The Labour Party won the 2005 UK general election with 35.3% of the popular British vote. The Conservative Party was just a few points behind with points behind at 32.3% of the popular vote, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats […]
Continue Reading General Election 2010 Poll Results
The real economy depends on the largest number of capable people doing useful things. I shall vote Labour because the private sector isn’t willing to bet on sufficient demand to create enough jobs yet. That’s a main reason why we have government, to help the capitalist(least bad) system out when it gets self destructive. It’s a circular process. NO one can economically save without others borrowing. Minimal debt = minimal faith in the future; and faith is what gets things going (though in 2008 the bankers faith went OTT). Squeezing out an extra 6 billion (Con) or 15-17 billion (Lib)is just cutting creation of value – until the entrepreneurs believe we are affluent enough to spend more again. History shows that cuts in a recession just create a vicious circle. Only Labour gets this. Forget the distractions, if you get it, it’s your responsibility to get it over to other voters.
View Comment
Cant save without borrowing, so if i borrow i can save, absolute rubbish, its not my money.
For a bank to have money in it’s possession it needs people/business to save money in that bank so it can lend that same money to other people/businesses who currently don’t have money.
Seriously Jamie, it’s not rocket science.
If no one borrows money, the money others are saving with a bank isn’t working and so isn’t earning money which means the bank can’t pay the savers interest on their savings and what’s the point in saving money in a bank if it doesn’t earn interest?
That’s economics 101.
Our economy, like many others, runs on debt, a business that requires money to invest in it’s business borrows money from a bank and pays interest on the loan and savers get a share of that interest for allowing the bank to use their savings.
Think about it Jamie, a lot of people (and businesses) who are doing well financially have debts, the main one being a mortgage on their home. I’m doing really well financially, but about 40% of my home is owned by a bank and the money they loaned me a few years ago to buy the house is earning money for savers because I pay interest on the loan.
I don’t have any other debts (hate being in debt), but without a willingness to borrow money today, so a person/business can get what they want today (like a nice car instead of a car that will do) our economy would be quite stagnant: as has been shown with devastating financial effect by the credit crunch, we got a recession which is negative growth, the economy shrank!
An economy running on debt works as long as the banks don’t make too many risky loans and unfortunately the banks screwed up by making dumb ass loans that a 10 year old with a calculator could have seen the loans were a massive risk, but they hid those risky loans by repackaging them as safe loans and selling them on to other banks so they could make more dumb ass risky loans, so they could repackage them as safe loans…….. (the US banks were the biggest abusers)!
Without banks lending money to businesses, many businesses lack cash flow and can’t do business despite being good businesses that are good for the economy. When the banking crisis started, pretty much all banks stopped lending money to business (the banks panicked) and this caused many businesses to go under because they had no cash flow to do business!
“It’s a circular process. NO one can economically save without others borrowing.” Sums it up nicely.
David
View Comment
hello David, so what your saying is, i pop along to my local bank and say ” I want to borrow some money , as i want to be better off “, do you really think they will lend me some, if they did no wonder he are in such a state no one in their right mind would lend money to someone who has nothing, aside of that why does clegg preach to young people who were not school age when we were held in high esteem, he brainwashes them, Gordon Brown said dont trust the economy to someone without experience, so why did he give darling the job, i am inclined to believe most people that none are worth a vote, but not voting then you cant complain afterwards. i suppose that you and i will never agree, i want the best for my own family and their children, but none of them will guarantee that, our LIb Dem candidate preaches so many lies that she is worse than brown, if thats possible. We need a party that does not lie, but at the moment they all do.
View Comment
“I want to borrow some money , as i want to be better off”
If that’s a serious question you didn’t understand a word I wrote!!!
NO, borrowing money per se does not make a person better off, borrowing money to invest in a business MIGHT make you better off IF the business is successful long term.
If you took out a loan to buy a better car because you thought it was cool, clearly that person is not going to be better off, but the savers (individuals and businesses) that put their money in the bank that then lends the money out (for a car loan) or invests it in the stock market etc… the savers make money (interest) as long as the banks don’t loose money by making too many risky loans that default.
Was that really a serious question Jamie? If so re read what I wrote as I never said borrowing money makes you better off, I said the economy relies on a combination of borrowers and lenders.
If we have no businesses/people willing to borrow money, savers can’t earn money (interest) on the money they’ve saved.
Can’t believe I’m having to explain this simple concept, but when a saver puts money in the bank it doesn’t go into a big bank vault collecting dust, the money is put to work in the form of loans to business and individuals either directly or via the stock market and similar products: the stock market basically generates cash for the business the stocks are for, so they can invest in their business etc…
Come on Jamie, this isn’t rocket science, it’s economics 101 and I’ve never studied economics, but I understand these basic economic principles.
