The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Brennan]

It was unlikely in the extreme - the 2010 Labour manifesto certainly did not promise similar cuts to Osborne.

The Labour manifesto from 2005 broke at least 25 promises. Manifestos are great for little.

 

[Blue 1]

Honest question: whether Labour or Conservative got in in 2010, things were going to have to change, financially. Things were going to have to be tougher, surely? So what exactly have the Tories done that is fundamentally worse than what Labour would have planned (or been forced) to do?

Michael Gove's ideological vandalism of the education system.

 

[TheFinnFan]

When do you vote?

 

[Blue 1]

When do you vote?

Not soon enough.

 

[Tubey]

So you don't think Labour would've implemented similar austerity measures? Surely even to show they were getting the house in order they'd have made cuts.

Labour were finished in 2010 - they had no idea what they were doing and were essentially unelectable. It's hard to say what they would have done as they were totally useless.

They still pretty much are today, but at least they've had five years to assess and come up with a platform to stand on - something they didn't have under Brown - and have largely got rid of the Blairite/Brownite war that was crippling them.

The reason Labour have a chance after just one term out is because the Tory ideological crusade against the poor has also hit the middle class, and people don't see the pain of it as endurable for another five years, especially when it's going to get worse.

My impression of the whole thing thus far is that the Tories as individuals at cabinet level in some way don't want to get elected, as they know they'd have to cut until at least 2019, and get no credit for the recovery at the end of it as they'd be booted out by a landslide, probably for another 20 years. Gut feeling is Cameron wants out, and they want a period in opposition for Boris Johnson to attack Labour as leader.

That might sound odd that a party doesn't want to govern, but it's been such a lifeless campaign from the Tories that one has to wonder if they have any motivation. The other consideration is that they already know that they need an electoral miracle to win at this point IMO.

 

[The Cowboy]

Labour were finished in 2010 - they had no idea what they were doing and were essentially unelectable. It's hard to say what they would have done as they were totally useless.

They still pretty much are today, but at least they've had five years to assess and come up with a platform to stand on - something they didn't have under Brown - and have largely got rid of the Blairite/Brownite war that was crippling them.

The reason Labour have a chance after just one term out is because the Tory ideological crusade against the poor has also hit the middle class, and people don't see the pain of it as endurable for another five years, especially when it's going to get worse.

My impression of the whole thing thus far is that the Tories as individuals at cabinet level in some way don't want to get elected, as they know they'd have to cut until at least 2019, and get no credit for the recovery at the end of it as they'd be booted out by a landslide, probably for another 20 years. Gut feeling is Cameron wants out, and they want a period in opposition for Boris Johnson to attack Labour as leader.

That might sound odd that a party doesn't want to govern, but it's been such a lifeless campaign from the Tories that one has to wonder if they have any motivation. The other consideration is that they already know that they need an electoral miracle to win at this point IMO.

It does rather feel like the Tories are trying to lose this one.

Political version of avoiding the Europa League to have a crack at the CL places...

 

[The Cowboy]

Michael Gove's ideological vandalism of the education system.

Absolutely. What a mess.

 

[daylightrobber]

Labour were finished in 2010 - they had no idea what they were doing and were essentially unelectable. It's hard to say what they would have done as they were totally useless.

They still pretty much are today, but at least they've had five years to assess and come up with a platform to stand on - something they didn't have under Brown - and have largely got rid of the Blairite/Brownite war that was crippling them.

The reason Labour have a chance after just one term out is because the Tory ideological crusade against the poor has also hit the middle class, and people don't see the pain of it as endurable for another five years, especially when it's going to get worse.

My impression of the whole thing thus far is that the Tories as individuals at cabinet level in some way don't want to get elected, as they know they'd have to cut until at least 2019, and get no credit for the recovery at the end of it as they'd be booted out by a landslide, probably for another 20 years. Gut feeling is Cameron wants out, and they want a period in opposition for Boris Johnson to attack Labour as leader.

That might sound odd that a party doesn't want to govern, but it's been such a lifeless campaign from the Tories that one has to wonder if they have any motivation. The other consideration is that they already know that they need an electoral miracle to win at this point IMO.

Your suggestion that the Tories don't want to hold office after the general election was levelled at Labour in 2010. It's as much nonsense now as it was then. Its an excuse for failure to win.

 

[Tubey]

Your suggestion that the Tories don't want to hold office after the general election was levelled at Labour in 2010. It's as much nonsense now as it was then. Its an excuse for failure to win.

I think elements of the Labour party didn't want a Brown government, and didn't have the appetite to deal with the financial crash after becoming stale after 13 years in power. In fact, I think that much is indisputable after what a few people have said since the election.

You never know the motivations of anyone in politics at the time of the event, but I'm just speculating on why the Tories are running a pretty inept campaign at present. Is it because they have a PM railroaded into promising an In/Out referendum on Europe that he doesn't actually want, which alienates any chance of a coalition with the Lib Dems as they'd never support it? Is it because the left wing vote share is too high to overcome? I don't know, but something seems wrong to me.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Some good points @Tubey but the smear campaign against Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP and the political decision of Cameron not to turn up to the debate to defend his record (because he knew it would be harmful to his chances of being re-elected) don't suggest the Tories are throwing the election away.

