May 2011 Election

[Reynard]

What a really lazy reply.

Surely if you are wishing dismiss this you would give the results of many of these economists that are pro-union?

Also interesting that you feel that you are better places to coment on fiscal matters that the experts. What do you base this on?

Love you have baked selective work on your countries of choice.

You'll get used to it. I tend not to get overly wordy with irrelevances.

[vikingTON]

Can you give you view why alcohol pricing was a cheap shot? Clearly backed by doctors and health chiefs. Perhaps you know better?

Would doctors and public health chiefs back a total ban on alcohol use? If they would, why has that not been proposed?

[importedsandpitt]

Would doctors and public health chiefs back a total ban on alcohol use? If they would, why has that not been proposed?

You seem to be asking me rather that finding an answer to your rather stupid question.

[xbl]

I love seeing Unionists with the Economic Argument. No matter what is said (experts, official figures etc.), there are basically two main responses:

"But what about Ireland and Iceland!!!!". This one has to be said in a harsh, tear stained tone. Or option two is...

"But what about when the oil runs out!!". This one is normally preceded by a post complaining over the independence lobby obsessing over oil.

I see Reynard went for option A today.

[vikingTON]

You seem to be asking me rather that finding an answer to your rather stupid question.

Erm yes, because this isn't at all a public forum where I'm entitled to question your nonsense views as and when I wish.

Clearly backed by doctors and health chiefs. Perhaps you know better?

So... for the benefit of yourself, can we please clear up the fact that the views of doctors do not equate to what is best for society? Tha-anks.

[Michael W]

You seem to be asking me rather that finding an answer to your rather stupid question.

I think the point was more that Doctors think a lot of things. Some of them would probably have our diets regulated by statute if they could get away with it, as it would make their job easier.

Because their (biased) view says that something should be done doesn't mean that the government should do it.

[Reynard]

I love seeing Unionists with the Economic Argument. No matter what is said (experts, official figures etc.), there are basically two main responses:

"But what about Ireland and Iceland!!!!". This one has to be said in a harsh, tear stained tone. Or option two is...

"But what about when the oil runs out!!". This one is normally preceded by a post complaining over the independence lobby obsessing over oil.

I see Reynard went for option A today.

Was that typed to the noise of distant pipes playing?

Well I guess we will see in a few months time how things are looking for independence. I guess Salmond will be going all out to leave some sort of a legacy behind him surely? I wonder if he will take a peerage?

[xbl]

Was that typed to the noise of distant pipes playing?

Nope, it was typed to the sound of a Tiny Unionist Tantrum.

Well I guess we will see in a few months time how things are looking for independence. I guess Salmond will be going all out to leave some sort of a legacy behind him surely? I wonder if he will take a peerage?

I don't understand, is he retiring?

[Ad Lib]

I don't understand, is he retiring?

If Iain Gray beat me at a game of politics I'd sure as hell think about chucking it.

[ecky-thump]

I gave my vote to Not Voting, unless..........something drastic happens in a parties manifesto that shows an indication that they are concerned about too much bureaucracy* and interference in our lives. The Tories have edged slightly towards that stance with the scrapping of a few quangos. At least it's a start, just not enough to earn my vote though.

If that wee busibody Sturgeon forces through minimum pricing for alcohol, she can kiss my X goodbye.

*1. government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials.

2. the body of officials and administrators, esp. of a government or government department.

3. excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators.

4. administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine.

[capybara]

Well i will vote SNP . Not entirely happy with everything they have done,but they certainly tick most of my political boxes. I think they should have pushed ahead with the Constitutional Referendum and the bill to introduce a Local Income Tax. Although both issues will be major debating points in the campaign.

Ian Gray is a terrible prospect as first minister. I hope he will tell us what he stands for instead of what he is against.

[Reynard]

Nope, it was typed to the sound of a Tiny Unionist Tantrum.

I don't understand, is he retiring?

He will chuck "frontline politics" when Labour win the next SP elections.

Wait and see.

[capybara]

Latest You Gov poll is good news for the SNP,mind it is in the Sun. I will try to find the poll on line.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3195326/Support-for-cottish-independence-increased.html

[Mushroom]

I becoming more and more swayed by the SNP, I was fairly ambivalent to the union before but I just don't trust the Tories. Their social policies are fairly irrlevant to us because of devolution, so this is entirely economical.

I'm no economic expert, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but the basic way to get out of a recession is to generate growth, by creating jobs. ie. Spend money in the public sector. What the coalition is doing is the exact opposite to "cut the deficit". I agree that needs done at some point fairly soon, but would it not make more sense to do this when things have picked up, so we don't get into a downward spiral? Cut jobs, cut growth, more jobs cut, repeat ad nauseum.

I'll use Australia as an example (I am basing this on the accounts of my parents who visited there earlier this year) they went and gave ach citizen a lump sum rebate, on the condition that they spent it. They gave each school a big grant, so most schools now have a new shiny sports hall or something along these lines. It got people into work, whilst improving peoples lives at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Australia didn't go into recession, which I think says it all.

The SNP are the only party I've heard saying that they would like to "grow" our way out of the downturn, which I do reckon is the way forward here.

Also since we clearly don't agree with England (see 2010 election results) it means that we can get the party we want in control of all of our own affairs. It also means we are not bound to this ludicrous, undemocratic and just plain wrong FPTP system.

I also reckon the SNP have done quite well, they've scrapped tuition fees, graduate tax etc. meaning that those who are bright enough to go to uni but previously couldn't because their parents couldn't afford it now can (I can sustain myself on the loan and bursary I get, and my debt will probably be around the £10k mark, much better than down south).

