The General Election Thread

[Nigel Watts]

FF's challenge - to try to assess each party's offering from an objective standpoint rather than from the position of pre-existing party allegiance - is a good one. It's hard for me as party member and candidate in the local elections I admit but I will try!

CUTS and THE ECONOMY

Assuming we need to cut (we can debate why elsewhere) all parties are saying we need to do it and none is coming clean on exactly where the pain will be felt. The NI debate is really pretty marginal in the context of the overall problem, as is the precise timing of when the brake should be applied (Tories say sooner than Labour). No really substantive differences here, so it comes down to who you believe would be best at it.

PUBLIC SERVICES

There are differences between the parties here. The Tories are treading pretty cautiously but they are suggesting further reforms - in education especially. Blair tried to introduce reform. In spite of the rhetoric he retained almost all of the Major era NHS changes (Trust hospitals, purchase provider split) and introduced academies outside local authority control, but the Brown/Balls axis has put a stop to any further moves. Vastly increased sums have been spent on education and health in recent years (a good thing many will think) but how effective has all this expenditure been? Tories argue that we have far too little to show for it and that without reform we will not see the kind of productivity gains we so much need. Brown's Labour dont seem to have any new ideas.

WELFARE

Vast amounts have been spent and a system of Byzantine complexity has been constructed. On the face of it things have improved greatly in some areas (child poverty statistics for example). But read some of the more intelligent analysis, from example from Labour's Frank Field and Tory Ian Duncan-Smith. All is not well. There is a terrible schism in society, with a vast amount of welfare dependency and massive disincentives to work. It is no coincidence that almost all the new jobs created in recent years have gone to foreign born workers. Even some of the apparently wonderful improvements look paper-thin when examined closely. Much money, for example, has been targeted at those marginally under the somewhat arbitrary child poverty threshold to move people marginally over it. The Tories want to simplify the system and give real incentives for people to find work.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Not an election winning subject just now but the Liberals have by far the best record on Iraq, if you are one of the people who care deeply about that. Curiously, when asked by the BBC to say what his top priority was, Nick Griffin said it was to remove troops from Afghanistan immediately, though I doubt that will be the main reason people vote BNP.

GREEN ISSUES

Not much between the main parties as far as I can see.

I could go on but my coffee is going cold and I have some curtains to finish.

 

[worms]

I'd rather overlooked the actual debt!

So did Alistair Darling in the recent budget! Lots of talk about reducing borrowing, giving the impression that we were getting things under control, when all it means is slowing the rate at which we are adding to our debt!

Vastly increased sums have been spent on education and health in recent years (a good thing many will think) but how effective has all this expenditure been?

A very good thing, except that all through this period, Grodon Brown, (as Chancellor) spoke of it as increasing investment in the NHS, whereas in reality, the vast bulk of it went on recurrent expenditure, mainly improved wages. When he also repeatedly spoke of only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle (and let's ignore the little fact of the constant changes to what constituted "the cycle") it became critical that there was a clear understanding of what was investment rather than funding an increase in running costs. A distinction that he had already shown he was willing to stretch to the limits. I'm not sure Prudence, actually ever found her way to No 11!

 

[biffvernon]

, on national debt"...but providing we can afford the interest and still have enough to live on, is it really the end of the world?

Whether we can afford the interest depends on growth. With sufficient growth, even the eye-watering debt we are in becomes affordable, which is why all the main political parties are committed to economic growth and dare not contemplate a different future in which business is not as usual. In this, the most important aspect of our politics, there is no difference between the parties. The parties, and those who focus on the differences between, them seem to be in denial over the matter. Unless and until the economy can be de-coupled from oil production there can be no long term economic growth. The whole house of cards has to end in tears.

 

[Gervase]

Thatcher didn't set out in some "evil" or political way to deliberately destroy these communities based around singles industries as the Left like to argue

You may find many with experience of the mining industry - on the right as well as the left - who would laugh at that claim. It will probably take some areas a generation or so to recover from the 'tough medicine' that Thatcher applied.
I do agree that there need to be some cuts - the NHS is riddled with pointless managers and besuited progress chasers who would appear to do little other than draw down inflated salaries in recompense for being a pain in the posterior for the medical staff, and similarly in education there appear to be too many advisors and inspectors. In all field the obsession with 'targets' and 'deliverables' seems to have been at the expense of what the service was actually for - an obsession fostered by the managers and suits who hang onto such institutions like the dags on a sheep.

 

[biffvernon]

Too many advisors and inspectors? Is that anywhere more true than in Buildings' Conservation? One frequently sees seven figure bills for work done to period properties - and how much of that reaches those who handle earth, lime, stone, brick, wood and glass?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

, on national debt"...but providing we can afford the interest and still have enough to live on, is it really the end of the world?

