Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Point out all the good things Cameron has done.. watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know - I hate him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You people realise that Labour would either have had to do the same thing as Cameron is doing or drive the country further into massive debts?

    If someone can tell me what the Labour government would have done that wouldn't have doubled our debt or enforced these cuts I might agree with you.

    Cameron is not an idiot, he knows that he will not get into power again because of these cuts, but then again, if Labour had been doing these cuts, they'd have never got into power again.

    £5 says I'll be negged for stating fact.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J_90)
    .....0.


    .....kill Libyan civilians? If some people think that's good...
    Save Libyan rebels from aerial annihilation? Intervene in order to prevent a mad dictator from killing thousands more of his own civilians? If some people think that's bad...

    People always hate the current government, whether it is Tory or Labour. The reason being that the press tells them to, as well as the fact that most of the public have extremely short memories and incoherent demands.

    Loads of people say they hate Cameron, seemingly without reason. Admittedly, I felt the same way before the election. Imho if you're going to criticise the man, then at least criticise his policies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Did you actually read who those 60 economists were backing? Maybe next time you should actually read your sources rather than doing a quick google search and putting random links.

    LOL thanks for actually proving my point and showing that there's a lot of confusion around the recession, why there's a deficit, how the cuts should be implemented...

    Any future government was going to start cutting the deficit. There's no prize or any merit for actually deciding that there were going to be cuts. Again, it's in the implementation of the cuts that shows good governance or not. As for the IMF and the OECD, they simply agree with cuts. Hardly a revelation. Everyone was backing cuts following the stimulus. That's the definition of a stimulus :rolleyes:

    More than 60 senior economists have signed two open letters that back the chancellor's decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8523034.stm

    I think someone is slightly confused and doesn't know who was chancellor in February 2010 :rolleyes:


    As for businessmen: businessmen almost all back any government who suggests lower taxation. I think that you'd be a bit confused again if you thought that what is good for the country is always good for businessmen...

    And yes, as you can see, most economists have backed Labour policies since the recession and contested the coalition government's approach. Anyone who's actually studied economics and the great depression understands why the Tories had it wrong all along: having the Tories in power during the recession would have been an absolute disaster for this country.
    how an earth did you manage to come to the conclusion that the conservatives want to stop funding education, whilst higher education is being cut (although state backed and quite generous loans are available) primary and secondary education funding is not being reduced (or at least not much- there is a bit of controversy over how the pupil prenium will be funded)
    If you'd read the whole sentence (so unlike the way you read articles clearly...), you would have seen that I stated that the Tories do not believe in "wholly" funding such public services as education or any other public service. It's not a secret, although it's not "sold" that way for fear of appearing nasty, but the Tories believe in a small state similarly to the Republicans or the neocons in the US. They absolutely hated seeing public money "being thrown" at public services.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    he made me feel like i was worth a damn *hair flip*
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Did you actually read who those 60 economists were backing? Maybe next time you should actually read your sources rather than doing a quick google search and putting random links.

    LOL thanks for actually proving my point and showing that there's a lot of confusion around the recession, why there's a deficit, how the cuts should be implemented...

    Any future government was going to start cutting the deficit. There's no prize or any merit for actually deciding that there were going to be cuts. Again, it's in the implementation of the cuts that shows good governance or not. As for the IMF and the OECD, they simply agree with cuts. Hardly a revelation. Everyone was backing cuts following the stimulus. That's the definition of a stimulus :rolleyes:

    More than 60 senior economists have signed two open letters that back the chancellor's decision to delay government spending cuts until 2011.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8523034.stm

    I think someone is slightly confused and doesn't know who was chancellor in February 2010 :rolleyes:


    As for businessmen: businessmen almost all back any government who suggests lower taxation. I think that you'd be a bit confused again if you thought that what is good for the country is always good for businessmen...

    And yes, as you can see, most economists have backed Labour policies since the recession and contested the coalition government's approach. Anyone who's actually studied economics and the great depression understands why the Tories had it wrong all along: having the Tories in power during the recession would have been an absolute disaster for this country.


    If you'd read the whole sentence (so unlike the way you read articles clearly...), you would have seen that I stated that the Tories do not believe in "wholly" funding such public services as education or any other public service. It's not a secret, although it's not "sold" that way for fear of appearing nasty, but the Tories believe in a small state similarly to the Republicans or the neocons in the US. They absolutely hated seeing public money "being thrown" at public services.
    okay admittedly a slightly embarassing error although it was more to do with me being in a rush (I made 5 quick posts) but you haven't adressed the fact that the IMF and OECD back the coalitions plans both international and respected bodies with many economists working for them including dominique strauss-kahn who you mentioned previously as well as Fitch, Goldman Sachs and a whole host of other banks who all employ many brilliant economists
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tenbinza)
    You people realise that Labour would either have had to do the same thing as Cameron is doing or drive the country further into massive debts?

