Theresa May announces snap general election on June 8 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52128716]Governments borrow money to invest it. They do this on the assumption that the investment will be a good one and that they will get back, from a grown, strengthened economy;[/QUOTE] Except they don't borrow money like we do. They credit bank accounts with pounds to spend. They don't go "oh, we need to fund the NHS, we need to wait for some guy's taxes to come in or for someone to buy our bonds." [QUOTE]the money to repay the principle, interest and then some. This is why governments borrow. The aim is to "grow the pie" faster than the debt grows.[/QUOTE] Where are the pounds coming from that repay more than the principle and the interest? How do you expect to get more pounds back then they put in via deficit spending? [QUOTE]You are right though there are differences, a government must look after more than profits (or debt reduction in this case) and there is a very strong moral hazard - one government can borrow and reap the rewards/popularity leaving the hot potato/problem of repayment to a next government.[/QUOTE] It's not really that much of a hot potato considering the UK can never involuntarily miss a repayment measured in pounds. [QUOTE]Fact is though most modern governments borrow money to reinvest to avoid having to save up for ages which has an opportunity cost. People are averse to borrowing and debt, but manageable debt and responsible spending are a good thing and they are necessary - like they are to businesses and people. So I think the comparison is fair, if anything a government has greater need to borrow since the price of failure is far greater than some private company failing.[/QUOTE] Most modern governments that I know of borrow money in order to clear excess reserves from the private banks in order to reach their targeted overnight interest rates. It's not because they need to borrow money to spend, even though that's what political rhetoric might tell you [QUOTE]UK isn't a federation but I suspect this is just a mistype on your part[/QUOTE] By the federal government of the UK I mean the central government - the highest legislative authority (invested by the crown) [QUOTE]I've no problem taking money away from private entities in the form of taxes, first and foremost though we should address loop holes rather than raise taxes. I'd probably be happier with lower taxes if it meant we defiantly collected them all - so those who played fair get it better off and those who cheated (by avoiding taxes) are finally carrying their burden. Taxes aren't some theft thing. Starbucks can run a profitable businesses in the UK because we have tax funded police for security and stability, tax funded education leading to relatively well off people with disposable income to spend on coffee and tax funded healthcare which is good value keeping people healthy and not worrying about medical bills. The tax funded state results in an environment where consumers are willing and happy to spend, where workers are healthy, educated and secure. If a company is avoiding paying their taxes they are in effect shirking their burden, letting others pay their way and leeching off of a society which is looking after them. I'm fine having private companies pay (through taxes) for the privilege to operate in the UK and benefit from our tax funded system.[/QUOTE] Again, this is running off the same assumptions that leads to the dangerous austerity mentality that the Tories hold. I am a firm believer that anyone who wishes to challenge the rhetoric that conservatives present worldwide must understand that under systems like the UK, taxes do not fund spending. To say so is a violation of causality. You cannot pay taxes to the crown in pounds if the crown hasn't first introduced pounds into the system. [QUOTE]The optimist would say we wouldn't have to collect these taxes because we can grow the pie big and fast enough, the self interested politician and their bribing lobbyists would use that rhetoric to avoid necessary tax changes to protect private profits over public good.[/QUOTE] Taxes are necessary, yes, but not to fund the central government of the UK. [QUOTE]Personally I'm not sure we can pay off the debt but there is a better fighting chance borrowing money to invest as stimulus packages - than there is sitting there, fingers up bum while the economy stagnates and increasingly loses the ability to pay off current debts.[/QUOTE] Paying off the debt (in pounds) means there would be no pounds. It would be a ridiculous situation. [editline]20th April 2017[/editline] Also, this graph helps show what I was trying to get at with this statement: [QUOTE=Goberfish;52128648]How are you supposed to reduce the debt (in pounds) of the federal government of the UK without reducing the amount of pounds that non-federal government entities have available to them?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LPPW4Ui.gif[/IMG] The only way to reduce the debt of the central government in the UK is for it to run a surplus. In order for it to run a surplus, something else must be running a deficit. As the rest of the world is running a surplus of pounds, that means only households and corporate can react to the government running a surplus. For what can happen as a result, take my country of Australia for example (we have very similar monetary systems); when we last ran surpluses - somebody had to run deficits to meet the surplus of our federal government. As we are a net importing nation (like the UK), it wasn't the foreign sector meeting that demand - what ended up happening was the household sector tripled its private debt as a result in order to fuel the demand it needed to function. This left us in a very precarious situation, as households are currency users, not issuers.

