General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[ICTJohnboy]

I can't believe the meeja are still chewing over and analysing last night's contrived claptrap. Are they going to get to decide who will form the next government? Hearing this morning that most people decide who they will vote for after viewing these pathetic debates. I don't believe that for one minute. 

C'mon Scotland - there must be a better way of doing this.

[ICTJohnboy]

Good that Sky News have finally broken away from discussing the farce that was last night's "debate".

Currently showing Nicola delivering a speech at Dundee East. After watching the two useless wastes of space from last night, here at last, is someone talking absolute sense. English media, please note - you might learn something. 

[Kuro]

47 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Why? It's £2000 billion already. We should live within our means, not dump a massive debt on our children just because we are financially incontinent. You think we should consume now and let future generations pay? Everything on fkn tick, including all Blair's PFI schools and hospitals. Sure, now would have been a good time for the UK to borrow at historically low rates - if we hadn't run up massive debts already. Borrowing not even for capital investment but just to cover year to year costs. Our politicians need the guts to say to the people either less spending or more taxes. Probably both. 

I would say it is the weak,lazy,selfish,delusional head-in-the-sand ostriches that should be launched into the North Sea

Yeah but it's now two TRILLION.  There is no possibility whatsoever that even a proportion of that will ever be paid off.  The UK is going to.be trillions.in debt for.the rest of time.  The USA is twenty trillion in debt, these countries will never not.be in debt again and it's not even an aim it's that unrealistic.  so.getting all worked up about the national debt is pointless.

[johnthebaptistist]

9 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Who would you count as a non career politician?

Probably someone who got into politics to be force for the betterment of their constituents and not to push their personal agenda for self appeasement i.e. not Nicola Sturgeon

[Kuro]

7 minutes ago, johnthebaptistist said:

Probably someone who got into politics to be force for the betterment of their constituents and not to push their personal agenda for self appeasement i.e. not Nicola Sturgeon

What is a personal agenda for self appeasement?  Those words in that combination don't even mean anything.  You might as well admit you're a demented British nationalist who hates Nicola sturgeon because she threatens your nationalism therefore your hate her if.she cured cancer.  And the reasons you cite as being good are exactly why she got into politics.

[yoda]

1 hour ago, Pet Jeden said:

Why? It's £2000 billion already. We should live within our means, not dump a massive debt on our children just because we are financially incontinent. You think we should consume now and let future generations pay? Everything on fkn tick, including all Blair's PFI schools and hospitals. Sure, now would have been a good time for the UK to borrow at historically low rates - if we hadn't run up massive debts already. Borrowing not even for capital investment but just to cover year to year costs. Our politicians need the guts to say to the people either less spending or more taxes. Probably both. 

I would say it is the weak,lazy,selfish,delusional head-in-the-sand ostriches that should be launched into the North Sea

Hi Pet Jeden,

You are economically illiterate.

Regards,

yoda

[Pet Jeden]

5 minutes ago, yoda said:

Hi Pet Jeden,

You are economically illiterate.

Regards,

yoda

Yup. We’ve been living beyond our means through good times and bad through the whole lifetime of anybody on P&B. But, go on, regale us with your “invest” for growth spiel.

[Pet Jeden]

4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Living within our means turns tax into theft

No. Within the UK’s means.

[johnthebaptistist]

24 minutes ago, Kuro said:

What is a personal agenda for self appeasement?  Those words in that combination don't even mean anything.  You might as well admit you're a demented British nationalist who hates Nicola sturgeon because she threatens your nationalism therefore your hate her if.she cured cancer.  And the reasons you cite as being good are exactly why she got into politics.

That phrase sits well with many a politican that I can name, Jo Swinson,  Jacob Rees-Mogg instantly come to mind. I know people that I work with that have the same selfish attitudes. 

[oaksoft]

27 minutes ago, yoda said:

Hi Pet Jeden,

You are economically illiterate.

Regards,

yoda

And your response is to show that you can't articulate a counter argument beyond this playground tripe.

Fantastic contribution. 

[Kuro]

1 minute ago, johnthebaptistist said:

That phrase sits well with many a politican that I can name, Jo Swinson,  Jacob Rees-Mogg instantly come to mind. I know people that I work with that have the same selfish attitudes. 

What does that phrase mean?  

[johnthebaptistist]

1 minute ago, Kuro said:

What does that phrase mean?  

It seems quite simple to me, I even simplified it from the normal phrase I use. Read it more slowly if you can

[hearthammer]

2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

No. Within the UK’s means.

Successive labour and tory governments have jizzed excessive amounts on projects that will "benefit britain" - M25 multiple lane extensions / additional runway(s) & terminals at heathrow / channel tunnel / HS2 (london to oop north).  London and the south east will always be westminster's priorities.

