UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Exactly correct there DJRC and let's not forget investment in modern higher efficiency PF coal fired generation units in countries such as Germany, whilst we fudged and fuddled along losing more than just the coal industry along the way, albeit indirectly associated with the Blair government decisions and indecisions.
XJ Flyer said:
On the basis that money is just a representation of what is still always actually a case of bartering yes.Which as I said is why Greece is where it is today.Because an economy which is based on services produces nothing to barter with.Which is why the money ( barter ) which changes hands/takes place between a Greek restaurant owner/worker and a Greek shop worker/owner and bar worker/owner for their 'services,won't pay for their imported BMW's etc etc.
They will have in just the same way that a BMW worker will have paid for his holiday to Greece.The problems of the Greek economy are much more to do with government debt, itself a result of bloated public spending and an inability to collect taxes, than they are to do with the relative balance of restaurants and car makers in Greece.
Also worth pointing out that "services" in that context doesn't just mean "service industry" in the sense of shops, hotels and restaurants as you mention. All kinds of specialist and professional services from legal advice to consulting on building a dam, and from welding inspection to car design are bought and sold as services, can earn foreign currency, add value and pay for manufactured goods and services. To dismiss them all as being worthless compared to making cars is economically illiterate and just plain wrong.
This has been mentioned before on the forums but it's always worth putting it out there again imo - it goes to show what a massive challenge Cameron faces to hold onto power.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk said:
The abortive 6th boundary view was largely justified on the need to address some bias in the electoral system. You will notice this fairly quickly if you have a quick play about with the swingometer - if you leave the Liberal Democrat share of the vote unchanged then the Conservatives need a lead of 11 percentage points over Labour to win an overall majority, while the Labour party can achieve an overall majority with a lead of about 3 percentage points. Equally illustrative are the last two general election results - in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3 points over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats; in 2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7 points over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all. Prima facie this appears unfair.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/electoral-bias/BlackLabel said:
This has been mentioned before on the forums but it's always worth putting it out there again imo - it goes to show what a massive challenge Cameron faces to hold onto power.
This is why the Lib Dem Party is scum, refusing to support making the boundaries fair.http://ukpollingreport.co.uk said:
The abortive 6th boundary view was largely justified on the need to address some bias in the electoral system. You will notice this fairly quickly if you have a quick play about with the swingometer - if you leave the Liberal Democrat share of the vote unchanged then the Conservatives need a lead of 11 percentage points over Labour to win an overall majority, while the Labour party can achieve an overall majority with a lead of about 3 percentage points. Equally illustrative are the last two general election results - in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3 points over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats; in 2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7 points over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all. Prima facie this appears unfair.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/electoral-bias/Same for Liebor.
What price 'democracy'
AJS- said:
XJ Flyer said:
On the basis that money is just a representation of what is still always actually a case of bartering yes.Which as I said is why Greece is where it is today.Because an economy which is based on services produces nothing to barter with.Which is why the money ( barter ) which changes hands/takes place between a Greek restaurant owner/worker and a Greek shop worker/owner and bar worker/owner for their 'services,won't pay for their imported BMW's etc etc.
They will have in just the same way that a BMW worker will have paid for his holiday to Greece.The problems of the Greek economy are much more to do with government debt, itself a result of bloated public spending and an inability to collect taxes, than they are to do with the relative balance of restaurants and car makers in Greece.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th December 00:47
AJS- said:
Also worth pointing out that "services" in that context doesn't just mean "service industry" in the sense of shops, hotels and restaurants as you mention. All kinds of specialist and professional services from legal advice to consulting on building a dam, and from welding inspection to car design are bought and sold as services, can earn foreign currency, add value and pay for manufactured goods and services. To dismiss them all as being worthless compared to making cars is economically illiterate and just plain wrong.
The reality of that idea is that the UK provides a design service to a German manufacturer which the 'manufacturer' gets the return on by building in the cost of the service provided into the price of the final product.Which in our case just adds to our net trade deficit.IE the money earn't for the 'service' is on balance too often turned into a net loss in the form of importing and paying for the finished product as part of our overall net trade deficit. Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th December 00:45
Why can't you barter with holidays or design services or patents? Of course they're built into the price, as is labour, power consumption, factory space and every other input. Selling design services to a German car company is every bit as real as selling alternators or windscreens to them.
I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
AJS- said:
Why can't you barter with holidays or design services or patents? Of course they're built into the price, as is labour, power consumption, factory space and every other input. Selling design services to a German car company is every bit as real as selling alternators or windscreens to them.