I don’t think I can explain this in simpler terms, so if you don’t get it, not a lot I can do about it.
David
View Comment
david that was not the question posed, the question was asked, not by you that borrow money to make yourself better, no question about businesses, i am i suppose quite well off, i dont have debts, if i did not have any money then i would not borrow, i hardly saw my family because of work, travelling to exotic places, seeing slums in south america and other parts of the world, brings it home, but it did not let me see my family growing up, now i have cancer with 7 months to live, specialist in 3 weeks scan in another 3 weeks and diagnosis a further 3 weeks, i was asked by the specialist how many fags do i smoke a day, 20/40, and i dont smoke nor do any of my family, i have money in the bank, of no use to me now, i will see that not a penny will the government get. the politicians want to come here and see what they would of done if it was not for a us here pulling together, as it is they built on our local cricket ground, no one told us till it was too late, we would be in a worse mess if labour carry on doing things like that, .I am not looking for sympathy, i am saying that this country has no spirit, too many lies told, 7 days for a cancer specialist , rubbish, now they want to close cleggs local baby hospital, they tried it with ours, my message is to everyone dont believe any politican, and make sure you find out whats going on where you live or it will be tpo late.
View Comment
Sorry to hear about your health problems.
No one asked a question about borrowing money to get out of debt! At least not in this thread.
Dr David Dewhurst started this comment thread and his comment was about the economy and how people borrowing money (and people include business not just individuals) drives the economy and right now there’s not enough private sector interest (AKA the banks) in lending lots of money to replace the money put into the economy by the government (the stimulus package) so hundreds of thousands of people haven’t lost their jobs (yet).
You appear to be mixing up personal debt (that should be kept relatively low) with the economy that runs on quite a bit of debt (borrowing to fund business). We are talking about businesses borrowing billions of pounds a year to help business expand and without that investment (as the OP put it “Minimal debt = minimal faith in the future”) the economy becomes stagnant because of a lack of investment, without investment (which is borrowed money basically) the economy becomes stagnant and eventually contracts (recession).
Had the government not borrowed to bail out the banks and to fund public sector services (more than normal), yes we’d have less government debt. but we’d have hundreds of thousands more unemployed not to mention savers like you and me would have lost our money when the banks went under!!!
Would you have rather had the Tory answer to the credit crunch, do sweet FA and leave it to the market to determine what happens?
Tories would have had less debt at this stage, but we might be at well over 3 million unemployed, front line services would be reduced and the banks would still be in crisis! Long term we might have seen 5 million unemployed like we had in the Tory recessions and the economy damaged far worse than the economy is now.
David
View Comment
Ok David, we will see, the banks seem to lose whichever way they turn, as you will see I dont have any time at all for Brown, how do we know how other parties would of handled the situation, I just hope for you and I that the same mistakes are not made again, thats why i have said Cameron cant do any worse, Brown bought back Mandleson, a person who was sacked twice and pocketed about £2 million. anyway, thanks for answering, i feel people are fed up with what i write, soon it will all be over.
View Comment
to me david its logic, if your already in debt, borrowing more money gets you deeper in debt, or am i wrong.
Not according to Carol Vordaman
i wont be taking any notice what she says.
“Squeezing out an extra 6 billion (Con) or 15-17 billion (Lib)is just cutting creation of value”
That’s a very good point, 6 billion when described as efficiency savings or £1 in every £100 the government spends, doesn’t sound a lot and on face value what David Cameron says about British people having to cut back during the recession makes sense.
However, the Tories aren’t looking at the big picture. The 6 billion (which isn’t a lot of money for the economy relatively speaking) may well be wasted money, but it’s money that’s going to be flowing through the economy this year at a time when we are barely in growth. I recall reading 6 billion is actually more than the current estimated increase in GDP this year, so if the Conservatives win the election, the small growth that’s getting us out of recession will be removed from the economy!!!
I tried to find what the 2010 estimated GDP figures are, but could only find the % increases/decreases (not the actual billion amount). Where are the GDP figures?
6 billion won’t make even a tiny dent in our national debt (I think the estimate for national debt increase this year is around 160 billion). If it’s going to cost the country public sector jobs at a time when private investment just isn’t happening in the economy it seems to me to be a risk not worth taking.
Yes government shouldn’t waste money when it knows it’s wasting money, but we are still talking about peoples jobs and if a significant amount of the 6 billion is in wage costs (I have no idea if it is or not), that’s a LOT of unemployed people, they’ll be claiming benefits and not contributing to the economy which means we don’t actually save 6 billion!
What we gain in “efficiency savings” is partially lost to increased benefits and lower tax receipts.
