Bye Bye Boris!

[Jobbo]

Lord Binhead. He had to change it because of some dispute around a copyright.

Baron Binface, isn't it?

Count Binface. Well done us

FFS, didn't you even click on the link? It lists the names of every candidate, and both Count Binface and Lord Buckethead are running. Hope they don't split the anti-Boris vote too much.

As for Corbyn, he's never going to win a clear majority so while he could potentially be PM, chances are we'll end up with Boris even if there's a hung Parliament. Boris with a hung Parliament is way better for the country than Boris with a majority because he will have to do what the people as a whole want, not what a minority of Tory voters want.

Don't think voting for anything other than the Tories risks a Corbyn-led Labour majority, please.

[DeskJockey]

Sure, let's have a look at the data used to make your claim please?

And secondly, if you take both manifestos at their word, then by Labours own volition they're gonna increase borrowing massively to pay for their 'free everything' plan.

Knock yourself out: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... of-labours

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

You could also look at it from this angle: Labour inherit all the damage the Tories have done to the "soft" infrastructure of the country and have to spend to try to repair it and undo some of the negative impacts.

[NotoriousREV]

Sure, let's have a look at the data used to make your claim please?

And secondly, if you take both manifestos at their word, then by Labours own volition they're gonna increase borrowing massively to pay for their 'free everything' plan.

Knock yourself out: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... of-labours

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

Knock yourself out: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... AXAJ-_SGS4

[GG.]

This is all also based on the false premise that this Labour government has a spending plan similar to previous ones, which it doesn't.

There's also no way you'd nationalise all the industries they're talking about nationalising and then reverse that in the following 5 years. The turmoil would be unimaginable and the effect of a Corbyn government generational. You can't re-build a demolished credit rating and make debt disappear just on a change of government. Greece is a good example of that.

[Swervin_Mervin]

You could also look at it from this angle: Labour inherit all the damage the Tories have done to the "soft" infrastructure of the country and have to spend to try to repair it and undo some of the negative impacts.

What is the "soft" infrastructure?

The reality is that we have never truly seen the long term effects of either party's approach. Another side-effect/problem (depending on your perspective) of a two-party system

[NotoriousREV]

This is all also based on the false premise that this Labour government has a spending plan similar to previous ones, which it doesn't.

There's also no way you'd nationalise all the industries they're talking about nationalising and then reverse that in the following 5 years. The turmoil would be unimaginable and the effect of a Corbyn government generational. You can't re-build a demolished credit rating and make debt disappear just on a change of government. Greece is a good example of that.

A demolished credit rating and massive debt like the Tories have delivered over the last 9 years?

[GG.]

Borrowings trend upwards over time as there is still a residual annual deficit, albeit much smaller now than it was. What you're saying is that you think running a larger deficit would have, over that 9 year period (not long post 2008 when all gilt yields were spiking), made tax receipts so much higher that it would have eliminated the (now much larger) annual deficit and actually had the total borrowings reduce. To put it mildly, that is extremely optimistic thinking.

If you think the couple of ticks down in the country's credit rating is 'demolished', then I don't think you'll be pleased with what Borrowing 100s of billions more by way of gilt issuances does to it.

Keynsian economics was theorised around stimulatory spending in a contracting economy to avoid compounding the contraction by removing more (government-side) spending and creating a further downward loop. It was never intended to say you should run huge annual deficits when the economy is expanding. There are reasons why you justify a small overshoot because of low borrowing costs and inflation, but the Corbynite economic policies are not at all based on that mild form of overspending.

[DeskJockey]

You could also look at it from this angle: Labour inherit all the damage the Tories have done to the "soft" infrastructure of the country and have to spend to try to repair it and undo some of the negative impacts.

What is the "soft" infrastructure?

The reality is that we have never truly seen the long term effects of either party's approach. Another side-effect/problem (depending on your perspective) of a two-party system

Cushions? Education, health, social care, etc.

[dinny_g]

I'm in a bit of a quandary this time around because I've always chosen to vote for the candidate that would best serve my constituency. Conservative MP Peter Bone previously and more recently since I moved, again, Conservative Mark Lancaster.

Mark Lancaster is not standing this time around (due to death threats to him and his family. ) so I can't be as sure of the choice (if I decide to vote that way). It will be theoretical as none of the local candidates have been MP's previously so will have to base it on manifesto, credibility etc.