here's my viewpoint after thinking about it for a while: main objective : fuck the tories going to vote : lib dem [b] personal [/b] reasons: labour's currently an unorganised mess, they need to figure out their structure as a party before thinking they can run a country lib dem has good intentions at heart and really could do with a boost in power SNP , as much as it sounds like a good choice from us scots is a tactically bad decision to vote for. Limited number of seats, seats could be better used bolstering support for either lab / lib dem greens are a one-policy party (albiet a good policy) that has a while to go before becoming capable of running a country

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52128392] Its a general election, not an election for Brexit. To use it as such would be disingenuous. o wait it's UK Bohemian[/QUOTE] it isn't but 17 million idiots though eh, who knows. [editline]20th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52127821]I think it's really weird how blindly optimistic you are about brexit[/QUOTE] I think it's really weird how blindly pessimistic you are about brexit

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52129676]I think it's really weird how blindly pessimistic you are about brexit[/QUOTE] Considering the difficulty of the whole process, the disintegration of relations Britain will have with other countries in the EU, the fact the "United" Kingdom is becoming anything but, and the fact that things will become trickier in Northern Ireland, along with quite a number of economists predicting Brexit won't go well - plus the fact you're having a General Election not even 2 years after the last - I can see why he's so pessimistic about Brexit, he has reasons to. Why are you optimistic about it?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52129676] I think it's really weird how blindly pessimistic you are about brexit[/QUOTE] I'm not [I]BLINDLY[/I] pessimistic, I know full well how us leaving the EU court of human rights will give Theresa May a free pass to erode even further our rights and civil liberties and we will plunge deeper into a totalitarian triple Orwellian hellscape. I used the term "Triple Orwellian Hellscape" about two years ago when I had some good things to say about this country and how our country wasn't anything like that. Over that time it has proven time and time again that it would rather be a regressive, isolationist, xenophobic fear-stricken JOKE of an island nation with a government who makes INGSOC look like a slightly nosy and opinionated grandmother and the Film Equilibrium a rather "optimistic" outlook on the future.

I think the biggest issue is FPTP with Lib Dems. Labour being disorganized actually means fuck all. MP's don't need clear organization. They're independent voters with coloured ties. The only issue is that a party whip might have a tougher time, but it's not going to be an issue if proposals are solid enough that it doesn't matter. The big issue is that, well, while this forum isn't indictative of the wider pop, with most of us being somewhat well informed (and thus few lean heavily to the right) It suggests that liberal democrats are going to take votes away from conservatives and Labour, and in a first past the post system, shit's fucked when that happens. Edit: I was going to do a ratings check for who we're voting for Then I remembered where we are.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52129676]I think it's really weird how blindly pessimistic you are about brexit[/QUOTE] And why shouldn't he be? It's been a disaster from day one. First there's all the [URL="http://brexitlies.com/"]lies[/URL] from the pro-brexit side. Then there's the experts saying it's a bad thing (sources can be found in the first link) with Mr. Gove going on about how Britain is tired of experts like the slime he is. Then there's the pro-brexit side not having any [URL="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/06/anarchy-uk?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fanarchyintheuk"]plan[/URL] for what they want to do. Then they win and start [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/watch-evidence-nigel-farage-said-money-sent-eu-should-go-nhs"]backing out[/URL] of their promises.

Welp Conservatives are still got a bigger majority. But least your "glorious" Liberal Dems (even they [I]will clearly[/I] never win, even in Scottish politics they are already fringe (for pure scots) there anyway with Scottish Greens replace their status since 2016) are beginning beating out UKIP current position into former position as before 2015. [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png[/IMG] And if I was British citizen, Just vote Labour (as national political party) even Corbyn is noticeable flawed because that voting system. And If was Scottish resident, I will vote SNP (as a regional political party) because they have almost Social Democratic policies for Scottish people (even Scottish working class) than Scottish Conservatives and Labours and they have the third majority in House of Commons, Scottish Parliment and almost of all local seats.

I struggle to comprehend theresa may winning. I know most of the papers hate corbyn because they're owned by billionaires who hate that kind of socialist thinking, but pro-theresa sources are a bit much. Those opinion polls, where the fuck are they from, who's the sample, why do we allow the lizard to live?

[QUOTE=The Jack;52141773]I struggle to comprehend theresa may winning. I know most of the papers hate corbyn because they're owned by billionaires who hate that kind of socialist thinking, but pro-theresa sources are a bit much. Those opinion polls, where the fuck are they from, who's the sample, why do we allow the lizard to live?[/QUOTE] Yes but the Tories have done a great job convincing poor people to assign blame down to the very poorest of society. Tons of working class people now vote tory because they think a guy getting £50 a week on benefits is the biggest threat to the economy.