The General Election Thread

[FamilyWiggs]

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.

Biff - an interesting read, and t'lad is certainly right; the electoral moutain for Cameron to climb is huge and a Conservative majority would certainly be the biggest post-war swing seen and larger than Blair's landslide in 1997 (when he won fewer votes than Major in 1992). However, it is not quite as stark as Chris suggests - boundary changes since 2005 are more favourable to the Tories and on notional 2005 results hand circa 16 net gains to Cameron. A generally accepted number of gains required is 112 for a bare majority (once by-election gains are added in too) which would get Penners off the hook!

For geeks, the following sites are very interesting:

http://www.politicalbetting.com
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
http://www.resolversystems.com/election2010/ - a good analysis of why UNS won't work (best not read if you are a Lib Dem!)

 

[Schoolmarm]

Daniel Hannan for Prime Minister 8)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

 

[Gervase]

but there is really only one poll that counts and it's a little over 3 weeks away....

Exactly, and no amount of huffing, puffing and willy-waving on the internet is actually going to change anyone's voting intentions, visceral as they are.
If, as seems likely, we end up with a small Tory majority by May 8th, then anyone who might be remotely construed as 'average', or who does not have the cushion of independent means, will have my deepest commiseration. Not necessarily now, but in two or three years' time, when the realisation dawns...

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . when the realisation of what, exactly, dawns? That the country really has been living beyond its means for years? Whoever forms the next government will no doubt get a pasting for the grief to come, but that's nowhere near the same thing as it being their fault.

 

[Flyfisher]

Daniel Hannan for Prime Minister 8)

An interesting clip, although it was a shame that Gordon's reply wasn't included.

Why on earth don't we see similarly forthright views being made in our own parliament instead of all the 'yah, boo, sucks' nonsense?

 

[Schoolmarm]

I stole it from another forum where the poster was pointing out what Gordon's face does when he is caught out. There is just a fleeting glimpse of it.

 

[DaveBrigg]

A small addition to Nigel's summary earlier. Despite what the Daily Express would have you believe, 98% of new jobs did not go to migrants in any normal sense of the word. According to the Office For National Statistics, just over 50% of new jobs were taken by British Nationals. Lots of British people (e.g. forces families) were born overseas. It also fails to include the 1.4 million workers over the state pension age, and the 20% of the working population in the public sector.

if you want an idea of which party will deal with the effects of the recession most successfully, the evidence is out there. After the last recession, when Cameron was a member of the government, it took two and a half years before unemployment started to decline. These were not people 'changing jobs' they were people losing jobs, no longer contributing to the economy as tax payers or consumers and in need of benefits. This time unemployment is already falling.

Ireland and Greece also give good evidence. Ireland promised to cut the huge deficit caused by bailing out the Anglo Irish bank. The Irish government followed Tory policies of immediate and severe cuts in government spending, and are on line to knock 15 billion Euros off a budget of 60 billion. The result? A 15% shrink in the Irish economy and currently one in eight workers unemployed.

Greece is in trouble, but the rarely reported fact is that it has the worst tax collection rate of any democracy. $20.5 billion in taxes, amounting to 25% of those owed, are not paid. And the Tory response? Cut taxes for those most able to afford them. Not a surprise for a party bank-rolled by a tax exile, and supported by the Daily Mail and Murdoch press, whose owners also pay no tax in the UK.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've often wondered about the breakdown of tax revenues, particularly across the various tax bands (don't get me started on the blatant unfairness of progressive taxation!), and found this little piece of light reading from the Institute of Fiscal Studies: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

On page 38 it states that:

Although less than 12% of income taxpayers face the higher rate, that
group pays a very large share of the total amount of income tax that is
paid. Table 14 shows that the top 10% of income taxpayers now pay over
half of all the income tax paid, and the top 1% pay 23% of all that is paid.
These shares have risen substantially since 1978–79, despite reductions in
the higher rates.

To put these figures into perspective, in 2008/9 there were 30.6m taxpayers: 0.348m in the starting band, 26.7m in the basic band and 3.6m in the higher band.

I suppose the colour of one's politics will determine how such figures are interpreted but given that the higher rate taxpayers are contributing over 50% of all income tax it seems hardly fair to characterise them as a bunch of tax-avoiding fat-cats.