I may end up choosing the local candidate of the National Party I feel most aligned to.

[GG.]

@DJ: Sadly Corbyn's policies of Nationalising everything that moves doesn't relate to education, health or social care but is a marxist wank-fest based on magical thinking that trains will run better under British Rail MK II, electricity and water will be cheaper and broadband free to all. Its bat-shit crazy spending for ideological reasons. You may have a point for prior Labour spending plans, but not this one.

[ShockDiamonds]

Sure, let's have a look at the data used to make your claim please?

And secondly, if you take both manifestos at their word, then by Labours own volition they're gonna increase borrowing massively to pay for their 'free everything' plan.

Knock yourself out: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... of-labours

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

This basically details what my thoughts are on the Labour vs Conservative front. Labour, IMHO, generally run up debt, inflate the social sector and then create a mess (witness the "there is no money left" line allegedly made when the Conservatives took power) for the next Government to deal with. I just don't trust them with the country's finances.

But having seen what Brexit now actuallymeans, I really really don't want to leave. Having met Boris Johnson several years ago, I know he's not a baffoon etc but this '"get Brexit done" line, whilst laudable because it pushes through a democratic decision, handily ignores the fact that said decision was nearly 3.5 years ago. Too much time has therefore past in my view for it to still be valid - people come and go, people die. It was vote in time, but times have changed.

Ergo, for the first time in my entire life I don't think I'll be voting Conservative. I also see what they've done to an industry close to a family member. Doesn't matter which industry, but what I see is that they've gone too far with austerity, and whilst I believe they had to do something because Labour created a sodding awful mess, they've gone too far the other way since then, having totally ballsed up Brexit and seen intent on hammering it through no matter what.

Edit to add - I think Dave said it too actually, 5 years of Labour is a price worth paying and we see where we are in 2024.

[GG.]

So you'll vote for someone that's worse? I don't understand the logic at all of not liking the incumbent or a policy that they're for, but then voting for someone that you know is worse in every other measurable way, or a third option that gets you the party that's worse in every measurable way.

[NotoriousREV]

Knock yourself out: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... of-labours

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

This basically details what my thoughts are on the Labour vs Conservative front. Labour, IMHO, generally run up debt, inflate the social sector and then create a mess (witness the "there is no money left" line allegedly made when the Conservatives took power) for the next Government to deal with. I just don't trust them with the country's finances.

But having seen what Brexit now actuallymeans, I really really don't want to leave. Having met Boris Johnson several years ago, I know he's not a baffoon etc but this '"get Brexit done" line, whilst laudable because it pushes through a democratic decision, handily ignores the fact that said decision was nearly 3.5 years ago. Too much time has therefore past in my view for it to still be valid - people come and go, people die. It was vote in time, but times have changed.

Ergo, for the first time in my entire life I don't think I'll be voting Conservative. I also see what they've done to an industry close to a family member. Doesn't matter which industry, but what I see is that they've gone too far with austerity, and whilst I believe they had to do something because Labour created a sodding awful mess, they've gone too far the other way since then, having totally ballsed up Brexit and seen intent on hammering it through no matter what.

Edit to add - I think Dave said it too actually, 5 years of Labour is a price worth paying and we see where we are in 2024.

Read the links I've provided. It demolishes your first paragraph entirely.

[Beany]

If Boris has taught people anything it's that you can make all the promises in the world, but if Parliament as a whole doesn't support you, you won't pass it.

If you think Corbyn could actually pass renationalisation of national infrastructure without a fight, you're being hopelessly naive. He might believe that he could do it, and he knows it'll get the Crusty vote, but the rest of us who side a bit more to the left than to the right are well aware that this shit ain't just flicking a switch, and the chances of any of it happening are remote.

However, given the utter shitshow the conservatives have given us the last near-decade (deep dive into the disaster of Universal Credit, and tell me that was a good decision), and given how fuckwit-retardedly-Trumpian they're turning, the sooner they're out, the better.

[Beany]

So you'll vote for someone that's worse? I don't understand the logic at all of not liking the incumbent or a policy that they're for, but then voting for someone that you know is worse in every other measurable way, or a third option that gets you the party that's worse in every measurable way.

Try going through the benefits system when you're out of work and have no savings, and your perspective of who is worse would change extremely fucking quickly, I can tell you.

[ShockDiamonds]

So you'll vote for someone that's worse? I don't understand the logic at all of not liking the incumbent or a policy that they're for, but then voting for someone that is worse in every other measurable way.

I simply see it as the lesser of two evils. Understand this - I don't like Corbyn. Matter of fact I think he's pretty poor as an MP, never mind PM, but ultimately I want my vote to mean something. I don't think voting LD or any other party will give me that. And I don't want to leave Europe. And much as I admire what Boris' has achieved actually, and like the chap away from politics, as a PM I don't really see him on TV and think "yeah, he's good".

[GG.]

@Beany: So you're betting on a Corbyn minority government to produce deadlock, delay and rancour. Sounds like just what the country needs.

Obviously you're actions could also result in a Labour majority if enough people share the same misguided view, and then you of course will get the nationalisations he's promised.

Even Plan B without any legal changes which would be required to nationalise industries would almost certainly be to borrow and spend like crazy which would still crash the economy. Great stuff.

[Simon]

Knock yourself out: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/ ... of-labours

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

Knock yourself out: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... AXAJ-_SGS4

Again, thanks, but nothing in that contradicts my point, only merely repeats the claim that the 'Tories borrowed more'.

Look, I'm not voting Tory this time, most likely Lib Dem. I think a Tory majority would be bad for the country in the short to medium term, but I'm not going to vote Corbyn either because he'd simply be worse.

Lib Dems aren't going to get a majority either, I know.

[ShockDiamonds]

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

This basically details what my thoughts are on the Labour vs Conservative front. Labour, IMHO, generally run up debt, inflate the social sector and then create a mess (witness the "there is no money left" line allegedly made when the Conservatives took power) for the next Government to deal with. I just don't trust them with the country's finances.

But having seen what Brexit now actuallymeans, I really really don't want to leave. Having met Boris Johnson several years ago, I know he's not a baffoon etc but this '"get Brexit done" line, whilst laudable because it pushes through a democratic decision, handily ignores the fact that said decision was nearly 3.5 years ago. Too much time has therefore past in my view for it to still be valid - people come and go, people die. It was vote in time, but times have changed.

Ergo, for the first time in my entire life I don't think I'll be voting Conservative. I also see what they've done to an industry close to a family member. Doesn't matter which industry, but what I see is that they've gone too far with austerity, and whilst I believe they had to do something because Labour created a sodding awful mess, they've gone too far the other way since then, having totally ballsed up Brexit and seen intent on hammering it through no matter what.

Edit to add - I think Dave said it too actually, 5 years of Labour is a price worth paying and we see where we are in 2024.

Read the links I've provided. It demolishes your first paragraph entirely.

Yeah fair point, I saw those numbers which got posted, about how percentages were quite close. And I must admit, it gave me a little comfort if I do vote for Labour. But generally, over the past 26 years, that's what my thinking has been, rightly or wrongly. I do think it will change now.

[NotoriousREV]

Thanks, and thanks for confirming what I'd suspected.

Essentially, yes, the debt is higher under the Conservatives, but in each case that's only because each Labour administration runs up a large deficit that the Conservatives then have to reduce again. I've seen McDonald and Corbyn make the same claims in the HoC. Those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In general, Labour inherit a good or improving economy and proceed to spend and run up a deficit.

In general, Conservatives inherit a large annual deficit then that adds to the debt as years go on.

Oh, and all this time the Conservatives then cop the blame for trying to reduce spending (debt) and balance the books again.

Do you have data that shows that at the end of their respective terms that the annual deficit for Labour is smaller than the Conservatives, on average?

Knock yourself out: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... AXAJ-_SGS4

Again, thanks, but nothing in that contradicts my point, only merely repeats the claim that the 'Tories borrowed more'.

Look, I'm not voting Tory this time, most likely Lib Dem. I think a Tory majority would be bad for the country in the short to medium term, but I'm not going to vote Corbyn either because he'd simply be worse.

Lib Dems aren't going to get a majority either, I know.

Of course it contradicts your point. The Tories borrow more, and pay down less debt than Labour. If Labour are borrowing less (less debt) and paying more debt back, how can they simultaneously be spending more and creating more debt? You might want to examine your bias and read the evidence again.