This SNP rout…..

She wanted more for Scotland and more now – ergo less for everyone else.

the SNP don’t believe the pot is finite

bencooper – Member

There is only a finite amount of resource

No, there isn’t – this is the lie at the heart of the whole austerity agenda, that there’s only so much money to go around. It’s like those people who compare the national debt to a credit card.

The SNP’s plan was to grow the economy for everyone, with some more public spending. It worked for Roosevelt with the New Deal. Whether it would work for the UK is debatable of course, but the idea that the pot of money (which doesn’t exist anyway) is only a fixed size fuels the selfish nature of this debate.

Gowrie – Member
And what was Nicola on about this morning on Andrew Marr? She wanted more for Scotland and more now – ergo less for everyone else.

She was basically saying she’ll take full fiscal autonomy if offered on fair terms and that within the confines of the UK that is her ultimate goal(and that they have a mandate from the people of scotland to go for that, in light of uk anti austerity politics).

Here’s the position of the SNP as I see it:

They can see that the country is on its arse and that people are pretty **** miserable in certain parts of society. They see that producticity is on its arse. They can also see the potential of those parts of society that are on their arse to be more productive. They are trying to make them less miserable by motivating them to become more productive and play an active role in society instead of merely existing. They are trying to do that by looking after them – you could say carrot. The Tories are using great big **** off sticks. Is it any surprise that the country is on its arse when the people who can potentially add most are being kicked down the whole time?

She can take her own countrymen for fools (currencies, debt, tax cuts, more spending etc) but she is the fool is she thinks rUK will swallow it. It’s a zero us game in her mind (clear from the first words of the manifesto and Marr this morning) so why on earth would rUK roll over. We are not that foolish as Thursday showed. Ed was spot on.

No harm in her standing up from Scoltand’s interests first but don’t be surprised if others have different views or priorities. The new princess Di/Alexis Carrington dress sense is not going to fool anyone.

And you wonder why folk south of the border reacted in the way they did??? Still we could always blame the media, they are so biased don’t you know.

Who is calling you foolish, England wants to play the austerity game and Scotland doesn’t(as evidence by the GE result) and the mantra now seems to be to threaten us with full fiscal autonomy… Batter in, we’ll take it along with the responsibility, where’s the conflict?

Yes, but first you have to understand what fiscal responsibility means.

(We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

Da, it’s alright i understand, I’ll need to pay my own bills. It’s touching, but you don’t need to worry about us, we can stand on our own 2 feet and we know we’ll need to tighten our belts at times! 😆

And you wonder why folk south of the border reacted in the way they did??? Still we could always blame the media, they are so biased don’t you know.

There is documented evidence of more negative publicity for the SNP than against nearly any other party. The Tories wouldn’t of attacked the idea of and SNP/Labour deal if they thought it wouldn’t work.

England wants to play the austerity game and Scotland doesn’t(as evidence by the GE result)

1) Does anyone think the English or Scottish people have any idea whether austerity or spending will work?

2) Easy on the England. It was far from unanimous! Please please don’t tar all non-Scots with the same Tory brush. It’s bloody offensive!

Hurtmore, do you realise that by constantly referencing Sturgeon’s dress sense or appearance you just come over as a sexist ass? It’s 2015 for heavens sake, no need to judge a female politician on asthetics. You’ve made it abundantly clear you don’t like her politics, the sexist overtones are just unecessary, even by your standards.

Oh no here comes a wave of immigration from the south.

Turns out that the Tories can’t axe the Human Rights Act in Scotland as that is devolved. Wonder who negotiated that bad boy.

(Old article)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scotland-exempt-from-tories-human-rights-act-axe-1-3559633

2) Easy on the England. It was far from unanimous! Please please don’t tar all non-Scots with the same English Tory brush. It’s bloody offensive!

I don’t at all, I’m just making the discussion easy for THM, i’m well aware of the numbers that voted for the tories, and that they don’t speak for you all. My heart goes out to the rest tbh.

Difference is we have an out of sorts, so hopefully we can make the most of it.

We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

If only we had voted for a govt committed to reducing this and creating a surplus.

Why do you call AS out about his [ economic] lies and then suggest we dont live with a govt that is implementing austerity policies?

Its stretching a truth to breaking point to claim the govt is not implementing austerity all we can discuss is how quickly they are doing it and whether doing it more slowly would be better for growth etc

You alone seem to argue this is not austerity times. It is disingenuous at best

Its a reasonable point made above about not being so sexist when discussing her. Play the politics not the person and certainly not the persons appearance.

We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

OK – what do you suggest as the solution? Keep in mind that you are not allowed to kill anyone or drive them to a position where they want to kill themselves. Go for it.

Why would you want to kill anyone? How odd…

There is nothing sexist in noting how someone’s dress sense has changed/gone back in time. Save the sexist accusations for when it really matters.

I’ll take your avoidance of answering the question as you having no solution. Just as I knew would be the case.

