I Don't Understand

[Monty13]

What an incredibly simplistic guardian like analysis of the economy, battling against an equally simplistic daily mail view!

I wonder if anyone thinks its a coincidence that in their last year in power Labour nearly tripled the deficit? Your also ignoring the fact that by the time Labour left power around a third of the defecit was interest on the money they had already borrowed, rather hard to eliminate without paying any debt off.

Oh and the whole debt by year thing - cough - global financial crisis.

The graph you show is rather useless without showing each years comparative economic growth.

The simple fact of the matter is the 1996 government was handed a growing economy which had borrowed sensibly and had a deficit that was being cut year by year. They reaped the benefit of this, economic policy changes really take years to show results.

The current government was handed an economy in terminal decline with rampant overspending.

My analogy for you would be when I lend someone my car I would expect to receive it back having been well maintained. I dont care if for the majority of the time they borrowed it it is was well looked after, if when I actually get my hands on it its been ragged into the ground and left with an empty petrol tank.

But politics is so dull, most people are so entrenched in their partisan beliefs that theres really no debate to be had.

 

[Canaryboy]

Your also ignoring the fact that by the time Labour left power around a third of the defecit was interest on the money they had already borrowed

You mean, interest on the money that successive governments had already borrowed? 

I'm not a Labour voter by the way (neither in 2010, nor in 2015 unless there is a coup d'etat between now and then in which case I'd reconsider), but I'm glad I was assigned the Guardianista label rather than the Daily Mail one, if I had to choose one of the two I'd have chosen that one, although I've grown out of The Guardian and much prefer The Independent! 

But if you are going to be critical of Labour then at least let me give you a helping hand (I'd be happy to oblige), why not simply mention the numerous ludicrous (borderline fraud against the state) PFI deals which Blair & Brown entered into during their 13 years in power? Their PFI deals alone will cost £250bn over the duration of the loan terms, for just £50bn worth of construction, and our liabilities for PFI are kept off of the balance sheet (so are not included in our government debt figures). 

Major started it mind you, and Cameron & Osborne are still using them. The figure including their PFI deals is well over £300bn owed to private finance companies for various projects, including the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital and repayments won't peak until 2029, assuming no further PFI deals (which would be a lazy assumption, because we are still using it). 

Blair & Brown have a lot to answer with the problems that we currently face in the NHS, the cost of this finance is taken out of the budgets of hospital trusts. 

 

[Canaryboy]

I completely agree, and I never originally said that it was the majority of fans that were hoping we'd lose games. I know full well that the majority of fans want us to win every game regardless of the circumstances.

The opening statement wasn't a pop at you at all btw, just in case you were thinking that. It was motivated by something I saw on Twitter earlier, not from anyone on here.

Back on topic! 

No I didn't take it as a pop at me, just wanted to give a perspective. Here is what I actually said:

I did think twice before saying this.... but I've been pondering whether it is just best if we lose this game. Wanting us to lose isn't a position I'm too comfortable with, but I fear a win would be nothing other than a dead cat's bounce. Last season Hughton had the knack of pulling a win out of nowhere when he most needed it, buying himself "a few more games" each time.

I know that some will say a win could change our fortunes and we could go on a run, but that's what I thought would happen after we'd beat Bolton at home. Instead we got hammered by Boro and haven't won again since. If I had any confidence at all that win would lead to a reverse in fortunes I'd be crossing my fingers for a win.

Which still applies really, time will tell. I'll soon start to believe again if we can get ourselves back in the top six. 

 

[Monty13]

You mean, interest on the money that successive governments had already borrowed? 

I'm not a Labour voter by the way (neither in 2010, nor in 2015 unless there is a coup d'etat between now and then in which case I'd reconsider), but I'm glad I was assigned the Guardianista label rather than the Daily Mail one, if I had to choose one of the two I'd have chosen that one, although I've grown out of The Guardian and much prefer The Independent!

Lol touche!

I'm of a similar disposition re politics, I tend to vote on what I think is best for the country at the time.

But it does niggle me when the economy is used to beat the current government when in reality what they are mainly guilty of is being too optimistic. I doubt a labour government would have done things much differently, they have failed to outline repeatedly what they would have done.

