If the Conservatives win the election how high will unemployment rise?

[alchresearch 214]

Budget Sweetners on the cards. Typical:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/18/budget-sweeteners-in-prospect-as-public-finances-cheer-city

 

The country is in a mess, but not quite a mess as first thought, so let's celebrate and spend!

[L00b 441]

I think I'd be giving the LibDems a go, if I could vote for the upcoming elections. Because I can't, I haven't been following each and every party's rethoric that closely or gotten that involved, truth be told.

 

In many situations, the best defense usually turns out to be to attack. So, faced with a seemingly "no-win situation" such as Lab-or-Con, I'd be willing to let the other guys have their chance, rather than fall into the all-too-easy 'lesser of two evils'. Or rather than just "follow the cycle", like the political metronome it's been for the past few decades it seems.

 

After all, surely they can't be worse, can they? At least their economist guys seem pretty much switched on, as politicians go (even if, as a party, their policies/plans still seem a bit muddled...though not as much as Lab-and-Con would like you to believe )

 

Anyhow...just my tuppence

[RonJeremy 10]

I think I'd be giving the LibDems a go, if I could vote for the upcoming elections. Because I can't, I haven't been following each and every party's rethoric that closely or gotten that involved, truth be told.

 

In many situations, the best defense usually turns out to be to attack. So, faced with a seemingly "no-win situation" such as Lab-or-Con, I'd be willing to let the other guys have their chance, rather than fall into the all-too-easy 'lesser of two evils'. Or rather than just "follow the cycle", like the political metronome it's been for the past few decades it seems.

 

After all, surely they can't be worse, can they? At least their economist guys seem pretty much switched on, as politicians go (even if, as a party, their policies/plans still seem a bit muddled...though not as much as Lab-and-Con would like you to believe )

 

Anyhow...just my tuppence

 

So (and I think I understand your lib dem logic) you would vote for a party that has no hope of forming the government in order to get rid of this awful government - because you didn't like the previous tory administration that was voted in eighteen years ago? Is that what you mean?

[wednesday1 10]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cons get in, if unemployment rose to 4 million+ as a second recession would be caused by their public spending cuts.

[RonJeremy 10]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cons get in, if unemployment rose to 4 million+ as a second recession would be caused by their public spending cuts.

 

It's the high unneccesary public spending that has made us so vulnerable and in the mess we are in now. We NEED a tory government to reverse the excesses of this ( and any for that matter) labour government

[L00b 441]

So (and I think I understand your lib dem logic) you would vote for a party that has no hope of forming the government in order to get rid of this awful government - because you didn't like the previous tory administration that was voted in eighteen years ago? Is that what you mean?

No. Because I do not start from the premise that the LibDems have 'no hope of forming a government'.

 

Nothing to do with " the previous tory administration that was voted in eighteen years ago".

 

If anything, if the current crop of conservative was anything even remotely like that "previous tory administration", then I wouldn't be thinking about giving the LibDems a chance, but I'd default back to the Conservative (reasonably confident that they would do what's needed to yet again fill up the empty coffers ...ready for Lab to blow it yet again next time, etc, etc.).

 

The problem is, or at least as I perceive it (simplistic as it may be...but why over-complicate it?), that I can't really tell one side (Cons) from the other (Labs) politically and economically (such as parties are now, not 18 years ago with Maggie and her brass balls) So why not let the little guy with a 'mind of its own' and everything to prove, to itself and onlookers, have a go. Simple as.

Edited March 18, 2010 by L00b

[Incantation 10]

The next government will not dare push too hard. The people who elect them are becoming angry, some are becoming very angry. Governments like to control, but when electorates become uncontrollable governments lose control. Power to the people.

[RonJeremy 10]

No. Because I do not start from the premise that the LibDems have 'no hope of forming a government'.

 

Nothing to do with " the previous tory administration that was voted in eighteen years ago".

 

If anything, if the current crop of conservative was anything even remotely like that "previous tory administration", then I wouldn't be thinking about giving the LibDems a chance, but I'd default back to the Conservative (reasonably confident that they would do what's needed to yet again fill up the empty coffers ...ready for Lab to blow it yet again next time, etc, etc.).

 

The problem is, or at least as I perceive it (simplistic as it may be...but why over-complicate it?), that I can't really tell one side (Cons) from the other (Labs) politically and economically (such as parties are now, not 18 years ago with Maggie and her brass balls) So why not let the little guy with a 'mind of its own' and everything to prove, to itself and onlookers, have a go. Simple as.

 

So.... what are the liberals' brass balls policies that will wrench us from this situation. Dithering??

[L00b 441]

So.... what are the liberals' brass balls policies that will wrench us from this situation. Dithering??

What are Cameron's?

What are Brown's?

 

If you're going to ask rethorical questions, be prepared to get yours answered with some more, as I'm not particularly interested (nor partisan of any side - I've said it before, I can't vote...so what do I care )

[RonJeremy 10]

What are Cameron's?

What are Brown's?

 

If you're going to ask rethorical questions, be prepared to get yours answered with some more, as I'm not particularly interested (nor partisan of any side - I've said it before, I can't vote...so what do I care )

Cameron wants to reduce the structural deficit soon

Brown will wreck the economy further by not cutting the deficit enough.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Ms Macbeth
fixed quotes

[L00b 441]

Cameron wants to reduce the structural deficit soon.

Brown will wreck the economy further by not cutting the deficit enough.

And these do not class as "dithering"

 

Cutting the deficit is a given, all 3 parties would have to do it.

 

I meant policies. P-O-L-I-C-I-E-S. How they're going to go about it, for real, do what within what timescale and with what impact and effects.

 

None of this [vacuous political vaporware]'we will do this, we will do that'[/vacuous political vaporware].

 

So, I'll ask again: what are Cameron and Brown's respective policies which (and I quote) "will wrench us from this situation"?

[Vague_Boy 10]

Well over the course of a 12 year period of Labour government unemployment has risen by around half a million

And that's just those officially listed as unemployed. Remember, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit went from 700,000 in 1979 to 2.5 million by 1997 and has been rising by 50,000 a year ever since (link).

 

Just as Gordon Brown used PFI to take his profligate spending "off budget", so the roughly 5 million unemployed are similarly disguised.

 

Incapacity Benefit claimants now outnumber the 825,000 claiming unemployment benefits by a factor of more than three to one. (link)

 

Or are we just getting sicker as a nation?

 

And let's not forget that the cost of paying for these benefits now exceeds the income from income tax and National Insurance combined. (link)

 

Still, we can always print some more money to pay for it. After all, it worked so well in Zimbabwe didn't it? And Argentina. And Weimar Germany.

 

Enjoy living in "beans on toast" Britain won't you.