Whether we can afford the interest depends on growth. With sufficient growth, even the eye-watering debt we are in becomes affordable, which is why all the main political parties are committed to economic growth and dare not contemplate a different future in which business is not as usual. In this, the most important aspect of our politics, there is no difference between the parties. The parties, and those who focus on the differences between, them seem to be in denial over the matter. Unless and until the economy can be de-coupled from oil production there can be no long term economic growth. The whole house of cards has to end in tears.

Biff - if you haven't come across this lot before, I think they might be in tune with your thinking:

Alliance for Green Socialism: http://www.greensocialist.org.uk/ags/

 

[FamilyWiggs]

You may find many with experience of the mining industry - on the right as well as the left - who would laugh at that claim. It will probably take some areas a generation or so to recover from the 'tough medicine' that Thatcher applied.

As opposed to the generation or more it would have taken the nation to recover from pouring untold billions into those industries which would have failed anyway once the Eastern Europeans and Chinese entered the markets anyway. What was so special about those traditional industries anyway that they deserved so much supprt from the rest of us? You can't stand Canute-like against the tide of econmics.

I do agree that there need to be some cuts - the NHS is riddled with pointless managers and besuited progress chasers who would appear to do little other than draw down inflated salaries in recompense for being a pain in the posterior for the medical staff

I couldn't agree more - we need fewer pointless managers to oversee government targets, and much more good management - prfessional and clinical. I have no inside experience of education (save being a parent and Governor) but presume it is similar. [/quote]

 

[Flyfisher]

Here's another thing that has confused me.

Labour propose to increase NI. Conservatives have pointed to the effect of increasing costs for the NHS and say their abolishment of this NI rise will save the NHS £x millions, which they would spend on new drugs or whatever.

Fine, I think, if you consider the NHS as a separate entity.

But, in reality, the NHS is part of the government/public sector, so the extra NI costs that the NHS accounts have to bear comes from government and is paid back to government - it's a zero sum game. So how can abolishing this NI increase free-up any money to be used for extra drugs or anything else? It doesn't really exist does it?

 

[Schoolmarm]

I thought each hospital had it's own budget to balance.

 

[Flyfisher]

Nigel, a useful analysis/summary. Thanks.

I particularly agree with the point about welfare complexity - indeed, general complexity of everything it often seems. I'm trying hard not to be cynical but I do wonder if such complexity is favoured by governments because it enables them to 'duck-and-dive' amongst the red-tape and change lots of things - which they will claim is for the good - that actually make little difference in practice. A much simpler 'system' would also make it much easier to see the real effect of changes, and it might not be a pretty sight.

Being generous, I doubt that such complexity has been specifically engineered as some grand plan, but I also doubt that any parties have a real vested interest in dismantling it. Anyway, who has had a better opportunity to make such changes than the last three Labour governments with huge overall majorities?

Reading Nigel's earlier post, it's quite remarkable, I think, how little difference there really is at present in mainstream UK politics. Where are the more radical ideas for simplifying things to create smaller government? I wouldn't expect such things from Labour, but wonder if the Conservatives aren't missing a trick here. How about 'Flat Tax' for example, which could dramatically reduce the size of government bureacracy and, based on proven experience around the world, might actually increase tax revenues! Also, what has happened to the LibDem's views on replacing council tax with a local income tax (something that could easily get my vote)?

Finally, I also agree with Biff's points about the current system being wholly dependent on economic growth, although I'm less sure about whether such growth can only be linked to oil (that's 'less sure' in the 'don't know' sense rather than refuting it). Against this background, it's quite clear that peak oil, climate change and all the associated issues are not even on the party radar screens.

As far as I can tell, the country has just spent 25% of the election campaign arguing about £12bn of cuts and a bit of NI, none of which seems to be of any great significance to anything we're actually facing in the years to come.

Oh dear; I can see me building up for another 'no vote'.

 

[Flyfisher]

I thought each hospital had it's own budget to balance.

I'm sure each hospital does and, at that level, an increase in NI will clearly affect their budget. But the government can't raise any income from the public sector by raising taxes or NI because it's the government that has to pay those increases anyway? So if the NHS costs increase, the government has to give it back the extra NI it has just paid in order to maintain its level of service.

Ah. :idea: Unless it's all a cunning ruse to cut effective NHS funding while still being able to pour more money into it? Now that has a sort of perverted brilliance about it!

 

[biffvernon]

Finally, I also agree with Biff's points about the current system being wholly dependent on economic growth, although I'm less sure about whether such growth can only be linked to oil (that's 'less sure' in the 'don't know' sense rather than refuting it). Against this background, it's quite clear that peak oil, climate change and all the associated issues are not even on the party radar screens.

It's pretty clear that economic growth today is linked to oil production. Looking at the figures over the last few years and particularly since summer 2008 through the global recession and faltering recovery, economic activity and oil production are in lock-step unity. Whether this has to be so in the future is the zillion dollar question.

