[Xangrim]

If the Conservatives were more conservative, they would get my vote.
UKIP is the only party trying to make a difference at the moment, the 3 major parties are too similarly Europhilic and centrist for us to be changing our not-so-good economic situation, be it for better or for worse. Maybe the Green Party too.

[Rennit]

(Original post by James82)
But, with this government GDP is up in both cash and real terms since they came to power, as for this latest minor recession how do you know that we won't recover the lost GDP? I suspect we will recover it a lot quicker than 4 years.




I agree, but what would the real cost to the economy be? A higher deficit? High inflation? High interest rates?




Well, let's see how that works out shall we? I suspect that France will either go to the wall or Hollande will actually not turn out to be as anti-austerity as he professes.




The economy has grown under this government, both in cash and real terms. It still costs the government more to employ somebody in the public sector than it does to pay them benefits, so spending money is false growth, it would have to be funded by borrowing. Increasing borrowing would just push up inflation, interest rates would have to be raised to control it. Just look at Labour in the late 70s, by using a similar plan to the one you are advocating inflation was running at 25%, the Tories got in and had no choice but to raise interest rates to control spiralling inflation. Everyone remembers the high interest rates because of the effect on their mortgages, but seems to forget about the inflation under Labour. Without those high interest rates we'd have spiralled into a situation similar to Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic.




Who doesn't want the economy to grow? The difference is I would rather it was done slowly with real growth, rather than papering over the cracks, borrowing more money and achieving high short term growth just to push the problem down the line and make it even bigger, we've been there before.




I suggest you do some research and learn the difference between deficit and debt, the deficit has been reduced, if it were anywhere near £800b, let alone £1,600b, we would be lining up the ports and airports to escape armageddon.




Forget Italy, they have appointed a pro-austerity government, I wonder why they have been out of the news for the last few months, could it be that that things have started to get better?

As for France, we'll have to wait and see, but as I said I suspect Hollande will turn out not to be quite as anti-austerity as he claimed in his manifesto, if he is then it will be interesting to see the fall out.




You keep thinking that.

I said LOL DC. Your arguament is invalid.

[TheDefiniteArticle]

(Original post by Ocassus)


And we know how Leninism turned out.

In terms of authoritarianism and exploitation it is basically as bad as Capitalism, just instead of corporations you have a monolithic state bureaucracy. Read 1984 mate.

The idea that 1984 is like how Communism would've developed had Lenin stayed alive, or indeed is anything like that, is ridiculous. Once the state lays down its power, there is no exploitation.

However, I don't propose anarcho-syndicalist approaches to life. I believe that state control is a good thing, and that despite the bad outcome of the 'communist' experiments thus far, we could conceivably have a working ideal of socialism, if not of communism. What it would need, however, is international support. This is why, in my eyes, any global socialist takeover would have to start in America. But I'm talking in ideals here, there are just too many selfish people in the world for it ever to work. We can have small victories like Hollande, but a complete change of the system is too much to ask.

[James82]

(Original post by Rennit)
I said LOL DC. Your arguament is invalid.

I don't know what an 'arguament' is, so maybe it is invalid.

[oo00oo]

Disband.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The idea that 1984 is like how Communism would've developed had Lenin stayed alive, or indeed is anything like that, is ridiculous. Once the state lays down its power, there is no exploitation.

That won't EVER happen. Leninists and Stalinists both advocate the concept of a 'Vanguard', which is nothing if not an exact copy of the elitist concept of the political Capitalist. The vanguard are the ones who direct the people, the people themselves have very little say. Yes, you can argue that the vanguard will listen to the people, but there are no directly accountable systems in place. Its like Lenin said that the official above would always be accountable to the official below, but in practice anybody who disagreed was sent off to the gulags.

However, I don't propose anarcho-syndicalist approaches to life. Why not? it is a better system than authoritatian communism. I believe that state control is a good thing, and that despite the bad outcome of the 'communist' experiments thus far, we could conceivably have a working ideal of socialism, if not of communism. What it would need, however, is international support. This is why, in my eyes, any global socialist takeover would have to start in America. But I'm talking in ideals here, there are just too many selfish people in the world for it ever to work. We can have small victories like Hollande, but a complete change of the system is too much to ask.

And thank god for that...

[MTR_10]

(Original post by patrickinator)
thoughts...

Focus more on social conservatism instead of the free market (or supporting the market in general)

[py0alb]

Literally nothing. Whatever they might say, I wouldn't believe them anyway.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by py0alb)
Literally nothing. Whatever they might say, I wouldn't believe them anyway.

your mind is about as open as Harriet Harmans legs..

[py0alb]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
your mind is about as open as Harriet Harmans legs..

The evidence is somewhat overwhelming, is it not?

[FrigidSymphony]

Stop being neoliberal, big business abuse enabling lying thieving scumbags.

Since that's not going to happen, then never.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by py0alb)
The evidence is somewhat overwhelming, is it not?

I wish you would put forward a discussion rather than just saying no, never :/

[lucas13]

(Original post by SophiaKeuning)
Nothing. Whatever they do, they won't secure my vote.

why not?

[py0alb]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
I wish you would put forward a discussion rather than just saying no, never :/

Well I fundamentally disagree with the core values of the conservative party, and for all their centrist rhetoric, the evidence of their policies suggests they're still the same socially authoritarian, economically corporatist, corrupt bunch of self-serving bastards they've always been.

God only knows what they'd be doing if the Lib Dems weren't at least a vague voice of integrity in the cabinet. Finding more and more cunning ways to sell off the assets of entire country on the cheap to themselves and their mates no doubt.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by py0alb)
Well I fundamentally disagree with the core values of the conservative party, and for all their centrist rhetoric, the evidence of their policies suggests they're still the same socially authoritarian, economically corporatist, corrupt bunch of self-serving bastards they've always been.

God only knows what they'd be doing if the Lib Dems weren't at least a vague voice of integrity in the cabinet. Finding more and more cunning ways to sell off the assets of entire country on the cheap to themselves and their mates no doubt.

hmm i disagree with most of what you said, but that's because I've a different opinion to you, so no point in arguing, but thank you for explaining why

[py0alb]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
hmm i disagree with most of what you said, but that's because I've a different opinion to you, so no point in arguing, but thank you for explaining why

Surely the whole point of having a different opinion is to argue so that we find out who is right?

I could just agree with you, but then we'd both we wrong.

[R.P.Everything.]

Nationally

Unless I'm won over by hugely progressive social policies, and unless the labour party suddenly switches to ultra conservative (socially), I prefer the labour party's 5-point plan and stimulus economics to the austerity and trickle-down economics of the Conservatives.

I'm a sucker for social change, being a novice on economic issues, but if they could ease up slightly in terms of economics, and reform socially, I suppose I would consider voting Tory. Also, Cameron has to go.

Locally

I suppose I would vote Tory if my local MP saved my life or something.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by py0alb)
Surely the whole point of having a different opinion is to argue so that we find out who is right?

I could just agree with you, but then we'd both we wrong.

neither of us can be right, that's the problem. I have my Moral code you have yours..it would take years to change ..or at least months. You prefer a fairer equal society, I believe no one is truly equal. that the elite are more deserving, other would argue otherwise... I mean let's say we talk about economic policies we can argue about that so long as we don't bring in our morals... else we'd go in circles