees etc and everything else that comes with that sort of lifestyle and GUARANTEED career progression.

Then all of a sudden, one of them loses a job or has to rein it in and work part time through health or similar. The career progression takes a nose dive and the expected riches don't materialise. They never thought this would happen so have ZERO contingency planning.

All of a sudden reality hits them and they do their proper budgeting only to find that they spend a st load more than they ever realised and earn - they therefore are running a DEFICIT on their household spends. they already have DEBTS as they were overspending in the safe knowledge that nothing would EVER go wrong.

Oops....

It is impossible to now switch all taps off, drag the kids out of Public School, cancel Healthcare, sell the three dogs, sell the cars etc instantly, so their BUDGET DEFICIT will start to drop but the DEBTS will continue to build until they have SACKED the cleaner, the housekeeper and the gardener.

In order to not go Bankrupt, they may also have to take the kids out of school....

They can just about manage the mortgage if they rein everything else in. Will still likely have to sell though as the holy money tree is withering.

The debts haven't miraculously now disappeared? They still have to be repaid even if the deficit is back to ZERO.

Why cannot people see the truth when it is staring them in the face?

SNP and Labour would have us believe that the above family can just say 'NO'! We are keeping the gardener as the lawns are lovely. Flossy and Brutus wont be coming out of school as it is just not fair on them?

After all, we will get back on that progression again and don't need to worry about how much larger the overall debts get! And SNP/Lab wont count the mortgage as debt as that is investment debt

Simple with hindsight in my analogy and with a bit more luck or some more prudence, the gardener, cleaner and housekeeper may well have remained in employment.... shame the luck ran out eh?

[ninjacost]

yes with a lower percentage of the electorate voting for them fptp stinks .

Bluebarge said:

ninjacost said:

I won't be watching it because they have not included farage even though ukip are way ahead of lib dem in the polls .in

BlackLabel said:

It's the QT leaders' debate tonight.

The Conservatives and Labour aren't happy with the make up of the audience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/bbc-q...

But not in terms of seats - Lib Dems are on course for 27/28, UKIP 3. That puts them on a par with Plaid Cymru in terms of electoral relevance.

[edh]

Slaav said:

Being a little bit of a Tory boy, I use the household budget as an anology all the time!

And that's your first mistake - Government finances are not like household finances.

[Ali G]

edh said:

And that's your first mistake - Government finances are not like household finances.

How so?

You've piqued my interest now.



What is that is so different about Government finances which permits common sense to be ruled out?

Or are you invoking 'magic money tree' hypotheses?

[fido]

edh said:

Slaav said:

Being a little bit of a Tory boy, I use the household budget as an anology all the time!

And that's your first mistake - Government finances are not like household finances.

In many ways it's much worse - cutting £10bn into the NHS or Welfare (which a benevolent dictator would have done) is much harder than telling the OH that her VW Passat R36 has to be downgraded to a Lupo (and that's hard). You can cut down household bills quite severely (50%?) if you can overcome personal pride and live like a student. Try that with a pampered Western electorate who were told that 'things can only get better'. As for printing money - well you're stealing off savers and future generations, and that eventually has a cost.

Edited by fido on Thursday 30th April 13:40

[Justayellowbadge]

Ali G said:

edh said:

And that's your first mistake - Government finances are not like household finances.

How so?

You've piqued my interest now.

Something something land value tax something something unearned income something something evil landlords something something rich people something something dribble dribble dribble.

[Axionknight]

Justayellowbadge said:

Something something land value tax something something unearned income something something evil landlords something something rich people something something dribble dribble dribble.

Uncanny!

[Ali G]

In a 'popularity' contest, rule 1 would be 'do not introduce measures which are unpopular'

A fundamental given is that income < expenditure, resulting in borrowing which requires funding to the order of £43 billion per annum, which exacerbates 'expenditure'

To reduce debt, income > expenditure so either increase tax income, or reduce expenditure, or both.

Both are unpopular, so fail the first rule of the popularity contest.

To rely upon 'growth' in the economy to solve all problems places too much burden upon exports/invention/tech which are largely out of the control of the political classes to generate, although I have little doubt that they (political classes) can stifle innovation by adopting policies which restrict initiative through minimising the advantage those who are motivated to do so could expect.

[Legend83]

edh said:

And that's your first mistake - Government finances are not like household finances.

What are you talking about?

[oyster]

Slaav said:

fido said:

edh said:

Fraser Nelson doesn't let the Tories off the hook



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/t...

of course that's not the full term - I believe the Tories are borrowing ~£200bn more than they forecast in 2010.

I notice the Labour die-hards trotting out the 'Tories left more debt etc." Obviously it plays into those who don't understand what a 'deficit' is or are just plain innumerate. And that includes many MPs I would have thought.

In 2010, the incoming government were left with a structural deficit of approximately £150bn per annum.

They've managed to reduce this by about £15bn-£20bn a year, whilst having to balance tax cuts [to encourage growth] and public (leftist?) opinion on austerity measures, NHS etc. Over 4 years this means the deficit alone (without taking into account interest payments) has added £150bn + £130bn + £110bn + £90bn + .. to the total. Unfortunately you cannot easily zero the deficit as you could with a household budget.

Being a little bit of a Tory boy, I use the household budget as an anology all the time!

The example I use is people doing 'quite well' and with 1st class jobs on a good career progression. As a result, they ramp up mortgage to stupid max levels, have an aga, cars, gardener, school fees etc and everything else that comes with that sort of lifestyle and GUARANTEED career progression.

Then all of a sudden, one of them loses a job or has to rein it in and work part time through health or similar. The career progression takes a nose dive and the expected riches don't materialise. They never thought this would happen so have ZERO contingency planning.

All of a sudden reality hits them and they do their proper budgeting only to find that they spend a st load more than they ever realised and earn - they therefore are running a DEFICIT on their household spends. they already have DEBTS as they were overspending in the safe knowledge that nothing would EVER go wrong.

Oops....

It is impossible to now switch all taps off, drag the kids out of Public School, cancel Healthcare, sell the three dogs, sell the cars etc instantly, so their BUDGET DEFICIT will start to drop but the DEBTS will continue to build until they have SACKED the cleaner, the housekeeper and the gardener.

In order to not go Bankrupt, they may also have to take the kids out of school....

They can just about manage the mortgage if they rein everything else in. Will still likely have to sell though as the holy money tree is withering.

The debts haven't miraculously now disappeared? They still have to be repaid even if the deficit is back to ZERO.

Why cannot people see the truth when it is staring them in the face?

SNP and Labour would have us believe that the above family can just say 'NO'! We are keeping the gardener as the lawns are lovely. Flossy and Brutus wont be coming out of school as it is just not fair on them?

After all, we will get back on that progression again and don't need to worry about how much larger the overall debts get! And SNP/Lab wont count the mortgage as debt as that is investment debt

Simple with hindsight in my analogy and with a bit more luck or some more prudence, the gardener, cleaner and housekeeper may well have remained in employment.... shame the luck ran out eh?

What Fraser Nelson misses most is that it's the COALITION that missed the debt/deficit targets.
I've little doubt that the deficit would be much smaller now if the Tories had a majority in 2010.