comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.
If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.
The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.
I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the trouble - just look at the vote share the Lib dems were getting from the late 1990s to 2010 and the share of seats they had.
AV was a shocking system, though, and whilst better than what we have now should not have been accepted. Better to wait for real reform.
comment by Bestie (U1113)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.
If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.
The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.
I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the trouble - just look at the vote share the Lib dems were getting from the late 1990s to 2010 and the share of seats they had.
AV was a shocking system, though, and whilst better than what we have now should not have been accepted. Better to wait for real reform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Lib Dems should have insisted on a referendum on PR as a prerequisite for entering into the coalition, the result I'm quite sure would have been the same.
The establishment likes the status quo, and Labour and the Tories, as well as the corporate broadcast and publishing media would have ensured it endured.
comment by Bestie (U1113)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by Super Kami Willy - Brexit means Brexit (U9880)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The debt is increasing because the deficit still exists.
Slashing it has been slow tbf but it has gone down. However, as long as it still exists the debt will increase.
If the government were actually brave then they would give the welfare state a much needed reform and reduce the amount of benefits given out. Incredibly high sums of figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the welfare state (which has already been done massively) would not benefit the economy much. People on benefits will tend to have extremely high marginal propensities to consume and so all the money they get is pumped straight back into the economy, funding businesses and shops in their area and thus essentially ends up straight back into the government purse.
Trying to slash the deficit by means of cutting government spending almost indiscriminately isn't really a good idea (see Paul Krugman, Simon Wren-Lewis, Brad DeLong and others for eminent, world-leading economists who explain in simple terms why it's not a good idea; see Eurozone and our economy for first-hand evidence of it failing to work). The concept of fiscal multipliers explains how certain public goods (top amongst them flood defences, which the Tories have slashed despite a FM of 7) generate more revenue over the long-term than they cost, so it is best for a government to invest in these things. Under Osborne, an arbitrary (and incorrect) FM was applied unilaterally to all public spending of (I believe) around 0.75, which even the right-wing IMF subsequently criticised robustly. Fact is that much government spending will benefit the economy and carefully managed investments in these areas should be made, rather than cuts.
Additionally, it's perfectly feasible to run a consistent budget deficit if your economy is growing well. The main concern is the overall debt level as a % of GDP, and if that remains stable you're absolutely fine. Running a surplus has its plus points, too, and at some point the UK will realistically need to do so to improve the fundamentals of the economy and decrease the debt interest burden. The time for that, however, is not when the economy remains fragile, faces the massive challenge of Brexit and interest rates are at a historically low level. Basic Keynesian economics suggests that now is the perfect time for some robust government stimulus.
All of the Nordic countries, France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux states, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy and the UK have all had stable, collaborative and co-operative coalition governments.
In fact, coalition government is now the norm in large parts of Europe, including in Scandinavia and Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coalition government when done effectively can be a very good thing, and as you mention works very well here in Scandinavia. Trouble with them in our system is it will be one established party dominating it + a tiny party who are their to be trashed, basically. If we had PR and the vote share was better represented by the number of seats, then coalitions could be far more balanced and effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post
Particularly in regards to the deficit and debt.
Austerity is not a bad idea, however its the timing and way its implemented which will make it successful.
Lots of countries did manage to implement austerity, but did so not at a time of global economic recovery. Investment for me would be the best policy for the time being, then at some point in the future, we can look at austerity.
Also back to healthcare, the US system is enormously regulated due to the fact that it relies upon private investment and public subsidies.
The main issue of these regulation is that it can protect private interest groups, and restrict the scope of practice laws, which in turn restricts public access to cheaper providers. So the private sector regulated US healthcare does seem to resist innovations or changes, due to regulations.
Deregulation is easier said than done, and it doesn't seem like the US has been able to change it.
Also NPE, it's interesting you criticise the NHS for not being innovative enough. Well, it is second in the world when it come to research, only beaten by the US. So it seems more research is being made in Great Britain than in France or Germany.