The other statistics that interested me were that:

Total UK government receipts are forecast to be £545.5 billion in 2008–09,
or 37.3% of UK GDP. This is equivalent to roughly £10,900 for every adult
in the UK, or £8,900 per person.

Put this into context against the UK's current debts of around £1.4 trillion and we can start to understand the task facing the country. As far as I can tell, we have debts of about £1400bn, an income of £545bn and expenditure of £705bn (assuming a £160bn deficit).

So, we need to cut £160bn from our expenditure just to break even. Then, even if we can somehow save another 10% of expenditure we will only have £54.5bn to repay the overall debt, which will therefore take just over 25 years. And that assumes that these figures remain valid during all that time. Anyone care to predict what might happen over the next 25 years?

And against all these huge sums of money, the first week of the election campaign has been all about a piffling £12bn, which, if the above figures are correct, are pretty much in the noise level of such estimates and forecasts.

Thank goodness we've had such prudent economic management for the past 13 years otherwise goodness knows what sort of mess we'd be in.
[not-sure-whether-to-laugh-or-cry-emoticon]

 

[Gervase]

. . . when the realisation of what, exactly, dawns? That the country really has been living beyond its means for years? Whoever forms the next government will no doubt get a pasting for the grief to come, but that's nowhere near the same thing as it being their fault.

I think to blame Brown for the collapse in the US sub-prime market or the global meltdown in the banking system is perhaps a little unfair. If you look around the world there are plenty of economies faring far worse than ours with farther to go in terms of recovery, Yes, we have spent a heck of a lot of money, but the infrastructure of Britain was just about knackered after two decades of non-investment while Thatcher's chancellors squandered the North Sea oil and gas revenues to try to balance the books. New schools and hospitals don't come cheaply.
I seem to recall that when Alistair Darling gave the first warning of the worst recession for 60 years (at a time when things still seemed economically fairly peachy) George Osborne was incredulous. Yet now, with 20:20 hindsight, Osborne's trying to persuade us he would have handled things better without actually saying how. To be frank, even if I was a Conservative I'd be pretty apprehensive at the thought of him getting into No 11 with his uncosted tax cuts and vapid promises.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Everyone, I think, recognises the need for cuts and improvements in public sector productivity. The question is who will be better at these two tasks, and who has the best ideas.

Mrs Thatcher, for all her courage and radicalism - very untypical of the Tories who preceded her - was extremely cautious about reforming public services. The NHS was not reformed, nor were grammer schools reinstated after Shirley Williams's onslaught, for example. Major was a little more bold, largely guided by Ken Clarke, but I remember thinking in the run up to the 1997 election that the much needed reforms could probably only be tackled by a Labour government, as the Tories would find it too hard a sell - something no doubt Maggie had previously concluded.

Blair and his New Labour project did start down the path of reform but didnt really get very far and it is quite clear that Brown has no appetite for it at all. The only idea I can detect from this morning's reports of Labour's manifesto is that failing police forces, schools etc will be forced to merge with better ones.

Blair was so skilled a politician and the Tories were so divided, especially in their resentment of the Europhile regicides who deposed The Blessed Margaret, that public sector reform was kept off the Tory agenda for the same reasons it had been in the past. However the spectacular failure of Brown's bathetic claim that he had abolished the economic cycle, and the bursting of the bubble following his astonishinly profligate spending spree changes everything. Of course its not all Brown's fault, but that is not the point.

The Tories have finally come together and come out of the closet are now in the frame to tackle public sector reform. They have energy, they have ideas, and they are not beholden to the public sector unions are Labour are. And frankly, asking Labour to cut when they have just spent years doing the opposite, when all their instincts are for a larger state sector, when they are funded by unions whose members will be on the receiving end of the pain and who have built up a vast vote base of protected public sector workers and benefit recipients is a tall order indeed. It really is time for a change.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think to blame Brown for the collapse in the US sub-prime market or the global meltdown in the banking system is perhaps a little unfair.

Why? If it was really not possible to have done anything to better regulate over-lending etc then I'd have more sympathy with that view. But, after the event, Brown was suddenly full of ideas about how to prevent such things in the future. In other words he didn't see it coming and did nothing to prevent it. OK, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but he's happy to promote himself as a global economic expert and the master of abolishing the boom-bust cycle. Hmm.