 

[Canaryboy]

Lol touche!

I'm of a similar disposition re politics, I tend to vote on what I think is best for the country at the time.

But it does niggle me when the economy is used to beat the current government when in reality what they are mainly guilty of is being too optimistic. I doubt a labour government would have done things much differently, they have failed to outline repeatedly what they would have done.

I'd have preferred Gordon Brown & Alistair Darling to the prospect of Miliband & Balls. 

But there is very little difference between the parties these days.  

It is a sad state of affairs when you feel unrepresented, I've not got the foggiest idea who I'll be voting for in 2015, I only know that I won't take Russell Brand's advice and not vote at all, I'll always vote for somebody even if it is a protest vote. 

I like to consider the strength of the local candidate as much as the party leadership anyway, and many people do. I always thought that Dr Ian Gibson was a tremendous MP, and if I'd lived in his half of the city I'd have voted for Labour one year when my vote went elsewhere. 

 

[morty]

Back on topic, good call 

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Haha, my Daily Mail-like comment was deliberately tongue-in-cheek     If you knew what I did for a living you would appreciate that I have a special relationship with the Daily Mail and the opinions that it generates! I wouldnt be caught dead reading it!! My point was rather that you can have two camps with diametrically opposed outlooks on life dependent on whether you focus more on short or long term gain.

The graphic used is fascinating to take a few minutes to study, but agree that of course the issue is far more complex than a simple graphic could illustrate. Taken at face value though its very interesting.

 

[eatonparkboy]

I'd have preferred Gordon Brown & Alistair Darling to the prospect of Miliband & Balls. 

But there is very little difference between the parties these days.  

It is a sad state of affairs when you feel unrepresented, I've not got the foggiest idea who I'll be voting for in 2015, I only know that I won't take Russell Brand's advice and not vote at all, I'll always vote for somebody even if it is a protest vote. 

What is a protest vote? OP-I don't understand. Aren't you supposed to vote for something rather than against it? Life offers you opportunities and choices. A general election affords you both. Vote for your Member of Parliament and if you are prepared to tell all of us on here what you think and we carry no influence whatsoever, it should be paramount that you tell your MP what you think. I've let mine have both barrels!

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Russell Brand's views on the economy for what its worth...

 

[Canaryboy]

Aren't you supposed to vote for something rather than against it?

it should be paramount that you tell your MP what you think. I've let mine have both barrels!

I voted Lib Dem in 2010 and what I got was far removed from what I voted for. 

And I let the party know what I thought when I cancelled my party membership 

My idea of a "protest vote" is a vote cast which marks your dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties / the current political system / the status quo.

I consider my vote in this years European elections to have been a protest vote. 

 

[Canaryboy]

There will be more political posts on this thread than there is in the politics sub forum before long, perhaps I'll try and start a thread on there in the near future to discuss the 2015 general election so that we can keep this board strictly football.

 

[Monty13]

There will be more political posts on this thread than there is in the politics sub forum before long, perhaps I'll try and start a thread on there in the near future to discuss the 2015 general election so that we can keep this board strictly football.

I hope you don't take offence when I say I don't see the point in separate boards, there simply isn't the actuvity to justify it and therefore people don't use them.

I'm afraid I'm in the one click generation of internet users now, if things aren't instantly acessible I'm not going to bother. It would be a lot simpler if we had one forum and you ciould simply tag the subject categhory of the post, people could choose to read or not read it then.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Perhaps there should be a way to divert the direction a thread has gone into a new thread. Its natural that by discussing a topic, comparisons get drawn and the thread goes in another direction. Some call this 'off topic'. I would call it conversation.

Understand that the thread was created to discuss a specific topic and the diversion will be annoying to those that want to stay on topic, but it would also be a shame to stifle discussion. The subject drifting is a natural part of conversation

Perhaps the solution would be (rather than to get into on-topic off-topic arguments) to link to a new thread in a new area (a sub-thread perhaps) so that the discussion can continue along those lines for those that want to continue it, and leaves the original thread unpolluted by side issues for those that want to continue discussing the original topic.