I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
Feel free to explain the reasons for the difference in value of the Greek Drachma v the German Mark and why the Euro won't work as a common currency that replaces both respective currencies at an equal value.This contains the clues.I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=52172
As for an economy based on services as opposed to manufacturing.The German example of trade surplus,as opposed to the UK example,let alone Greek,of trade deficit proves the difference.The eventual problem for all concerened being what happens when the only way to compensate for the discrepancy in the actual barter value in the exchange of trade is by printing or borrowing more money as a form of IOU.In which case it is just a matter of time before a trade surplus becomes a financial liability to all concerned.Just as in that case of Germany's trade surplus with Greece and Greece's trade deficit with Germany.Much of the reason for that surplus/deficit situation being the discrepancy in real terms value of manufactured goods provided by Germany v what Greece has to offer in return and just throwing paper at the problem,in the form of money ( in this case Euros ),without the products being there to back it won't make the slightest difference and will inevitably just crash the Euro.Either to the point where the obvious solution of different currencies that reflect the manufacturing power of each seperate country are brought back.Or the idea of paying for German manufactured goods with worthless Euros ( and/or ) increasingly worthless £'s etc crashes the major manufacturing countries like Germany.Germany's ( and the Cons ) answer to all that so far being the same as yours.IE let's go on believing that non manufacturing based economies can continue to import manufactured goods on the basis that the German Mark is worth the same as the Greek Drachma.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th December 03:33
AJS- said:
Why can't you barter with holidays or design services or patents? Of course they're built into the price, as is labour, power consumption, factory space and every other input. Selling design services to a German car company is every bit as real as selling alternators or windscreens to them.
I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
You are absolutely right. I don't want to come across as patronising or rude but where do you get these ideas from?
And I don't mind being rude.
Xjflyer has a tenuous grasp on reality and even less idea about economics. I walk away from every thread he inevitably drags into his spiral of Fordist utopian nonsense. That's what it always comes down to.
BlackLabel said:
This has been mentioned before on the forums but it's always worth putting it out there again imo - it goes to show what a massive challenge Cameron faces to hold onto power.
Yep and it's even worse in just England!!! God help you...http://ukpollingreport.co.uk said:
The abortive 6th boundary view was largely justified on the need to address some bias in the electoral system. You will notice this fairly quickly if you have a quick play about with the swingometer - if you leave the Liberal Democrat share of the vote unchanged then the Conservatives need a lead of 11 percentage points over Labour to win an overall majority, while the Labour party can achieve an overall majority with a lead of about 3 percentage points. Equally illustrative are the last two general election results - in 2005 Labour had a lead of 3 points over the Conservatives, and got a majority of over 60 seats; in 2010 the Conservatives had a lead of 7 points over Labour, but did not have an overall majority at all. Prima facie this appears unfair.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/electoral-bias/2005 general election results for england;
Labour 286 seats 8,043,461 votes
Con 194 seats 8,116,005 votes
No idea why people keep banging on about boundaries when the stats actually represent the failings of the first past the post system.
The stat's mean that the Cons appealed to a small number of constituencies, but when they do appeal they do so in a big way, i.e. they get 10 with 100% of the vote and only 1 with 51%. The Labs are broader in number of constituencies but people in them are less sure i.e. the get all 15 of theirs with 51% of the vote.
Boundary changes will not change this pattern as it is the first past the post system that is producing the result.
I would not be surprised if the historical stats always showed that the "winners" got less votes than the "losers" as its the borderline constituencies that you win by 1 vote that count if you want to "win".
The stat's mean that the Cons appealed to a small number of constituencies, but when they do appeal they do so in a big way, i.e. they get 10 with 100% of the vote and only 1 with 51%. The Labs are broader in number of constituencies but people in them are less sure i.e. the get all 15 of theirs with 51% of the vote.
Boundary changes will not change this pattern as it is the first past the post system that is producing the result.
I would not be surprised if the historical stats always showed that the "winners" got less votes than the "losers" as its the borderline constituencies that you win by 1 vote that count if you want to "win".
PlankWithANailIn said:
No idea why people keep banging on about boundaries when the stats actually represent the failings of the first past the post system.
The stat's mean that the Cons appealed to a small number of constituencies, but when they do appeal they do so in a big way, i.e. they get 10 with 100% of the vote and only 1 with 51%. The Labs are broader in number of constituencies but people in them are less sure i.e. the get all 15 of theirs with 51% of the vote.
Boundary changes will not change this pattern as it is the first past the post system that is producing the result.
I would not be surprised if the historical stats always showed that the "winners" got less votes than the "losers" as its the borderline constituencies that you win by 1 vote that count if you want to "win".
FPTP system is seriously flawed I agree but the boundary sizes are still very important. FPTP should result in the party with the most votes getting a disproportionate number of seats and forming a strong government. It does not inevitably lead to the 2005 situation above. On average, Labour seats have 4000 fewer eligible voters. Across the whole country that is a huge numerical advantage. If its not obvious why imagine the absurd situation where say 400 safe labour seats had 1 voter. The Tories would could get 20m votes elsewhere vs 400 labour and lose by a landslide. The reason people keep 'banging on about it' is it gives Labour a huge electoral advantage and given that you're not going to change FPTP any time soon, boundary sizes are important.The stat's mean that the Cons appealed to a small number of constituencies, but when they do appeal they do so in a big way, i.e. they get 10 with 100% of the vote and only 1 with 51%. The Labs are broader in number of constituencies but people in them are less sure i.e. the get all 15 of theirs with 51% of the vote.