    If someone can tell me what the Labour government would have done that wouldn't have doubled our debt or enforced these cuts I might agree with you.

    Cameron is not an idiot, he knows that he will not get into power again because of these cuts, but then again, if Labour had been doing these cuts, they'd have never got into power again.

    £5 says I'll be negged for stating fact.
    You will find statements from all 3 major parties pre-election that there were to be large cuts. It's not something you have to be convinced about. It's a well-known fact and was stated in any political debate before the election.

    I think you're just showing the general confusion around the debt. You're hardly contradicting most of the posts on this thread where people really believe that if they hadn't voted for Tories, the deficit wouldn't have been cut. It does show that Labour had lost the trust of the British people, as happens to most long-serving governments.

    Actually it's not a secret that Tory politicians hope that by implementing cuts very quickly, by 2015 the British government will be booming and they will be reelected.
    What the government is doing is reducing demand. A sudden reduction in demand, forcing the economy to stagnate or contract causes supply to be reduced so that when the economy is reinvested in, massive growth occurs.

    I'd actually agree with you that if Labour had been reelected or had managed to form a coalition, they would never have been reelected or would not have lasted 5 years, simply because of the way that they would have implemented the cuts.

    They would have followed things closer to the (economics) textbook by implementing cuts once the recovery was sustained and while ensuring that growth was not damaged too much. A bit like how a schoolkid might be doing a tricky manipulation slowly and calmly, while the rest of the class shouts behind his shoulder trying to tell him what he should actually be doing, there would have been too much political disquiet for them to stay in power.

    People basically wanted heads to roll, they wanted scapegoats (the previous government, all bankers...) and they wanted sudden action even if it was unreasonable. The Tories were offering that.

    In opposition, Labour are struggling as they cannot say that they disagree with the cuts, other than the "speed" at which they're implemented. But does the average voter actually care or understand why the speed at which a budget is cut matters? No, in their minds it's a lot simpler: Tories were offering cuts, Labour weren't, which even looked at completely objectively, is completely untrue. All 3 parties were announcing cuts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    okay admittedly a slightly embarassing error although it was more to do with me being in a rush (I made 5 quick posts) but you haven't adressed the fact that the IMF and OECD back the coalitions plans both international and respected bodies with many economists working for them including dominique strauss-kahn who you mentioned previously as well as Fitch, Goldman Sachs and a whole host of other banks who all employ many brilliant economists
    Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a social democrat. The only statement he has made is that he believes that cuts are required. If anything the IMF has been warning governments to implement their cuts carefully.

    http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010...ficit-cutting/
    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has today warned that economic growth will be hit due to deep spending cuts.

    Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economic counsellor, said massive spending cuts may have to be revisited if growth in the UK is hampered.

    However, Mr Blanchard did highlight that his comments applied to all advanced economies, not just the UK.

    Many economists have previously warned that cutting deficits too quickly could pose a threat to the recovery of many economies throughout the world, pushing them into a double dip recession.

    As a result of the deep spending cuts, the IMF said the global economy will experience slower growth next year.

    It is forecasting GDP would expand by 4.2% in 2011 – slightly lower than an earlier forecast of 4.3%.

    For the UK, meanwhile, the IMF reduced its growth forecast for 2011 from 2.1% to 2% – this is in line with a recent forecast from the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility.
    It's not just because a few economists have backed certain aspects of the Tory government that they believe they are right. Economists sometimes make wild statements. Many economists stated that Iceland's economy was sound and secure and there was nothing to worry about... this a few months before the banking crisis. In any case, on the whole, economists have backed Labour policy because they followed and would follow basic modern economic theory.

    If anything, economists have been backing Labour policies in terms of the recession. The British electorate who were fed up with Brown didn't actually realise or at least didn't want to know that outside Britain, Brown and Darling were seen as true economic stalwarts during the recession.

    They made all the right calls when the recession hit (that doesn't mean that Brown did not make mistakes by breaking his Golden Rules but that is not the cause of the recession), a fact that even the most anti-Labour voter would struggle to prove wrong.

    It's not about which economists were siding with whom. Labour were simply following standard Keynesian economics whereas the Tories were looking at doing something closer to what happened in the Great Depression. There are few economists nowadays who don't believe in Keynesian theory at all.

    Brown and Darling were doing everything by the book wheras what Osborne is suggesting is contradictory to most modern economic theory (this isn't some anti-Tory statement. It's an objectively-stated fact) hence the accusations that what he is doing is "an experiment" which could go quite horribly wrong because there isn't much in modern economic theory to back his approach compared to that of the opposition.

