Economy only: which party policy works best and why?

lostinrates

Carolt alerted us to the fact the green party seems to answer her wants in which party to vote for on many fronts, including economic policy. Sadly, on very, very brief looking I found immeadiately the answer for me on this was no.

If it is possible, I ask you all to put aside our political leanings to focus PURELY on economic policy, as is relevent to this forum, and see which party most meets our ideaologies and or personal benefit on this basis alone

Whether you'd vote purely on economy is not the point: the point is if you could who would you vote and why. It is only of passing interest whether on a more holistic evaluation you would vote this way or not, please feel free to mention if you are distancing yourself from other party policy.

June the 4th is coming very quickly, and I still haven't made up my mind!

Radiantsoul

Brown completely missed the fact the long boom was in fact a financial asset price bubble. I doubt that it was avoidable and few other seems to have notice it either(despite the fact it is obvious with hindsight). On the plus side the recapitalisation of the banks was widely praised.

The Tories are probably better able to push through the spending cuts that be necessary over the next 5-10 years. But they also failed to notice what was happening and their solutions to the crisis seemed rather weak.

In practice there might not be much economic wiggle room anway. Spending needs to fall, taxes to rise, interest rates will remain independent and relatively low. The big issues are likely to be around financial regulation and interest rate setting(how to target asset prices). I am not sure these are precisely political issues.

Wookster

Well we don't really know exactly what the other parties would do yet do we?

We just know that spending cuts are in the offing, but not where, when or how much.

Many many other areas of policy are linked to the economy, the biggest link being that of the welfare state and we don't know what reforms any party proposes regarding that.

carolt

Nothing would make me vote Tory whilst that idiot George Osborne is the potential Chancellor. If they get Ken Clarke back in, that would be an entirely different matter - he's the only Tory I really respect and even quite like; and he did a not half bad job at getting us out of the last recession - at least he actually knows what he's talking about.

On the downside, he's lumbered with the resof his party, who are probably too dim to put him upfront, because their visceral hatred of Europe overwhelms their ability to see that it might actually give them a huge boost at the polls.

I generally like and respect Vince Cable - but am put off by the fact that his party has lots of other loony policies.

As the OP mentioned, I've been impressed by the Greens recently - though to be fair, it was their overall policy mix rather than specifically economic issues. And I'd be the first to admit their experience in running the country is not great. :rolleyes:

Labour? Um.....no. I don't think so. My neon tetras could do better (was going to say my dog, but I don't have one, so just adjusting to make it truthful).

tomterm8

I think the conservatives might be a more viable choice if they actually had a shadow chancellor with some economics training. I mean, in the middle of such a serious financial crisis I'd like them to get someone who is more qualified than Gromit.

I'll probably end up voting for the liberal democrats. Again. Even though some of their policies are quite barking, they at least have someone with some basic financial knowledge in their entire parliamentry party.

carolt

Very true.

lostinrates

Ken Clarke is there. I believe his appointment to where he know is was a very clever statement. I think its highly likely he would have significant 'influence' should conservatives be elected, and I thought that was part of the unspoken statement as why he was put in a position of countering Madleson and not replacing Osbourne shadowing a Chancellor it is generally presumed is similarly heavily ''influenced'' by a sceptical public

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

Ken Clarke is there. I believe his appointment to where he know is was a very clever statement. I think its highly likely he would have significant 'influence' should conservatives be elected, and I thought that was part of the unspoken statement as why he was put in a position of countering Madleson and not replacing Osbourne shadowing a Chancellor it is generally presumed is similarly heavily ''influenced'' by a sceptical public

I agree, ken knows what he is talking about, but the conservative party has been ignoring him for a long time. He must be around 70, and so is pretty much excluded from the running for a senior cabinet role. I see him as rather like Paul Volcker - brought in to add credibility, but rather marginalised within any future government.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

I agree, ken knows what he is talking about, but the conservative party has been ignoring him for a long time. He must be around 70,.....

I don't know how old he is, but Vince Cable,who seems the publicably cceptable alternative Chancellor is 66 or so isn't he? Not much of a difference!

I just googled and Clarke is only three years older than Cable.

Alan_M_2

For the first time in years I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. I've lost so much confidence in the entire system.

There was a broadcast on TV tonight for UKIP, one of the candidates on there didn't even look like he was shaving yet.

I like what Vince Cable has to say, but I feel it's a complete waste of time voting for a party that is simply not going to be elected.

Tory or Labour...same rubbish, different school ties......

I guess I'm what you call a hung voter.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Alan_M wrote: »

There was a broadcast on TV tonight for UKIP, one of the candidates on there didn't even look like he was shaving yet.

I felt embarrassed for the kid.

He blew it & UKIP screened it, I dont know which is worse?

Cable was ok.