I would be all for a integration of private and public health care, however I really doubt the Conservative government will be successful in Implementing it. The key to the French model is that there is flexibility and choice for the consumers, whilst privatisation in the UK has given none of that. France spends more of their GDP on health and invests more publicly, so their success is also down to a lot of public investment.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The capitalism Adam Smith espoused isn't the Capitalism we have, he advocated completely free markets, no protectionism nor government subsidies.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
NPE and Brightdave need to chill, as I think both have you have legitimate arguments. There is fair criticism of libertarianism and socialism, and it's important to recognise that there is a sincere goal to each ideology towards aspects like social mobility and liberal freedoms. They just differ in how it can be achieved.
Adam Smith would simply not agree with the modern views on libertarianism. Sure some of his ideology was used, but really most of his theory is ignored by the right. Smith believed profits should be low, labour wages high and land should be distributed.
His policies were to work against the concentration of wealth. Funny enough, Marx was a admirer of Smith and his views, which would surprise a lot of libertarians.
The issue today with Adam Smith's theories is that people seek to use his theories to concentrate the wealth with the rich. Like Hector sums up, todays capitalism is nothing like Adam Smith's vision.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Lorraine
Kellys
Knickers
Now enough handwringing lefty cod economic theory and off to bed
All of you
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Labour winning massively on this thread compared to last. Weird
Amazing what the promise of 4 extra bank holidays will do
comment by LoveAfc♥ (U3664)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
Amazing what the promise of 4 extra bank holidays will do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
But in effect its one extra bank holiday for each country within Great Britain
But an extra bank hol is always a good thing
Oh I see, probably not worth f-cking up the country for just one then, four on the other hand then yeah, screw the country lol
Strong and Stable Government
Sign in if you want to comment
JA606 GE Opinion Poll Result
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 25/4/17
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.
If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.
The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.
I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the trouble - just look at the vote share the Lib dems were getting from the late 1990s to 2010 and the share of seats they had.
AV was a shocking system, though, and whilst better than what we have now should not have been accepted. Better to wait for real reform.
posted on 25/4/17
comment by Bestie (U1113)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.
If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.
The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.
I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the trouble - just look at the vote share the Lib dems were getting from the late 1990s to 2010 and the share of seats they had.
AV was a shocking system, though, and whilst better than what we have now should not have been accepted. Better to wait for real reform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Lib Dems should have insisted on a referendum on PR as a prerequisite for entering into the coalition, the result I'm quite sure would have been the same.
The establishment likes the status quo, and Labour and the Tories, as well as the corporate broadcast and publishing media would have ensured it endured.
posted on 25/4/17
comment by Bestie (U1113)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by Super Kami Willy - Brexit means Brexit (U9880)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The debt is increasing because the deficit still exists.
Slashing it has been slow tbf but it has gone down. However, as long as it still exists the debt will increase.
If the government were actually brave then they would give the welfare state a much needed reform and reduce the amount of benefits given out. Incredibly high sums of figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the welfare state (which has already been done massively) would not benefit the economy much. People on benefits will tend to have extremely high marginal propensities to consume and so all the money they get is pumped straight back into the economy, funding businesses and shops in their area and thus essentially ends up straight back into the government purse.
Trying to slash the deficit by means of cutting government spending almost indiscriminately isn't really a good idea (see Paul Krugman, Simon Wren-Lewis, Brad DeLong and others for eminent, world-leading economists who explain in simple terms why it's not a good idea; see Eurozone and our economy for first-hand evidence of it failing to work). The concept of fiscal multipliers explains how certain public goods (top amongst them flood defences, which the Tories have slashed despite a FM of 7) generate more revenue over the long-term than they cost, so it is best for a government to invest in these things. Under Osborne, an arbitrary (and incorrect) FM was applied unilaterally to all public spending of (I believe) around 0.75, which even the right-wing IMF subsequently criticised robustly. Fact is that much government spending will benefit the economy and carefully managed investments in these areas should be made, rather than cuts.