    However, I would agree with someone who states that theory can sometimes be wrong or that you can sometimes be right while not following academic theory. However, I'd prefer to have a politician who knows his economics and doesn't repeat mistakes from the past through inexperience, rather than someone who has no qualifications or credentials who is just attempting an approach that has never actually worked, especially not at the scale planned by Osborne. The British population should be far more worried than they are and I think it is only a matter of time before they really start ****ting themselves.

    That's why you shouldn't be surprised when 60 economists backed Labour policy. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize Winner continuously agreed with their approach to the recession and the bounce back.

    The thing is, the average English voter doesn't think in academic terms when it comes to the economy so they believe it when they hear statements like "running a government budget is like running a household budget", "we had maxed out the credit card", "it's time to tighten the belt because we've been living beyond our means" when the reality is far more nuanced or more difficult to understand. Funnily enough , you won't find many economics books using those terms
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    BUT if we followed labour's deficit plan we would be probably end up going bust as by 2015 we would have a deficit of c.5.5% of GDP and a debt of c.115% of GDP worse than Greece's situation last autumn and we all know what happened to Greece

    I do accept your point that the Coalition's policy will have (and is) a negative impact on growth but a weak pound and buoyant international economy should prevent a double dip (and therefore a fall in taxations) but of we were to follow labour's plan it would probably lead to huge sudden cuts over a few months in a few years time (larger than those proposed in any year of the coalition) as investors panic and the IMF is forced to intervene, now that would cause a double dip as confidence evaporates and eye watering cuts are imposed
    But we are in double dip :s Ok not officially in recession... But those figures came out after Christmas - busiest time of the year... I dare say things are not looking good... especially having negative growth after Christmas - yes the confidence is non-existent...
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    You will find statements from all 3 major parties pre-election that there were to be large cuts. It's not something you have to be convinced about. It's a well-known fact and was stated in any political debate before the election.

    I think you're just showing the general confusion around the debt. You're hardly contradicting most of the posts on this thread where people really believe that if they hadn't voted for Tories, the deficit wouldn't have been cut. It does show that Labour had lost the trust of the British people, as happens to most long-serving governments.

    Actually it's not a secret that Tory politicians hope that by implementing cuts very quickly, by 2015 the British government will be booming and they will be reelected.
    What the government is doing is reducing demand. A sudden reduction in demand, forcing the economy to stagnate or contract causes supply to be reduced so that when the economy is reinvested in, massive growth occurs.

    I'd actually agree with you that if Labour had been reelected or had managed to form a coalition, they would never have been reelected or would not have lasted 5 years, simply because of the way that they would have implemented the cuts.

    They would have followed things closer to the (economics) textbook by implementing cuts once the recovery was sustained and while ensuring that growth was not damaged too much. A bit like how a schoolkid might be doing a tricky manipulation slowly and calmly, while the rest of the class shouts behind his shoulder trying to tell him what he should actually be doing, there would have been too much political disquiet for them to stay in power.

    People basically wanted heads to roll, they wanted scapegoats (the previous government, all bankers...) and they wanted sudden action even if it was unreasonable. The Tories were offering that.

    In opposition, Labour are struggling as they cannot say that they disagree with the cuts, other than the "speed" at which they're implemented. But does the average voter actually care or understand why the speed at which a budget is cut matters? No, in their minds it's a lot simpler: Tories were offering cuts, Labour weren't, which even looked at completely objectively, is completely untrue. All 3 parties were announcing cuts.
    initially labour didn't- remember Brown's labour investment, tory cuts and only changed later which is probably why they weren't trusted

    as I explained before (due to crowding out interest rate effects) demand won't necessarily shrink and most other major economic bodies/think tanks believe that the economy will grow although at least slugishly
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sashari)
    But we are in double dip :s Ok not officially in recession... But those figures came out after Christmas - busiest time of the year... I dare say things are not looking good... especially having negative growth after Christmas - yes the confidence is non-existent...
    a double dip is, as you have pointed a recession and we aren't in a recession
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a social democrat. The only statement he has made is that he believes that cuts are required. If anything the IMF has been warning governments to implement their cuts carefully.

    http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010...ficit-cutting/


    It's not just because a few economists have backed certain aspects of the Tory government that they believe they are right. Economists sometimes make wild statements. Many economists stated that Iceland's economy was sound and secure and there was nothing to worry about... this a few months before the banking crisis. In any case, on the whole, economists have backed Labour policy because they followed and would follow basic modern economic theory.

    If anything, economists have been backing Labour policies in terms of the recession. The British electorate who were fed up with Brown didn't actually realise or at least didn't want to know that outside Britain, Brown and Darling were seen as true economic stalwarts during the recession.

    They made all the right calls when the recession hit (that doesn't mean that Brown did not make mistakes by breaking his Golden Rules but that is not the cause of the recession), a fact that even the most anti-Labour voter would struggle to prove wrong.