Whilst these cosmetic appeasements were being thought out and implimented, we had the A1 and the A9/M74 motorways (term used loosely) that were nothing more than extended "A" roads. Both of these roads were serious and major accident blackspots for years with multiple deaths recorded.  We in Scotland were at the back of the queue for years for upgrading these roads to full motorway status.  Thankfully, Devolution followed by SNP governance has resolved these issues as much as is possible.  We also have a new Queensferry Crossing that was necessary to alleviate the traffic problems between the Kingdom and Edinburgh/South.  Not cosmetic, but required.

You're too young to remember the 60s and 70s (i'm guessing), so don't base all your political judgements on how Scotland's faring on the current pro-uk spin guff - or the copy & paste maestro, wee malky.

[yoda]

21 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Yup. We’ve been living beyond our means through good times and bad through the whole lifetime of anybody on P&B. But, go on, regale us with your “invest” for growth spiel.

In the words of William Gale (a senior economist during the first Bush administration, so hardly some Marxist shill) :

Quote

Balanced budgets may have symbolic value, but they are not necessary. Rules aimed at forcing balanced budgets make recessions deeper and longer by requiring spending cuts or tax increases during hard times, and they can be manipulated through accounting gimmicks. Almost every state has a balanced-budget rule, but many of them face future fiscal shortfalls focused on health-care and retirement spending, just as the federal government does.

I broadly agree with you that governments should try and run a modest surplus during "boom" times (although that'll be as a result of increased taxation and a natural reduction in automatic stabilisers, rather than cuts to government spending). However, the ultimate aim of that surplus is not to pay down the public debt but instead to stabilise it - "debt smoothing", if you will. Recessions happen and in some cases they can be incredibly damaging to the public finances, and the result is a permanently higher plateau of public debt. That is how things operate in reality. Japan functions with a debt-to-GDP ratio of >200%, and issues with the Japanese economy are nothing to do with the size of its public debt.

The UK economy is absolutely not in the position to be currently trying to run a budget surplus. To suggest that they should is absolutely wild.  

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

National debt is normal and necessary for the world economy. Better?

Yes.

I would disagree though.

National debt may never be paid off but it does need servicing or the interest rates we pay will rocket. Our credit rating then becomes a more important factor than the size of the debt. This is not a good situation to be in.

Those interest payments eat into every budget from infrastructure through to the NHS and welfare and borrowing more will exacerbate that.

You can't tax your way out of that.

[Pet Jeden]

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

National debt is normal and necessary for the world economy. Better?

Some debt to counter the cycle and stimulate growth and for capital expenditure is necessary. But then we should be paying down debt in boom times. The UK has just continuously grown it’s debt for a century. We are not yet quite in the Premier league of deranged borrowers like Argentina or even USA. But we’re headed for the play-offs.

[Kuro]

4 minutes ago, johnthebaptistist said:

It seems quite simple to me, I even simplified it from the normal phrase I use. Read it more slowly if you can

It doesn't mean anything.  Aggrandizement, enrichment, promotion, advancement fine, appeasement has no meaning whatsoever in that context.  It's just typical unionist mental gymnastics to.avoid the truth that your opinion is derived from being a raging British nationalist and.thats all.There is to it.

[Pet Jeden]

4 minutes ago, yoda said:

In the words of William Gale (a senior economist during the first Bush administration, so hardly some Marxist shill) :

I broadly agree with you that governments should try and run a modest surplus during "boom" times (although that'll be as a result of increased taxation and a natural reduction in automatic stabilisers, rather than cuts to government spending). However, the ultimate aim of that surplus is not to pay down the public debt but instead to stabilise it - "debt smoothing", if you will. Recessions happen and in some cases they can be incredibly damaging to the public finances, and the result is a permanently higher plateau of public debt. That is how things operate in reality. Japan functions with a debt-to-GDP ratio of >200%, and issues with the Japanese economy are nothing to do with the size of its public debt.

The UK economy is absolutely not in the position to be currently trying to run a budget surplus. To suggest that they should is absolutely wild.  

So you basically advocate a ratchet whereby debt only ever goes up. And you, like successive UK governments will therefore secretly be a big fan of inflation to inflate away the debts. Your logic eventually leads to Argentina, Zimbabwe etc. We don’t have the worlds currency to help us like the USA.

[johnthebaptistist]

4 minutes ago, Kuro said:

It doesn't mean anything.  Aggrandizement, enrichment, promotion, advancement fine, appeasement has no meaning whatsoever in that context.  It's just typical unionist mental gymnastics to.avoid the truth that your opinion is derived from being a raging British nationalist and.thats all.There is to it.

It doesn't mean anything to you because your a typical nationalist who just sits and wibbles while your little country gets reamed, freedom my arse !!

[dorlomin]

1 hour ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Dominic Raab stated this morning that it was deliberate, and anyway, who gives a toss about it ? 

The sad thing is, he's probably right.

It's straight out of the right-wing populist playbook, isn't it ? Flood the news with lies, mis-truths and rumours, and some of it will stick. People will accuse them of fake news and lies, but so what ?

 

Caught some of Raab's interview. Sounds like he has been coached to be similar to Ben Shapiro\Kellyanne Conway style of interviewing.