Yes the forum tires of the way you are always going on about sartorial matters on the politics threads and you definitely dont just do it about her 😕

You are gok wan and I claim my make over 🙄

Wanman

First diagnose the problem, then come up with the solution. If you start with getting the diagnosis wrong, you are doomed to get the respond right.

Done the responses many times in other threads.

As the OECD notes, the term austerity is greatly abused and misused. Still given that such abuse is very common, some of the above is hardly surprising.

Perhaps we could start by being precise – deficit reduction perhaps or fiscal consolidation. Try Greece is you want real austerity – a primary surplus at exactly the wrong time to pander to the € nut jobs

You alone seem to argue this is not austerity times.

No he’s not alone, I agree with THM.

In 2010 when the Tories and the LibDems formed a coalition government they said that it was absolutely imperative that swingeing cuts in government spending be introduced to ensure that the deficit would be fully cleared by 2015. Otherwise we would end up like Greece. Remember ?

Labour argued that the cuts should be less severe and that only half the deficit should be cleared by 2015. Totally irresponsible claimed the Tories and the LibDems.

Initially the coalition did apply significant cuts which particularly hurt the more vulnerable. But as it became apparent that further severe cuts would start affecting less vulnerable people and that combined with a faltering economy this would very likely lead to electoral disaster for the Tories, the austerity programme was in effect abandoned and the Tories/LibDems embraced Labour’s solution, which they had previously denounced, and which resulted in the economy picking up. Saving their bacon on May 7.

It was Labour’s plan A what won it for the Tories.

How the Conservatives ridiculed Labour for pledging to halve the deficit

George Osborne and his ministers once mocked the opposition for the goal they now boast of achieving. [/b]

The Tories might be a lot of things but they’re certainly not stupid.

EDIT: I agree he did not do what he said he would and he did what Labour said was best however it is still clearly a period where actions are being taken by the govt to reduce the deficit
As noted we can discuss how fast and how severe it is /was but not if it has/will happen[ed].
Original:

Definition of austerity measure
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

Happy to read other meanings of it and your explanation of how this is not happening in the UK currently

That is a definition from the FT BTW

First diagnose the problem, then come up with the solution. If you start with getting the diagnosis wrong, you are doomed to get the respond right.

Perhaps we could start by being precise – deficit reduction perhaps or fiscal consolidation. Try Greece is you want real austerity – a primary surplus at exactly the wrong time to pander to the € nut jobs

Right – the problem is the country is pissing money down the drain. Someone owns that drain and is getting very rich off the leaking public finances. The solution – plug the leaks as best you can.

Here’s an idea – increase the minimum wage to one that allows people to live without those god awful tax credit things. Yes, shareholders won’t make as much profit and the top 1% wont be able to afford multiple hundred million pound yachts and private archipelagoes, but who gives a shit. Why should the government pay to subsidise people paying shite wages?

Seems the Scotland Office spokesman quoted by The Hootsmon may not be 100 %correct.
ukhumanrightsblog[/url]
Abolition of the HRA will be massively difficult and complex…. Fortunately

JY- I’m afraid they’re right. Yes the tories have been implementing cuts and selling off national assets, but austerity was only ever a convenient excuse that enabled them to do things they’d never normally get away with, not the actual goal.

Course, that’s actually much worse than genuine austerity, in every possible way.

Happy to read other meanings of it and your explanation of how this is not happening in the UK currently

Even using your definition I don’t think it backs up your claim. As far as I’m aware average government spending for the last 5 years was more than the previous 5 years under Labour.

I wouldn’t bother pushing the point if it wasn’t so important to expose the Tories deliberate lies/distortion of the truth.

If people weren’t frighten off from voting Tory by the threat of austerity it was because they had been falsely told that they had already experienced austerity.

If people weren’t put off by the Tories economic incompetence it was because they weren’t reminded that the Tories only achieved what Labour had promised to achieve, after denouncing it as irresponsible.

It was Labour’s plan A what won it for the Tories.

But instead of saying this, instead of taking credit and saying they we’re glad the Tories had embraced Darlings plan (even though the Tory plans were always front loaded) Labour spent the next four years saying that the ongoing Tory cuts were disastrous and holding back the recovery – yet suddenly at the last minute, when it’s clear that the economy is growing despite their own predictions (double dip, triple dip, million more unemployed) they decide to try and tell us that it was all down to Labour after all – and you wonder why Labour had no fiscal credibility 😆

Edit:

If people weren’t frighten off from voting Tory by the threat of austerity it was because they had been falsely told that they had already experienced austerity.

And who was telling them that? Ed “Too far, too fast” Balls.

Here’s an idea – increase the minimum wage to one that allows people to live without those god awful tax credit things. Yes, shareholders won’t make as much profit and the top 1% wont be able to afford multiple hundred million pound yachts and private archipelagoes, but who gives a shit. Why should the government pay to subsidise people paying shite wages?

A national minimum wage doesn’t really make sense as costs of living particularly housing varies so much. That being said I am not against an increase or a campaign to encourage companies to pay a living wage. Shareholders in most cases are our pension funds and the top 1% are people making £200k – £500k per any, and they aren’t buying multi million pound yachts or Islands. This is one of the problems with the tax the “rich” argument as many people think of Abramovoch or Peter Green. Tax credits cost less than out of work benefits.