Is this kind of thing possible to do?  Think discussion is good and new avenues are a natural consequence of it, but also understand it is annoying when threads go off topic

 

[admin]

I hope you don't take offence when I say I don't see the point in separate boards, there simply isn't the actuvity to justify it and therefore people don't use them.

I agree.

When IP board 4.0 arrives and I have to do a redesign (which I'm planning to do by the way), I will be seeking to reduce the number of forums to 5 or 6. One forum titled 'Non-football' will suffice, for example.  

The current set-up has a way of making this place look much less active than it actually is. 

 

[morty]

I think pretty much every thread will go off topic a bit, and that really isn't a problem. But when they go wildly off topic then it could deter the casual browser. Especially in longer threads, where not everyone will read the whole thing, and could maybe just read the last few posts.

 

[admin]

Perhaps there should be a way to divert the direction a thread has gone into a new thread. Its natural that by discussing a topic, comparisons get drawn and the thread goes in another direction. Some call this 'off topic'. I would call it conversation.

Understand that the thread was created to discuss a specific topic and the diversion will be annoying to those that want to stay on topic, but it would also be a shame to stifle discussion. The subject drifting is a natural part of conversation

Perhaps the solution would be (rather than to get into on-topic off-topic arguments) to link to a new thread in a new area (a sub-thread perhaps) so that the discussion can continue along those lines for those that want to continue it, and leaves the original thread unpolluted by side issues for those that want to continue discussing the original topic.

Is this kind of thing possible to do?  Think discussion is good and new avenues are a natural consequence of it, but also understand it is annoying when threads go off topic

I'd just logged in to the Admin account to consider options here.

I could quite easily move every post starting with your initial Labour vs Tory comparison to a new thread with a new title which identifies it as a political in nature. Politics is a topic which does annoy a lot of people.

It's difficult isn't it, do we just appreciate the fact that conversation is flowing, or do we consider threads going off-topic to be a dangerous precedent which could spiral into something which renders this place unreadable?

I have no idea, tough call! 

I'm conscious of the fact that by participating in a thread which has gone off-topic I'm being hypocritical if I later tell somebody that they can't do it  h34r:

 

[Monty13]

I voted Lib Dem in 2010 and what I got was far removed from what I voted for. 

And I let the party know what I thought when I cancelled my party membership 

My idea of a "protest vote" is a vote cast which marks your dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties / the current political system / the status quo.

I consider my vote in this years European elections to have been a protest vote.

I feel a bit sorry for the lib dems, they were never going to ensure all their policies were inacted or even listened to as by far the junior partner. They had to pick their battles.

I actually feel they have done a decent job of tempering some of the more extreme ideas of the worst elements of the conservative party.

I agree with the lack of representation.

I was watching an american political correspondant absolutely destroy our new pornography industry laws and I was wondering who really feels this is necessary or a priority? Who voted to remove spanking from Uk produced porn! Who even cares?

 

[Monty13]

I think pretty much every thread will go off topic a bit, and that really isn't a problem. But when they go wildly off topic then it could deter the casual browser. Especially in longer threads, where not everyone will read the whole thing, and could maybe just read the last few posts.

I agree in principal Morty, but there's a difference between taking an active thread wildly off topic and appropriating a pretty much dead thread for a new lively chat. It involves some situationally sensitive moderating.

 

[morty]

I'd just logged in to the Admin account to consider options here.

I could quite easily move every post starting with your initial Labour vs Tory comparison to a new thread with a new title which identifies it as a political in nature. Politics is a topic which does annoy a lot of people.

It's difficult isn't it, do we just appreciate the fact that conversation is flowing, or do we consider threads going off-topic to be a dangerous precedent which could spiral into something which renders this place unreadable?

I have no idea, tough call! 

I'm conscious of the fact that by participating in a thread which has gone off-topic I'm being hypocritical if I later tell somebody that they can't do it  h34r:

Don't sweat it, it doesn't happen often really, does it?

 

[morty]

I agree in principal Morty, but there's a difference between taking an active thread wildly off topic and appropriating a pretty much dead thread for a new lively chat. It involves some situationally sensitive moderating.

I guess it depends if you find the subject matter incredibly boring or not, and only really come here to chat about football.