Council tax was getting out of hand, so I am very pleased by them freezing it. Ideally a local income tax would be better (maybe combined with some kind of mansion tax so the super rich who never work a day in their lives contribute) but seemingly that was blocked by Labour threatening the Scottish government click

Also. Iain Gray.

Have I missed anything?

[Ad Lib]

I'm no economic expert, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but the basic way to get out of a recession is to generate growth, by creating jobs. ie. Spend money in the public sector. What the coalition is doing is the exact opposite to "cut the deficit". I agree that needs done at some point fairly soon, but would it not make more sense to do this when things have picked up, so we don't get into a downward spiral? Cut jobs, cut growth, more jobs cut, repeat ad nauseum.

That's a leap of logic and a generalisation in the same sentence. The way to get out of a recession is to balance your books (i.e. if you're not taking in enough to pay for your programme, you either raise taxes and do the same or more or cut spending and do a bit less, focusing on getting more bang for the proverbial buck) and to encourage foreign investment to create private sector jobs, as they generate more wealth than public sector ones (which, broadly speaking recycle money). Obviously there are a number of companies which depend on public sector contracts (which is a shite business model by the way, and leads to poor deals for the taxpayer as they pay millions in architect consultancy fees so new schools have abnormally shaped windows) but the real place for growth is in business start-ups and increasing your exports and reducing imports. That's done by letting companies keep more of the wealth they generate, which means cutting taxes to make your country more attractive than other countries as a place to set up base. You can have a lower rate of corporation tax and take in more actual money if more companies base themselves there as a result.

Cutting jobs does not mean cutting growth. Jobs are caused by growth and not the other way around. To cut the deficit government has to both collect more tax and spend less money. That's what a deficit is. The difference between your income against your debt, either in a given year or historically. Having people in lots of public sector jobs makes the country dependent on the state and means that ordinary taxpayers pick up an even bigger burden than if they were collecting benefits when the economy contracts and the private sector sheds jobs to keep afloat.

Government and government spending is the solution to virtually nothing.

[xbl]

Spending review: why so soft on Scots and foreigners?

Before we all get too smug in our hair shirts about the pain Britain must endure from the spending review, let us pause and consider how much money is still being wasted, how many undeserving cases continue to get away with being larded with huge amounts of public money, and what all this says about the gutlessness and lack of intelligence of the people who govern us. I refer, of course, to the settlement in Scotland. On Wednesday afternoon, the Scottish Conservative Party, a fringe group now so irrelevant to United Kingdom politics that it may as well arrange its annual conference in a telephone box, put out a rather bizarre press release. It said that while the Nationalist-run government in Scotland had been preparing for a 12.3 per cent cut in spending, George Osborne only delivered one of 6.8 per cent. Scotland has a hard-core addiction to state support and handouts. I suspect we are only building aircraft carriers that will have no aircraft to fly from them because it keeps men in Scottish shipyards on the payroll. Osborne manifestly had no desire to send this dependent relative nation into the financial equivalent of cold turkey....

...Not only would it be fair for the Scots to take the same degree of pain as the English, it would also be good for them. The sooner they stop being treated like an invalid maiden aunt, the sooner they will stop acting like one, and, like the rest of us, seek to develop a private sector that can earn the country some money, instead of its continually having to hold out the begging bowl to the English taxpayer...

Read and digest people!

[vikingTON]

The way to get out of a recession is to balance your books

It's 1929 economics all over again!

[Mushroom]

That's a leap of logic and a generalisation in the same sentence. The way to get out of a recession is to balance your books (i.e. if you're not taking in enough to pay for your programme, you either raise taxes and do the same or more or cut spending and do a bit less, focusing on getting more bang for the proverbial buck) and to encourage foreign investment to create private sector jobs, as they generate more wealth than public sector ones (which, broadly speaking recycle money). Obviously there are a number of companies which depend on public sector contracts (which is a shite business model by the way, and leads to poor deals for the taxpayer as they pay millions in architect consultancy fees so new schools have abnormally shaped windows) but the real place for growth is in business start-ups and increasing your exports and reducing imports. That's done by letting companies keep more of the wealth they generate, which means cutting taxes to make your country more attractive than other countries as a place to set up base. You can have a lower rate of corporation tax and take in more actual money if more companies base themselves there as a result.

Cutting jobs does not mean cutting growth. Jobs are caused by growth and not the other way around. To cut the deficit government has to both collect more tax and spend less money. That's what a deficit is. The difference between your income against your debt, either in a given year or historically. Having people in lots of public sector jobs makes the country dependent on the state and means that ordinary taxpayers pick up an even bigger burden than if they were collecting benefits when the economy contracts and the private sector sheds jobs to keep afloat.

Government and government spending is the solution to virtually nothing.

Seems fair enough but I know you're a tory, so you'll be biased towards Osbourne, combined with no real evidence I'm not sure, especially with 1929 economics coming into it

Could someone tell me if he's talking sense?

[vikingTON]

Could someone tell me if he's talking sense?

Absolute dogmatic rubbish from start to finish. A pipe-dream conception of how things should be laid out that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the real and present challenges.

[Ad Lib]

Seems fair enough but I know you're a tory, so you'll be biased towards Osborne, combined with no real evidence I'm not sure, especially with 1929 economics coming into it

Could someone tell me if he's talking sense?

No I'm not. Osborne isn't going nearly far enough. He's only doing what's necessary to balance the books. I'd go further and use it as a chance to cut back the state to the bare minimum to reach the stateless libertarian utopia.