Oh Z-11 is resorting to the laughing emoticon

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-snp-rout/page/5#post-6898347

What a surprise.

One reason the austerity argument by Labour didn’t work is for many people they are seeing an improvement in their economic situation. Perhaps that’s different in Scotland so the austerity argument was more powerful but in the wider UK it wasn’t a winning formula

And who was telling them that? Ed “Too far, too fast” Balls.

Yes that’s right. And what is your point exactly ?

Its not my definition its the FT definition and for it not to be true you need to argue and prove] that they have not been reducing the size of the deficit

Yes the tories have been implementing cuts and selling off national assets, but austerity was only ever a convenient excuse that enabled them to do things they’d never normally get away with,

You admit they do it after saying they did not?

I agree they have also taken advantage of the situation to do things that are as motivated by politics as austerity

average government spending for the last 5 years was more than the previous 5 years under Labour.

They got lucky then that the deficit went down when there real goal was to spend more.

Shareholders in most cases are our pension funds

How many times do you need to be told this is FALSE?

One more time [ its ok I have it bookmarked for when you claim it but please stop will you

At the end of 2010 the UK stock market was valued at £1,777.5 billion.
Rest of the world investors owned 41.2 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2010, up from 30.7 per cent in 1998.
Other financial institutions held 16.0 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at 31 December 2010, up from 2.7 per cent in 1998.
UK individuals owned 11.5 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2010, down from 16.7 per cent in 1998.
At the end of 2010, insurance companies held 8.6 per cent and pension funds held 5.1 per cent by value. These are the lowest percentages since the share ownership survey began in 1963.
44.9 per cent of the shares by value were held in multiple ownership pooled accounts where the beneficial owner is unknown. These have been allocated to sectors using further analysis of share registers; updating the previous allocations which date from 1998

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pnfc1/share-ownership—share-register-survey-report/2010/stb-share-ownership-2010.html

JY pension funds give money to asset managers who buy shares, most don’t own them directly as they are not staffed adequately to do so as it’s too expensive. As such those stats are misleading. We can argue about the word most. If you turn the argument round the other way and look at the portion of a pension funds assets which are invested in shares or corporate bonds (also impacted by higher business costs) you’d see it’s very significant, the majority of their assets.

Junkyard – lazarus

You admit they do it after saying they did not?

I’m not sure what you mean- yes they’ve implemented cuts. They just can’t really be called austerity cuts, because they were just regular Tory cuts-for-their-own-sake.

Ernie, of course I can use the laughing emoticon if I want

In fact I could give you 331 reasons why I am laughing!

As I said the other day:

oh, just imagine the disappointment amongst the lefties on Friday morning, the whinging, the wailing, the utter despair, the grey cloud that will descend across them when they realise the numbers dont add up, and that Ed has managed to spanner the ball into the crowd

How could I not be laughing?

Its not my definition its the FT definition and for it not to be true you need to argue and prove] that they have not been reducing the size of the deficit

You have changed the definition of austerity now. You are now claiming that just “reducing the size of the deficit” defines austerity.

The whole anti-austerity argument is based on the fact that austerity isn’t even necessary to reduce a deficit.

As such those stats are misleading.

Its either that or you are wrong.
I guess that means you will just keep repeating the error

We can argue about the word most.

ort you could just admit you were wrong.

yes they’ve implemented cuts. They just can’t really be called austerity cuts, because they were just regular Tory cuts-for-their-own-sake.

If they have done cuts then its austerity but it is fair to say the Tories would quite likely have reduced public spending anyway but the size of the deficit was a motivating factor. Every party would have implemented austerity last time and this time they only debated the depth of the austerity not if we had it.

The exact motivation for the tories is a separate debate to whether it is occuring

ninfan – Member

In fact I could give you 331 reasons why I am laughing!

But you obviously can’t tell me what point you were trying to make with this comment :

And who was telling them that? Ed “Too far, too fast” Balls.

You clearly don’t know yourself what your point was, so how do you expect me to know ?

Presumably it was nothing more than just another silly, puerile, and completely meaningless, point-scoring exercise on your part.

If they have done cuts then its austerity

But average government spending was greater than the previous 5 years.

Adjusting departmental budgets does not meaning a reduction in overall government spending.

You have changed the definition of austerity now. You are now claiming that just “reducing the size of the deficit” defines austerity..

How?

Definition of austerity measure
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

The whole anti-austerity argument is based on the fact that austerity isn’t even necessary to reduce a deficit.

So they accept that austerity is reducing a deficit then ?
However they have another method to do this , I assume whatever this is it is not called austerity?

But average government spending was greater than the previous 5 years.

Adjusting departmental budgets does not meaning a reduction in overall government spending.

Is this aimed at me or NW ? We both appear to accept that the govt rained in the spending and implement austerity “cuts” we have only discussed why they did it from what I can see