Additionally, it's perfectly feasible to run a consistent budget deficit if your economy is growing well. The main concern is the overall debt level as a % of GDP, and if that remains stable you're absolutely fine. Running a surplus has its plus points, too, and at some point the UK will realistically need to do so to improve the fundamentals of the economy and decrease the debt interest burden. The time for that, however, is not when the economy remains fragile, faces the massive challenge of Brexit and interest rates are at a historically low level. Basic Keynesian economics suggests that now is the perfect time for some robust government stimulus.
All of the Nordic countries, France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux states, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy and the UK have all had stable, collaborative and co-operative coalition governments.
In fact, coalition government is now the norm in large parts of Europe, including in Scandinavia and Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coalition government when done effectively can be a very good thing, and as you mention works very well here in Scandinavia. Trouble with them in our system is it will be one established party dominating it + a tiny party who are their to be trashed, basically. If we had PR and the vote share was better represented by the number of seats, then coalitions could be far more balanced and effective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post
Particularly in regards to the deficit and debt.
Austerity is not a bad idea, however its the timing and way its implemented which will make it successful.
Lots of countries did manage to implement austerity, but did so not at a time of global economic recovery. Investment for me would be the best policy for the time being, then at some point in the future, we can look at austerity.
posted on 25/4/17
Also back to healthcare, the US system is enormously regulated due to the fact that it relies upon private investment and public subsidies.
The main issue of these regulation is that it can protect private interest groups, and restrict the scope of practice laws, which in turn restricts public access to cheaper providers. So the private sector regulated US healthcare does seem to resist innovations or changes, due to regulations.
Deregulation is easier said than done, and it doesn't seem like the US has been able to change it.
Also NPE, it's interesting you criticise the NHS for not being innovative enough. Well, it is second in the world when it come to research, only beaten by the US. So it seems more research is being made in Great Britain than in France or Germany.
I would be all for a integration of private and public health care, however I really doubt the Conservative government will be successful in Implementing it. The key to the French model is that there is flexibility and choice for the consumers, whilst privatisation in the UK has given none of that. France spends more of their GDP on health and invests more publicly, so their success is also down to a lot of public investment.
posted on 25/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/17
The capitalism Adam Smith espoused isn't the Capitalism we have, he advocated completely free markets, no protectionism nor government subsidies.
posted on 25/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/17
NPE and Brightdave need to chill, as I think both have you have legitimate arguments. There is fair criticism of libertarianism and socialism, and it's important to recognise that there is a sincere goal to each ideology towards aspects like social mobility and liberal freedoms. They just differ in how it can be achieved.
Adam Smith would simply not agree with the modern views on libertarianism. Sure some of his ideology was used, but really most of his theory is ignored by the right. Smith believed profits should be low, labour wages high and land should be distributed.
His policies were to work against the concentration of wealth. Funny enough, Marx was a admirer of Smith and his views, which would surprise a lot of libertarians.
The issue today with Adam Smith's theories is that people seek to use his theories to concentrate the wealth with the rich. Like Hector sums up, todays capitalism is nothing like Adam Smith's vision.
posted on 25/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/4/17
Lorraine
Kellys
Knickers
Now enough handwringing lefty cod economic theory and off to bed
All of you
posted on 25/4/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/4/17
Labour winning massively on this thread compared to last. Weird
posted on 28/4/17
Amazing what the promise of 4 extra bank holidays will do
posted on 28/4/17
comment by LoveAfc♥ (U3664)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
Amazing what the promise of 4 extra bank holidays will do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
But in effect its one extra bank holiday for each country within Great Britain
But an extra bank hol is always a good thing
posted on 29/4/17
Oh I see, probably not worth f-cking up the country for just one then, four on the other hand then yeah, screw the country lol
posted on 29/4/17
Strong and Stable Government
Page 8 of 8
6 | 7 | 8