Pretty much 50% of everything we earn goes back to government, so when government spends 6 billion on public sector workers jobs, 3 billion goes straight back to the government in taxes anyway, so if we cut jobs that saves the government 6 billion, we don’t actually save anywhere near 6 billion and that doesn’t take into account the money taken out of the economy that goes through British businesses.
My understanding is no other country that’s out of recession is planning to make cuts in their economic stimulus packages this year. For the sake of trying to save 6 billion on what appears to be ideological/political grounds I think it’s a risk not worth taking.
If we had full details of where the 6 billion was coming from, for example if it doesn’t cost jobs, maybe since reducing the deficit by 6 billion this year is a small start I’d support this idea, but we don’t have reliable information on where this 6 billion would come from.
David
View Comment
We need proportional representation! The Lib Dems are getting roughly a third of people’s votes but will end up with much smaller numbers of MP’s than the Tories and Labour because of the unfairness of the current system.
Democracy means that the people get what they vote for. There’s no way this is going to happen unless we get electoral reform.
View Comment
Voting for labour, come on Gordon!!! He may not be young and apealing in front of the camera but what he has done in this recession, he has made sure that jo-blogs in the street has kept his/her house interest rates down national minimum wage, winter fuel allowance for the elderly, what did the conservatives do in the last recession 16% interest rate thousands lost their homes millions lost their jobs and who got rich the conservatives so before you vote think long and hard, which party really helps you!
View Comment
NICK CLEGG HAS MY VOTE :)
British National Party (BNP) (4.68%, 4,562 Votes)
what the hell happened there?! bnp had over 5000 votes yesterday? where have they dissapeared?
Site Owner: see https://general-election-2010.co.uk/weekly-general-election-poll-results/comment-page-3/#comment-7624 for explanation.
The BNP vote has been changed to make it look like they don’t have as many supporters as they do, typical.
This is outrageous !!!
Site Owner: see https://general-election-2010.co.uk/weekly-general-election-poll-results/comment-page-3/#comment-7624 for explanation.
The site owner is playing with the BNP vote, tut tut
You obviously have your own personnel agenda that clouds your judgement!
Well good luck and don’t bother next time round
Jason, What do expect from a Labour supporter, its not the first time hes shaved some votes off. Told me that BNP support is less than 4%.
Graham
Hunreds and thousands of people have died in this great country for a democracy. You can change teh actual the BNP count all you like..they will still be droves of people voting BNP in the General Election and they is nothing you can do about it!
Just to let you good people know, the BNP was leading the vote on this site until the owner removed the BNP entirely.
Vote BNP for a voice.
View Comment
Just to correct myself there – he/she hasn’t removed the BNP vote, just demoted it DRASTICALLY.
Sorry about that.
Yep, the BNP were going to win the general election on May 6th even though they don’t have enough candidates to form a majority government IF they won every seat they stood in.
When they don’t form a government on May 7th and Nick Griffin is still only and MEP you can blame me and my site for changing public opinion.
Some BNP supporters are completely deluded, you actually believe this one website, specifically this one poll is going to have a major impact on the general election results?
You are suggesting had I not removed the 800 BNP cheat votes (from proxy servers) and removed the votes related to visitors directly from the BNP official website (where BNP supporters beg visitors on the BNP official site to vote here) which put the BNP on about 10% of the popular vote last week, the BNP would be in power on May 7th!
Does that make me the King maker, not Nick Clegg :-)
I’m sure my site will have changed minds on who to vote for on May 6th, but I’m not deluded enough to believe it’s going to have any impact on the actual result. Whatever the result is on May 7th it would have been that result had this website never existed.
David
View Comment
I’ve listened to all the parties. All I simple ask myself is ( increased national insurance or more money into the private sector.) The private sector has the best managers, needs as much help as possible to expand,so why give money to the grinding wheel of the private sector that squanders money within its own ranks belore it gets to the real public sector needs.Let private money make money and prosperity begin. the past is the past and should be learnt from.
View Comment
The logical conclusion of PR could well be if you have 3 political parties in a country who each draw 33% of the vote given they are all diametrically opposed to each others belief systems, as a result have policies which oppose we end up with a compromising between all three and end up with across the board second best, third best. the thing is PR is desirable when your not in power but a share of power is better than no share, history doesn’t remember the second, third placed. other wise you would have to hope that one of the three got more than 50% to be fair, then the other 49% could leave the country.
View Comment
Having lived under both Tory and Labour governments I know that I dread the prospect of either.
Liberal I havn,t seen, and maybe in a few years I would be saying they are the same.
There are fairer systems. Single transferable vote is still a first past the post system and deserves trying. It seems that voting systems should be like most things and be allowed to develop not stay stuck in the past
View Comment