    It's not about which economists were siding with whom. Labour were simply following standard Keynesian economics whereas the Tories were looking at doing something closer to what happened in the Great Depression. There are few economists nowadays who don't believe in Keynesian theory at all.

    Brown and Darling were doing everything by the book wheras what Osborne is suggesting is contradictory to most modern economic theory (this isn't some anti-Tory statement. It's an objectively-stated fact) hence the accusations that what he is doing is "an experiment" which could go quite horribly wrong because there isn't much in modern economic theory to back his approach compared to that of the opposition.

    However, I would agree with someone who states that theory can sometimes be wrong or that you can sometimes be right while not following academic theory. However, I'd prefer to have a politician who knows his economics and doesn't repeat mistakes from the past through inexperience, rather than someone who has no qualifications or credentials who is just attempting an approach that has never actually worked, especially not at the scale planned by Osborne. The British population should be far more worried than they are and I think it is only a matter of time before they really start ****ting themselves.

    That's why you shouldn't be surprised when 60 economists backed Labour policy. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize Winner continuously agreed with their approach to the recession and the bounce back.

    The thing is, the average English voter doesn't think in academic terms when it comes to the economy so they believe it when they hear statements like "running a government budget is like running a household budget", "we had maxed out the credit card", "it's time to tighten the belt because we've been living beyond our means" when the reality is far more nuanced or more difficult to understand. Funnily enough , you won't find many economics books using those terms
    you clearly haven't heard of the chicago school of economics/monetarism started by Milton Friedman, also a Nobel Prize Laureate and espoused by thatcher and reagan which wouldn't back your view and would say that Aggregate Demand has no effect on output hence not all economists would back your point of view. furthermore if labour (and you) have won the battle of economists then why do the major institutes- UN, IMF OECD all predict positive economic growth for the UK? somebody must be wrong

    and besides the IMF did back the coalition and merely said it should be careful
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    There probably was a sense that Labour's policies had lead to overspending and I would agree to the extent that Brown had broken his Golden rules but there was no particular over-spending in the sense that Labour have always believed in the State playing a larger economic role in the country, rather than the markets deciding everything for us (ironically, aren't people angry at a crisis due to this actual attitude: letting the markets decide?)...
    In my opinion our views match but you have a much more in depth economical knowledge than I do and by God I would love to have you as my Economics teacher <3 hehe

    On a further note I think you are right in saying that Conservative cuts are very harsh and they are displeasing a lot of people and unless the situation will improve by next elections we will not see conservative government in power for a very long time after this.

    I am concerned though that if the elections were to happen tomorrow (and although I legally still wouldn't have a vote, but again the situation is hypothetical) I have no clue, not a single prediction who people would like to see in power. Conservatives are 'destroying' many people's lives, Lib Dem are effectively turning into Conservatives at a rapid pace; and I think people are still edgy about Labour besides it having a new leader.

    To be also quite honest, as much as am against Conservative policies and think they make most suffer more than others I must admit although we are hit by the taxes and spending cuts now I think this is the only way out unless English people are willing to bury hem selves in more debt. However the rise of tuition fees is unnecessary and this view I am highly unlikely to change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    a double dip is, as you have pointed a recession and we aren't in a recession
    Let's just wait for this quarter's figures
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sashari)
    Let's just wait for this quarter's figures
    my point still stands if we'd followed labour's plans we would be in a similar situation to that of Greece's (who have had to impose truely draconian cuts due to IMF/EU bailout) and that would have sent investor's blood pressure levels to through the roof devestating the economy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    my point still stands if we'd followed labour's plans we would be in a similar situation to that of Greece's (who have had to impose truely draconian cuts due to IMF?EU bailout) and that would have sent investor's blood pressure levels to through the roof devestating the economy
    I do see your point but Conservative ways are sending normal people's blood pressure through the roof.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sashari)
    I do see your point but Conservative ways are sending normal people's blood pressure through the roof.
    regardless (in my opinion) this will happen the difference is what will happen to the economy in the long run- burdened with debt and bailout restrictions or not
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    .
    You're a smart cookie you . Thank you for providing an intelligent and sustained stream of rationale. :cool:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    Eurgh that was so fake :puke:
    Could he have been any nicer?
    Would you have done anything different in that situation?

    He did what was expected of him and he did it well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tenbinza)
    Cameron is not an idiot, he knows that he will not get into power again because of these cuts, but then again, if Labour had been doing these cuts, they'd have never got into power again.

    £5 says I'll be negged for stating fact.
    lololololol he is a bloody idiot. any sensible conservative would have cut deeper than he has - eg by cutting foreign aid, eu membership etc, so that he could make tax cuts to fuel the economic growth and get people back into work

    confidence is low so VAT should be reduced massively.

    cutting eu and offsetting the savings by reducig tax would make him popular two-fold!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.