My point is that we will not have sustained economic growth IF the economy continues to be dependant on oil. At the moment all the Political Parties (I'm afraid that for the purposes of this discussion, I'm ignoring the the AGS and others that won't get elected) are demonstrating approximately zero effort to unlock the dependency. Where is the electable party that promotes the Transition to a zero carbon, steady state economy?

It is not just a matter of pointing out that the £12bn and National Insurance increases are irrelevantly small, but the whole shooting match is irrelevant.

Reading list:
http://steadystate.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy
http://local.theoildrum.com/node/3941
http://learningforsustainability.net/susdev/steadystate.php
http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/556

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I thought each hospital had it's own budget to balance.

I'm sure each hospital does and, at that level, an increase in NI will clearly affect their budget. But the government can't raise any income from the public sector by raising taxes or NI because it's the government that has to pay those increases anyway? So if the NHS costs increase, the government has to give it back the extra NI it has just paid in order to maintain its level of service.

Ah. :idea: Unless it's all a cunning ruse to cut effective NHS funding while still being able to pour more money into it? Now that has a sort of perverted brilliance about it!

Both of you are correct. Each NHS Trust has a statutory responsibilty to balance income with expenditure. Further, the financial allocation to NHS Trusts (and devolved equivalents in Wales & Scotland) hooever it is provided (block grant or activity based contracts) rises each year by less than NHS inflation - creating a need to generate cash-releasing efficiencies in order to bridge this financial gap. Thus it is probable that any NI increase would either have been unfunded oronly partially funded - requring savings from NHS Trusts in order to fund it.

So you could argue, that by not increasing NI NHS Trusts are now free to spend the savings they would have had to make to cover the increase on other things.

And for my next trick I'm going to make a rabbit disappear!

 

[Penners]

All the forecasters predict a very close election result, with the marginal seats likely to prove critical to the result.

According to the statisticians ( :roll: ), there needs to be a swing of 116 seats for the Conservatives to gain outright victory. And our constituency, Waveney, is 116th on the list of marginals.

So, Waveney should be the belweather for the country.

I'm not sure I can bear the sense of responsibility.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Penners, don't worry - you have the resolve and gravitas to carry this off perfectly! :wink:

Don't believe the media when they predict a close result - they are in the business of selling papers/airtime and have a self-interest in such a narrative. They are also basing their predictions on UNS (universal national swing - as if every seat in the UK swung exactly the same amount according to the headline polls, on a Con-Lab axis - which patently they don't)

The private and marginal polling is pointing to a majority government with three weeks to go (albeit a lot can still happen so no chickens should be enumerated just yet). Interestingly all the leading pollsters are privately expecting a majority government of circa 20-50 seats, despite their published polls suggesting conservative leads in ahung parliament at present.

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/04/11/should-you-be-betting-on-the-pollsters-or-their-polls/

If this is the result, then it will be the largest post-war swing seen.

 

[Flyfisher]

Noooo, don't spoil it FW, I very much liked the idea of safely ignoring the whole mucky affair, knowing that everything was in Penners' capable hands. :wink:

 

[Gervase]

It depends which poll, of course... :wink:
The latest ICM poll of marginals appears to show the Tories with slightly less support than they need to get a majority, and that support is down on what it was.
For those of a psephological bent, I can recommend this site, which is a permanent bookmark for most of the political wonks I know.

 

[Flyfisher]

It is not just a matter of pointing out that the £12bn and National Insurance increases are irrelevantly small, but the whole shooting match is irrelevant.

An interesting reading list, Biff, but what's the point if political parties don't regard any of it as important? Indeed, since it seems to be largely insoluble, political parties are probably terrified of it actually becoming an election issue.

 

[biffvernon]

Exactly so. Well, either terrified or in denial, whatever the difference is.

Regarding the outcome, hung parliaments and all that, t'lad published an explanation a couple of months ago, before most of the world started talking about it. It'll be interesting to see how wrong he got it. Or not. http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2010/02/why-the-tories-wont-win-the-2010-election/
Note that Chris's expertise is computational physics rather than politics and he sees mathematics as the problem solving tool of choice.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

It depends which poll, of course... :wink:
The latest ICM poll of marginals appears to show the Tories with slightly less support than they need to get a majority, and that support is down on what it was.
For those of a psephological bent, I can recommend this site, which is a permanent bookmark for most of the political wonks I know.

Yes but... that poll was not for all marginals; it assumed anything under a 4 or 5% swing (can't remember which and too lazy now to check :wink: ) was already a Tory gain and so did not sample there! For the Tories to be level pegging with Labour on the harder marginals shows just how much support Labour have lost since GE2005. As for support being down a little - you're comparing with January; the important trend is what is happening right now and all polls are showing an increasing Conservative lead since the election was called. Will this continue? Who knows? Can Brown turn it around and win again? I wouldn't bet any of my money on it!

Anyway we could trade polls til the cows come home and argue about slicing marginals or the underlying methodology and weighting of the sample profile, but there is really only one poll that counts and it's a little over 3 weeks away....