General Election 2015

[aquarius moon]

Blah Blah,

Thanks for responding to my post. Despite everything, it's nice to know we agree on something!

[Blah Blah]

But there have been plenty of Tory campaigners in the past who didn't use language like that Louisa. Don't know what steak has to do with anything either. It has nothing to do with policy. What I do think is that certain Tories felt a need to compete with the nationalistic fervour that seemed to be so popular from the SNP and UKIP. The irony is that for all the fear they tried to create around the SNP, they played to the same sentiment in their own campaign.

You only have to look at the post election anger and the split between views to see how divisive this Tory government are. It's not a good sign of anything. What I think the reality will be is no significant change to anything. There are going to be Tories who don't toe the whip, and I think many bills will have to be watered down to get through Parliament and the Lords.

[Blah Blah]

You're welcome Aquarius.

[Henry_17]

Moon,

See Robin's posts above as to why many in the socially liberal economically conservative camp may have become frustrated by the typical accusatory line of thought from certain parts of the of centre left prior to and following the election, which simplistically States "didn't vote labour, want more foodbanks, because me".

As Robin explained, even accepting that an administration that isn't left of centre would mean a worse deal for the disadvantaged in society, it is a simplification to paint things in such black and white terms given people may have considered those things alongside their own self interest and those of their family in arriving at their voting decision.

However, this view is not just a simplification, but in fact patronising arrogance, because it discounts the possibility that one could have the opinion that society as a whole might be better off, as well as oneself, and as well as the disadvantaged, under a non left of of centre administration.

[Loz]

The next person who says, "oh, but 75% of the electorate didn't vote for this government" I am going to hold down and force-feed every remaining election pamphlet in my recycling bin. And then beat them round the head with the bin itself.

[Blah Blah]

Ha ha Loz :D

[Green Goose]

Every credit to Quids. He seems to be the only one who has analysed the election outcome objectively and with a commendable degree of insight and expertise. Blah Blah, Moon and some others just keep on spouting bigoted left wing tosh.

Many seem to assess the outcome based largely on what Miliband, Cameron, Cleg and Farage said was in their manifesto. This type of analysis is the default for younger voters - one reason Labour/LibDems want to lower the voting age. Those of us, of a certain age, know that one should take all that is said with a bit of salt. Judge them not on what they say but on what they have done in the past.

Each Labour administration has always over-borrowed and created massive increases in public sector headcount and expenditure. Each Labour Govt. since 1964 therefor has resulted in either a Sterling devaluation or fiscal crisis. They have been ant--business and have always raised taxes. The Tories then get in and have to clear up the mess - which makes them really unpopular and so the cycle keeps on repeating itself.

That's why older people, who have seen it all before, tend to vote Conservative of UKIP.

Edited for misspellings

[Louisa]

Green Goose I ultimately agree with you and quids on this. I often cringe at the analysis of the left, which can only be summarised as sour grapes. Labour have always overspent and the Tories underspent.

Louisa.

[Blah Blah]

What are you talking about Green Goose? I've for one have agreed with some of ???? points, but he is further right than me for sure. I equally get fed up of people like you rejecting every opposing view as left wing tosh! I've been consistent in saying the Tories don't spend enough (and public services DO suffer) and Labour go the other way, agreeing completely with Louisa for once even!

The truth is that any sensible person can see we need to be somewhere in between. Try telling the diasabled and those who can't get appointments to see their GP, and those on the now longer waiting lists that their experiences are just left wing tosh. Try telling those on min wage who need tax credits and beneifts just to make ends meet that the Tories are better for them.

You can't keep cutting. Eventually you have to face up to the fact that we need many more jobs, that pay better, and we need them outside of the south east, in places like the North and Scotland, places that both the Tories and New labour have utterly failed to serve.

I don't see anything in Camerons manifesto to deal with housing. I don't see anything more than more cuts for the poorest. I do see tax giveaways for those who need them least though. I don't see any fiscal plan for getting exports and productivity up (there is some investment for business but weofully small). And I don't see any plan for closing the gap between wages and the cost of living, so that tax payers money doesn't need to be spent topping them up.

[aquarius moon]

What's with this age thing?

Older people vote tory? Older people are pro capital punishment?

And how old is older? 40's?, 50's?, 60's?, 90's?

Ridiculous assumptions really because I know people in their 90's and 20's who have exactly the same opinions.

It just depends on the individual person and what they believe in regardless of age.

[the-e-dealer]

Of-course there are general-isms. Oder people tend to vote .. or support .. just because there are exceptions it doesn't invalidate them. Older people tend to worry about their pensions.

[aquarius moon]

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Moon,

>

> See Robin's posts above as to why many in the

> socially liberal economically conservative camp

> may have become frustrated by the typical

> accusatory line of thought from certain parts of

> the of centre left prior to and following the

> election, which simplistically States "didn't vote

> labour, want more foodbanks, because me".

>

> As Robin explained, even accepting that an

> administration that isn't left of centre would

> mean a worse deal for the disadvantaged in

> society, it is a simplification to paint things in

> such black and white terms given people may have

> considered those things alongside their own self

> interest and those of their family in arriving at

> their voting decision.

>

> However, this view is not just a simplification,

> but in fact patronising arrogance, because it

> discounts the possibility that one could have the

> opinion that society as a whole might be better

> off, as well as oneself, and as well as the

> disadvantaged, under a non left of of centre

> administration.

Sorry, I'm not really into P.I.B. so haven't a clue what this post is about.

ETA: Green Goose, I keep on spouting bigoted, left-wing tosh? Really?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Labour have always overspent and the Tories

> underspent.

>

> Louisa.

That's not exactly true though. George oabourne has accrued more debt during the Tories last term than all Labour administrations since 1900. A large part of the benefits bill is down to the cost of housing, we are forced to subsidise both wages an private sector rents . This can be seen as a legacy of Right to Buy... A policy that on the ace of it was about shrinking the state, but in reality has led to more public money being channeled into subsidising housing, simply in a less efficient, more expensive manner. Other examples of where similar things have happened can be seen in the trains, public utilities and the Nhs. The Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism. labour, despite ridiculous charac tyres of them as Marxist extremists, believe in regulated market economy an an appropriate role for the state.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That was a bit all over the place (written on my phone whilst walking) but hopefully you catch my drift.

[miga]

.

[Green Goose]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> You can't keep cutting.

BB. You uhit on a crucial point. Govt has to keep cutting expenditure until the budget balances. Otherwise the UK has to borrow money. That money has to be paid back PLUS interest in future. The national debt increased hugely under the last Labour Govt (as it always does) and is only just barely sustainable because gilt interest rates are at an all time low.

An analogy can be made with household income ie it is suicidal to support current/regular expenses out of borrowed money - one just gets deeper and deeper in debt.

By all means use borrowing to fund an investment in an infrastructure project that will bring a return or increased productivity as it make sense. But to increase debt to fund more benefits and public services etc is fiscal irresponsibility.

The "Welfare State" with all its benefits was intended to be a safety net for the disadvantaged the sick the disabled and the unemployed. We have to trim the costs to a level so that it can be met from a balanced budget and stop it being a life-style choice for the feckless and work-shy.

GG

[Earl Aelfheah]

The coalition have done a terrible job with the economy. We have seen close to zero growth over their entire term in office and debt has increased massively. They stopped the recovery in its tracks when they took office, by withdrawing investment at a time that private capital was also in retreat. Austerity has been disastrous. This is a good article from Nobel prize-winning, Princeton Economist Paul Krugman on the 'austerity delusion?, which you should read : http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion.

The idea that Labour crashed the economy by overspending is nonsense. But bear in mind that in 2007, the conservatives were not only pledging to match Labours spending plans but actually increase upon them (.. a reminder about the Tories position on Labour's 'profligate spending' before the crash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm). This article on Labours ?profligacy? is worth reading if you have time: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-2-labour-profligacy.html.

The truth is that the Global economic crash was the result of under regulation (for which Labour is as culpable as anyone else). But what were there Tories saying about banking regulation, circa 2007: https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/lest-we-forget-in-2007-cameron-endorsed-even-less-regulation-of-banks-than-labour/. Even Mervyn King has recently admitted that Labour cannot be held responsible for the crash http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king.

The financial crash has been used by the Right as cover for further shrinking of the state. The truth is that our public services have been massively under invested in ? for example, our ?bloated healthcare system? actually has one of the lowest spends (as a proportion of our GDP), of virtually any major, developed Western economy. If you really want to know where most of the benefits bill goes, it?s on pensioners, in work benefits and housing (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#img-1). So let?s look at those last two. The reason that we have to top up peoples wages, is because the cost of living is so high ? to be specific, the cost of housing. The housing benefits bill is high because?. Yep, the cost of housing. Housing is complicated, but a significant reason why affordable housing is so scarce and rents so high, is because council houses have been sold off at huge discounts and not replaced. Because of the ?right to buy?, local authorities are not incentivised to build replacements (as they have no choice but to sell them off again at under market value). Also, they are prevented from borrowing money to invest in new housing. The decision to sell off the family silver at knock down prices is classic Tory policy (they?re looking to do it again with Lloyds). The Tories want to extend right to buy further and to offer mortgages underwritten by the taxpayer, to those who would be considered creditworthy under normal circumstances (?help to buy?). This kind of ?subprime? lending is exactly what led to the credit crunch.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... which takes me back to my previous point, that the Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism.

Labour, despite ridiculous caricature of them as extremists Marxists by some of the press, actually believe in a regulated market economy and an appropriate role for the state.

[bodsier]

Goose Green

I think that's a big part of the problem, it is a complicated system that we do not fully understand, and we vote unaware of the implications.

The Tory narrative is easy to follow. You don?t have to know much about what?s going on to believe it, and it fits the modern media model where long-term, chronic issues are ignored in favor of short-term results and immediate crises. Everyone reports that UK growth figures were better this year than Germany?s were, but no one reports that Germany is still in a much better position relative to where it was 5 or 7 years ago than Britain is now. It?s easy for people to think of government spending the way they think of their own pocketbooks. It?s hard to show people how and why the government?s relationship to money is very different from that of a business or household. Not only do people have to understand the arguments, but they have to understand the basic concepts underlying those arguments. How many voters even understand how the interest rate affects economic growth or inflation? How many even understand what a multiplier is, let alone the research about how big it might be? How many know how a devaluation works, or know what a liquidity trap is? The Tories tell a great morality story about a profligate and irresponsible Labour Party that creates a horrible economic crisis from which only the Tories can save everyone. The left has to explain why that simple story isn?t true. I think this may be where Labour failed

[Otta]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Many seem to assess the outcome based largely on

> what Miliband, Cameron, Cleg and Farage said was

> in their manifesto. This type of analysis is the

> default for younger voters - one reason

> Labour/LibDems want to lower the voting age. Those

> of us, of a certain age, know that one should take

> all that is said with a bit of salt. Judge them

> not on what they say but on what they have done in

> the past.

This is the single most depressing thing I've read this week.

Nothing will ever change, look to the past.

[robbin]

Depressing but substantially correct, I think.

With some exceptions a career in politics tends to attract wrong'uns or at least even if they are not when they started, many (because of the system) feel they have to compromise on principles to get ahead. Then there's the temptations of lobbyists, free lunches and living expenses...

Anyway, interesting post from Bodsier some of which I agree with - particularly the fact that many voters do not understand the finer points of macro economics. Abvove all, I'm glad you are off your fabric analysis jag from yesterday! ; )

[JohnL]

With the incoming boundary changes Labour need to go some to get

anywhere in 2020.

I can see Scotland (and if we get a Federal system) regions of

England moving away from the UK governing party.

[Louisa]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> Always talking, saying nothing.

With the greatest of respect miga, you're always talking and saying nothing too.

You tried to make the argument for the Alternative Vote electoral system against 'FPTP', when to be honest it was a redundant argument. It was emphatically rejected by the electorate in 2011 by 67.9% to 31.1%.

I was proven correct in making the case for the stability of 'FPTP' and that's exactly what the people opted for on May 7th, despite what the polls told us.

Funny when you disagree with someone that you throw in the poorly thought out one liner above (with regards the death penalty). Whether you agree with it or not consistent polling has shown if there were a referendum tomorrow it would be a pretty close call. So how exactly am I saying nothing?

Louisa.

[robbin]

Come back 'Ed, all is forgiven!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308381/Voters-dismissed-trash-1m-Ibiza-villa-called-White-House-credibility-crisis-threatening-Labours-Obama-Chuka-Umunna.html

[robbin]

(with apologies for the source!)