The Tories have had a poor campaign. Nigel Farage has had a poor campaign too, and he admitted it to Evan Davies. Each party has battled hard, but it seems to me that Miliband and Sturgeon happen to be the two leaders who have led the strongest campaigns by far. This is partly because they aren't answerable for the last 5 (grim) years, but also what shows is their positivity, which we haven't seen anything of at all from Cameron.

 

[daylightrobber]

I think elements of the Labour party didn't want a Brown government, and didn't have the appetite to deal with the financial crash after becoming stale after 13 years in power. In fact, I think that much is indisputable after what a few people have said since the election.

You never know the motivations of anyone in politics at the time of the event, but I'm just speculating on why the Tories are running a pretty inept campaign at present. Is it because they have a PM railroaded into promising an In/Out referendum on Europe that he doesn't actually want, which alienates any chance of a coalition with the Lib Dems as they'd never support it? Is it because the left wing vote share is too high to overcome? I don't know, but something seems wrong to me.

As stated in a previous post though Labour were dealing with the finances.
I think it's very easy for people to ask why they didn't (and still don't) defend their record if this was the case. In politics focusing on the past is the job of your opponent. Focusing on the future is your job. If you have to continue to try to defend historical records, the accusation then becomes the classic "me thinks they do protest too much", which resonates even more with the electorate.

The Tory campaign is 'inept' because they have fallen into the trap of defending their record on social inequality too much and are offering nothing on the subject going forwards. Their stance on Europe shows them giving in to UKIP as does their stance on immigration. The way they've handled the economy also leaves a lot to be desired.

Yet still they probably won't lose the election, (whilst losing office is increasingly likely).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's all very well and interesting and thanks for explaining again but what many of us are wondering is why should the poorest people have become poorer over the last five years whilst the richest have become much, much richer.

I'll ask you directly: Do you think it's right that, in the course of a nation recovering from a massive economic downturn, the richest should become richer and the poor poorer?

It may not be, but the question is what to do about it. I mentioned in a previous post that the nature of work is changing such that it appears to be giving a greater share of the spoils to owners of capital rather than workers.

That isn't something the government have delivered as much as it is a change wrought from globalisation, technology changes and so on.

The question is what can be done about that. The example of France highlights how difficult it is to 'redistribute' via taxation more money than is already the case from rich to poor, especially as there is inevitable competition between nations on taxation. Many wealthy French people have decamped here for instance.

So, for me at least, it's less a question of whether it's right or wrong as what can realistically be done about it. I don't know what the answer is.

It seems likely that the trends driving the shape of work are only likely to intensify, so governments do need to get a handle on what's happening and how to respond to it I think.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Michael Gove's ideological vandalism of the education system.

If you compare our performance internationally, via the PISA tests, we actually do rather badly, and despite the huge investment in them during the Labour years, our standing didn't really change.

Giving teachers control over schools rather than bureaucrats has thus far shown to be a good thing (on the whole). It will be interesting to see how we do in the next PISA tests.

 

[Clint Planet]

It may not be

You don't seem very sure.

, but the question is what to do about it. I mentioned in a previous post that the nature of work is changing such that it appears to be giving a greater share of the spoils to owners of capital rather than workers.

That isn't something the government have delivered as much as it is a change wrought from globalisation, technology changes and so on.

The question is what can be done about that. The example of France highlights how difficult it is to 'redistribute' via taxation more money than is already the case from rich to poor, especially as there is inevitable competition between nations on taxation. Many wealthy French people have decamped here for instance.

So, for me at least, it's less a question of whether it's right or wrong as what can realistically be done about it. I don't know what the answer is.

It seems likely that the trends driving the shape of work are only likely to intensify, so governments do need to get a handle on what's happening and how to respond to it I think.

You honestly don't know how to get the wealthy to pay their share?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Quite simply Austerity.

Despite the claims of the Tories there has never been a debt crisis in the UK. Yes, we have debt and we operate an annual deficit, but not once has there been a suggestion from the investment community that debt levels presented a problem. Look at interest rates and in particular the Government Bond yields - they've never suggested once that investors were concerned with our ability to service the debt.

Look at the performance of our economy over the last five years. Growth only appeared when the Conservatives scaled back their austerity programme in 2012/13.

The fear looking forward is that the scale of future cuts will kill off the limited economic recovery we have seen to date, with those reliant upon Government services most heavily hit.

We're paying something like £50bn a year in interest on our debt. It's fine if you're a company borrowing money because for sure you can expect enough growth to cover the interest with some left over.

From 1956 to last year, the UK economy averaged 2.45% growth in GDP, with the rate over the last 30 years a lot lower than that. I'm not sure the same rationale applies to government lending as it does corporate lending.

Lets face it, the investment community aren't going to grumble. As long as you're not in a Greece like mess then lending to a state is about as safe as you can get, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing for the country.

We've had about three years of surplus in the last 25 years, which doesn't suggest there is any intention to actually pay down debts. All short-term thinking, payed on the never never.

Is that a good way to carry on affairs?