Boundary changes will not change this pattern as it is the first past the post system that is producing the result.
I would not be surprised if the historical stats always showed that the "winners" got less votes than the "losers" as its the borderline constituencies that you win by 1 vote that count if you want to "win".
PlankWithANailIn said:
No idea why people keep banging on about boundaries
How about because the electorates vary between 22,000 and 110,000 persons (2010 figures)?thats a factor of 5:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdo...
and no, I didn't know that either.
McWigglebum4th said:
But we voted against the alternative vote
And the knowledgeable ones of PH were deeply deeply against the alternative vote as it is un democratic
What was the turn out again? If the vote was held again now with the rise of SNP, UKIP and Greens I imagine it would be a much higher turn out and closer decision. And the knowledgeable ones of PH were deeply deeply against the alternative vote as it is un democratic
PlankWithANailIn said:
No idea why people keep banging on about boundaries when the stats actually represent the failings of the first past the post system.
I think the stats represent the failings of both.For example, if the boundary reforms had taken place and you then applied the 2010 results to them you'd get something like this:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2013....
The AV system, which the referendum was all about, would have given us:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/if-the-al...
And under full PR:
XJ Flyer
As mentioned above, run away public spending funded by borrowing and the lack of any real ability to pay it back are much more significant than this perceived lack of manufacturing in Greece. Plenty has been written about this, and also about the shortcomings of protectionist policies versus free trade. Of the arguments I have heard for protectionism most rest on keeping or developing essential industries, or occasionally meeting social ends such as employment in a particular industry or region. I've never heard of this barter theory, or any sense in which money is qualitatively different depending upon what it is used to trade and it appears ridiculous. How can money be the same across all manufacturered goods (or is it?) yet different for all services.
I'm not here to give you a lesson in economics - there's plenty out there that has already been written with more enthusiasm than I could ever muster for the subject. Comparative advantage and the gains to trade are well worn theories.
From the article you posted I suspect you're confusing the current account with the balance of trade.
So can you explain your barter idea, or point me to an explanation of it? And can you explain why trade in services is less valuable than trade in goods?
As mentioned above, run away public spending funded by borrowing and the lack of any real ability to pay it back are much more significant than this perceived lack of manufacturing in Greece. Plenty has been written about this, and also about the shortcomings of protectionist policies versus free trade. Of the arguments I have heard for protectionism most rest on keeping or developing essential industries, or occasionally meeting social ends such as employment in a particular industry or region. I've never heard of this barter theory, or any sense in which money is qualitatively different depending upon what it is used to trade and it appears ridiculous. How can money be the same across all manufacturered goods (or is it?) yet different for all services.
I'm not here to give you a lesson in economics - there's plenty out there that has already been written with more enthusiasm than I could ever muster for the subject. Comparative advantage and the gains to trade are well worn theories.
From the article you posted I suspect you're confusing the current account with the balance of trade.
So can you explain your barter idea, or point me to an explanation of it? And can you explain why trade in services is less valuable than trade in goods?
AJS- said:
XJ Flyer
I'm not here to give you a lesson in economics - there's plenty out there that has already been written with more enthusiasm than I could ever muster for the subject. Comparative advantage and the gains to trade are well worn theories.
From the article you posted I suspect you're confusing the current account with the balance of trade.
So can you explain your barter idea, or point me to an explanation of it? And can you explain why trade in services is less valuable than trade in goods?
The article which I posted made it clear enough that Greece's economic problems are all about the predictable trade deficit resulting from an economy trading low value services and agricultural products in exchange for high value manufactured goods.I'm not here to give you a lesson in economics - there's plenty out there that has already been written with more enthusiasm than I could ever muster for the subject. Comparative advantage and the gains to trade are well worn theories.
From the article you posted I suspect you're confusing the current account with the balance of trade.
So can you explain your barter idea, or point me to an explanation of it? And can you explain why trade in services is less valuable than trade in goods?
As for the idea that money is anything more than a just a value less worthless token in its own right.The value of which is just an abstract and representation of ( and is therefore determined by ) the real terms value of what is actually barter,which is the real definition of trade.
As I've said who am I to argue with the economic 'experts' who've taken that theory to its logical conclusion in the form valuing the Greek Drachma the same as the German Mark.Or for that matter thinking that the value of the barter ( trade ),which takes place between service providers like the retail and catering trades,provides the currency involved in that type of economy with sufficient value to import manufactured goods like BMW's and Mercedes.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th December 23:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff