No - I understood your point and realised it was not anti-Tory but I still think you are missing the point. First Past the Post has served this country for centuries and is an accepted democratic form - there are plenty - but FPTP is acceptable or preferable for many people. In FPTP the figures you show are the norm - the winner does not get more than 50% of the vote. That applies not just to Cornwall but to the entire country. In fact in a system that has more than two parties you would be surprised if a single party did get over 50% - it would suggest the others were pretty unpopular. SH though is correct the boundary reforms will hurt Labour as they have the majority of "small" constituencies.
Difficult to know the best system. I came upon what Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" A real challenge. For the sake of unity, continuity, stability and inclusiveness I think a version of PR would be better.
I can laugh at that, but not at this though - This is the Austerity that forced families to feed themselves via food banks, that made them struggle to pay bills thanks to pay cuts, job losses and a regime of unwarranted and downright evil sanctioning, that forced people into debt & bankruptcy, that caused the early deaths of 30K Disability Benefit recipients, that forced the slashing of Public Services & Emergency Services right down to the bare bones, that has virtually destroyed our NHS, that actually doubled the National Debt – and all she can do is say sorry as though it was all just a Big Mistake? Hell mend the evil cow…
So the austerity that the Tory Govt and SH on here said was so vital.. is now over ...just like that???
Does anyone want somebody to defend austerity or is this just supposed to be another series of condemnations without serious debate on the pros and cons?
So who posted earlier:- "If you would not lump people together there might be some room to discuss this. SH was asked for example some time back not to cut and paste huge swathes of e-copy to make his points..."??? I suppose this is not considered this as a huge swathe...others might consider this as double standards.
I could defend it if had done a job, but I don't think it has. There will always be a debate about taking money out of the economy against putting money into pockets that can be spent and that can boost it. What I see is people who have been squeezed for five years, and were then being asked to accept it would continue for another five. Because of the election the government has been caught between the frying pan and the fire. The austerity could be put aside without it finishing what it was intended to do, or they could have said what was right five years ago is still right. What you could argue is that caution is being thrown to the wind in order to stay in power.
Be my guest. Austerity measures are one thing but until the people with the most make similar sacrifices, e.g. have their off shore assets properly taxed, then austerity is little more than the rich man keeping the poor man "in his place". The fact is they don't, they won't: our newspaper owners are a case in point, are they not? In the mean time they will get their editors to convince the rest of us mere mortals that austerity is necessary and that unchecked capitalism is the way forward.
So at the moment we have two arguments 1) not that austerity is wrong per se but has gone on too long and 2) not that it is wrong per se but is unfair because the rich get away with things? Have I understood that correctly? Any other arguments against austerity before I try to defend it?
There are some who will try to defend austerity by likening it to a family tightening the expenses in hard times - however, a national economy is different. The opposite to austerity would be the trickle up theory - namely that the only way you can sustain long term growth is through stabilizing and increasing spending power at the base of the pyramid. Which stimulates the economy more - giving one man a million pounds, or spreading the same sum over 20-30 people ?
Oh dear - this must surely be a joke?? An 'unemployment benefit' for those Tories who lost their seats.... https://uk.news.yahoo.com/theresa-m...t-tory-mps-lost-seats-election-093515345.html
I certainly don't claim to know the answers, but I can see when a system is unfair. It strikes me that those who can afford it least, pay most. I do rather suspect that giving more people the opportunity to spend more will generate more opportunity to make more goods to be spent on creating more jobs and so on. Trickle up, indeed. The difficulty comes when those at the top get greedy and the options narrow, pushing prices up... The trick is to allow entrepreneurs and business owners the opportunity to make enough money so as not to get greedy. At which point economics takes second place to human nature.
Hang on.... i am simply putting Robert Peston, a pretty respected commentator, latest comments for people to see. can you explain to me what exactly I have done here that is offensive to you. what is the perceived double standard?
2) and how can the PM suddenly say it is over.??.. .this implies that it is a created austerity not actual austerity.... i.e. a result of housekeeping measures and not actual having no money
Thought about it overnight and decided I do not want to enter the debate - if people want simply all to decry austerity that is their pleasure; if anyone wants to think about and talk about the pros and cons so much the better. If this forum runs true to form I will only expect to see the former. I did not hear the PM speak so will give you a guess for my answer Yorkie. If TM said austerity is over then she was referring to the programme to reduce overspending by the government. In other words she has conceded defeat in balancing the books - I am sure she like many in this country will regard that as a shame as overspending year on year simply pushes debt to our children. You seem to be confusing austerity (being careful with money) with lack of money.
I do think that it is an extremely complex situation, and there is no simple argument that can be made. We are fed supposed information by politicians of all sides trying to suggest that they know what to do, but my feeling is that they are using the situation for their own message. I do believe that due to the sale of so many companies to foreign business, that has seen a great deal of money leave the country. Some of that money could have been used for reducing debt or improving social services. How you can claw back some of that lost money now I don't know. That is just one part of the problem. Low productivity in manufacturing is another part of it. A very unbalanced economy relying on financial services and the service industries is also part of it I think. You cannot spend what you don't have unless you borrow, but at the moment it looks to me that the tax take is not enough.
Yes as SH pointed out the Tory Government sought to move towards balancing the books by less public sector expenditure and were not going to increase taxation. This is ideological. Just as the Labour approach to invest in the public sector for later results. One example is the last government scrapped funding for nursing training.. And now we have a shortage of nurses. May has acknowledged that this approach is no longer acceptable to the electorate as a whole.. So this 'austerity' policy had to be scrapped for a more balanced approach. I must say I welcome the move to discussing the issues again as opposed to what has been going on here in these threads recently. However I still may choose to post something humorous ;-)
And in that spirit... New Tory MP busted - caught looking at pictures of naked ladies during May's speech. I can only guess at what his DUP partners will make of this.
As I see it there is a conflict which Corbyn and those who think like him fail to understand. In 2010 the government spent £150 billion more than they received. This was not sustainable and meant that government were spending far more than their income. Someone said you cannot liken it to a household budget and to an extent that is true but equally to an extent you must. Not only does borrowing mean you are asking the future to pay for the present but also you are adding to the future's burden. Interest on the national debt is I think in the region of £43 billion annually now. The overspending is down to £50 billion per annum now - meaning that leaving debt aside the country is close to balanced books. Had annual debt stayed at £150b per annum the total debt would now be some £500 billion more. Interest on that would be hefty and once the UK was seen to be failing to reduce its debt the its credit rating would have suffered pushing up interest even more. It is rich to hear Corbyn and others complain about austerity AND in the same breath to accuse the Tories of not bringing the debt down faster - which would have meant INCREASED austerity. Labour talk about solving the problem by increased growth (how well does that fit with Green voters?) -and yet the UK over the past 7 years have been about the highest growing economy. That is not going to repeat post brexit. You can try increasing taxes. However that hurts people as much as austerity unless you only tax the "rich". Given the top 5% already pay nearly 44% of income tax there cannot be much mileage left in that car. Labour talk about tax avoidance. Fair point but there will always be a percentage of avoidance- as there is cheating on benefits - it is human nature. Successive governments of all persuasions have tried to reduce avoidance with some success but it is a bit like pubs who have to accept the loss of some beer in ullage - we lose some tax in cheating - all across the spectrum from cash deals, under declaration of income to foreign tax havens. Corporation tax was Labours big "win" to enable them to give money away - yet it has been shown that tax take has gone UP with reduced rates. The IFS said there was up to a £10 billion hole in that policy. Even if it worked what would companies do to regain some net profit? They would employ less people and would cut wages - hurting working people the most. I said I would not argue the point and now I just have. However all it means is that this is a very complex area and the solutions are not easy - I will personally give a fiver to the first politician who works out how to balance the books without hurting ordinary people. I see no reason to avoid the occasional humorous post but when cartoons and articles replace debate this forum is the loser. I would now be interested to see an argument from somebody who would have not had austerity to see how they would have dealt with it. I very much doubt that a cartoon, joke or funny video will convince many people. As you say it is nice to see one or two genuine arguments made and hopefully adult debate will win out.