If you look around the world there are plenty of economies faring far worse than ours with farther to go in terms of recovery,

So what? I don't live in other economies. That's an odd form of praise and is typical political spin to deflect the real issue - our government has overseen the mess we're in. It happened on their watch.

Yes, we have spent a heck of a lot of money, but the infrastructure of Britain was just about knackered after two decades of non-investment while Thatcher's chancellors squandered the North Sea oil and gas revenues to try to balance the books. New schools and hospitals don't come cheaply.

Yes - "balance the books". What, exactly, does that mean do you think? I'd say it means living within our means. Of course schools and hospitals don't come cheaply but what if the economy can't actually afford them? Never mind, let's just rack up £1400bn of debt and build them anyway! Madness.

I could do with paying loads of professional experts to come and fix up my delapidated house. Unfortunately, I'm "squandering" what money I have on paying taxes, bills, other living expenses and generally "balancing my books". How silly of me. Perhaps I should take a lead from our prudent leader?

To be frank, even if I was a Conservative I'd be pretty apprehensive at the thought of him getting into No 11 with his uncosted tax cuts and vapid promises.

I'm pretty apprehensive about what's going to happen whichever party forms the next government, such is the mess they'll inherit. But why should we trust in the undisclosed plans and vapid promises of a party that has just had 13 years to do many of the things they are now saying they'll suddenly get around to next time? Yeah, right.

 

[biffvernon]

 

[Flyfisher]

Hmm. Vote for a party that has made a proven mess of things over 13 years or vote for a party that might make a mess of things in future?

Decisions, decisions.

 

[Merlin]

I am quite happy to blame Gordon Brown for the economic situation we are in, and not blame the "Global Economic Recession".

Brown on Radio 4 the other morning was saying how he had managed to avoid recession by managing to keep interest rates and inflation low. He went on to say that it was the "Global economic meltdown" starting in the USA that caused the problem.

A couple of points on this:

1) Who manages interest rates? Is it the Government, or the Bank of England? As it is actually the Bank of England, then how can Brown claim that he managed to keep interest rates low?

2) What happened to house prices? Did they follow the "low inflation pattern". No. Brown could not control them. Why? My belief is that by taking £5 billion per year from private pension funds, the general public looked for investment elsewhere for their future long term income. They turned to bricks and mortar - houses and Buy to Let. This was the only way they could see they could get a return on their money and keep it away from Brown's hands. Hence we got a property boom, supported by the banks, and eventually the wheels fell off. Predictably.

So Brown cannot claim credit for low interest rates, and he did not create a low inflation economy. However his statistics will probably "prove" what he says.

 

[Pford75]

It's pretty clear that economic growth today is linked to oil production

There is a world of difference between correlation and causality. Something many in the AGW camp fail to understand. Perhaps oil production increases because of economic growth?

My bank balance may also increase/reduce in line with economic growth....perhaps I am the cause of economic growth?

Roll on election day

 

[Penners]

Daniel Hannan for Prime Minister 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

Well, whatever you think of the political content of the speech, you have to admire Mr Hannan's truly outstanding oratory and erudition.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Quite right Penners. A good orator who mastered the brief, covered significant detail and had killer soundbites too*. Not many of them about these days. A shame he's wasted in the European Parliament. He'd be good at holding any government to account in the Commons.

"Brezhnev apparatchik" and "a devalued Prime Minister of a devauled government" Devastating at the time. Brown's face was an absolute picture too. Imagine what it must be like as a civil servant giving him unpleasant news!

 

[OddJob]

I've been trying to stay way out of this thread and have deliberately not read it but I listened to the Labour party manifesto this morning and the first thing that struck me quite simply is that if they're promising all these things now why the f**k didn't they do it 13 years ago :?:
Simples :roll:

Doesn't matter who you vote for,the government always gets in.

 

[LadyArowana]

A shame he's wasted in the European Parliament.

He seemed completely sober to me.

Interesting reading everyones comments as I have been out of the UK for such a long time and don't have any particular party devotion. I may just write "marmite" on my paper and put the cross next to that http://www.marmitenewsnetwork.com/

 

[OddJob]

Better still smear Marmite on the paper and make unitelligible baby noises.
At the very worst you'll get Peter Mandelsons job.