I think if the current small parties or future ones started out with a realistic plan acknowledging they are trying to grow and develope they would have a chance to challenge. Instead grandiose plans are voiced which are detrimental to credibilty. Swinson is a prime example.
Perhaps I can try and provide a less smoke and mirrors around gers. Was the gers system agreed by the Scottish devolved government and the U.K. government?, a simple yes or no will suffice
no noob. gers predated devolution. Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is an annual estimate of the Scottish economy as part of the United Kingdom.[1][2] It was first published in 1992, and yearly since 1995, with the exceptions of 2007 where there was no report due to a methodology review, and 2016 where there were two annual reports due to an acceleration of publishing timescale. . look at the figure pre and post that date. something not quite right considering the oil price and the under spend not being returned. yip, something dodgy about the that review in 2007. which coincidently fits in with a change in leadership. odd.. . GERS was first published in 1992 by the Scottish Office under the Conservative Party government of Prime Minister John Major, at a time when the government was resisting calls for Scottish devolution. Its overall purpose was to estimate the overall UK borrowing requirement for Scotland - it was created at this time because Scottish Office ministers thought due to then-low oil prices, the report would show Scotland gained far more from the UK Treasury than it received.[4] In a leaked memo the then Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Lang wrote "I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.
If it predated devolution, then when the devolved government was created, it must have accepted to use the gers formula would it have not?
pathetic noob. give it up. if its easier for you, and others up here to accept being a dependent is what we are and should only ever aspire to be then that is your and their choice. meanwhile we will wait until your utterly convinced that Westminster and the traditional party's are corrupt and maybe stop acting like turkeys voting for crimbo. because we cant change it on our own unless we go it alone.
I mean that whoever is leading the Libs might find that the public would find them more attractive if they were realistic in their aims. Starting from a base of eleven MPs and working hard to get that to thirty is plausible & ambitious. Repeat this a few times and you can challenge for government. Claiming that you will soon be PM, after just regaining your seat two years ago, from a base of eleven MPs is batshit crazy. The FPTP system will make it very hard for any party to change the established order without a major defining issue. The SNP have an issue to support them. The Brexit party do too, but Farage whilst being a good speaker is not a man who could pull it all together.
It isn’t that hard to work out. Using your data: https://www.wilsonfield.co.uk/uk-national-debt/ The debt is £1,678,250,500,000 The increase is £446,688,000 per day, which is about £163,041,120,000 per anum. Or £1,000,000,000 per week? (£52,000,000,000 pa. is rather less than above? Taking the higher figure, that is an increase of 9.71% The lower gives 3.10%. But CPI inflation is presently 2%. Which makes the effective rates of increase 7.71% or 1.10%. And the annual rate of increase of UK GDP was 2% but has now dropped to 1%. So if the the lower rate of increase of debt is right, we can afford to carry the debt, but if it’s the higher amount we can’t. It’s a shame the data you posted is crap @Exige !
Why pathetic? almost every argument you offer around gers is as though it has been forced upon the Scottish people and it turns out it never was because it was something that already existed and the Sottish devolved government agreed to take it on when they were offered to have their own devolved government. Your argument that "miss misss they made us do it" is shown to be a lie when in fact, they agreed to have gers from day one of the devolved government.
So you are saying the debt shown in the chart post 2010 and subsequent massive increases during the last ten years are due to interest?
agreed to take it on. noob? what option did we have? who took it on? would you expect the conservative party to expose what they had designed? after 30 years you still don't understand how it works. what benefit to British labour and liberals would there have been by exposing what the UK parliament was capable of in a country with growing calls for indi?. who was expected never to get near forming a gov because of devolution?. .
In part yes, but only in part. Primarily because to turn around the expenditure commitments inherited from Labour takes time. Just stopping paying for roads, railways, schools, hospitals, pensions, benefits for five years would not be an acceptable way of economising. Note, the fastest rise was during and immediately following Gordon Brown’s time as PM.
I've no thoughts, knowledge or opinion on Murdo Fraser but strike out his comments and the rest of the article is just plain economic facts and does look rather incompetent economic management. I'm not just having a pop at the SNP for fun. I love Scotland, have family there and want the best for it. But in my opinion, it would be an economic disaster for the people of Scotland to leave the UK and I don't want it to happen. The SNP is not doing a good enough job in many areas and the problems may even be ramping up support in the mistaken belief that all will be well and heading positively on your own and getting back into the EU with the Euro as your currency.
if I go broke because the law says I have to pay for a share of your financial decisions. that is because of my mismanagement of my finances?
if you want to criticize somebody, criticise the partys that made us the poorest country (using GERS figures) in the EU 2005. while rUK was booming and guess who wasn't in power. we are the 3rd most productive part of the UK, after London and the S/E.
Presumably the roads, railways, schools, hospitals, pensions, benefits had previously been paid for in other years so there would be some -possibly most or indeed all- of that money available on a year for year like for like basis? If all the infastructure switched to "PFIs which Gordon Brown loved" the yearly payment would not likely have exceeded the generally budgetted amount that would have been spent had these purchases not been financed in this way. BTW we have all had the PFI discussion here many times and to claim that Labour are the only ones who have used this system is nonsense as I am sure you know.
Aren’t they all a bit batshit crazy, wouldn’t surprise me if the first thing they all did when the election date was announced was plan their celebration party for the 13th December. Swinson’s game is surely just hoping that enough people care about nothing more than cancelling Brexit. I’ve voted Lib Dem’s in the past, purely because they were saying ‘we will do this and that’ while the Tories said ‘don’t vote Labour’ and Labour said ‘Don’t vote Tory’.
I didn't post any data? I posted 3 alternative links to different figures which were all different to the one already posted, my point being it's all bullshit, or at least most of it is why have you done lots of sums that don't make sense and what exactly was your point?
I am indeed, very. Doesn’t seem too long ago people were saying they would never vote Tory or Labour again, now they seem to be the only choice.
