The Polls - Labour Lead At 14 - Is It The Economy?

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

Money is taken from one person to give to another. The overall effect is nil at best and negative at worst because money borrowed by the Government reduces money available for investment on a £ for £ basis.

I fear you're up against the 'magic money tree' argument, Gen. The wilful blindness of Statists that insists money can be spent indefinitely because it appears by magic and never needs to be repaid.

BobQ

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Wondering why polling of ordinary voters is telling a different tale to story of confidence the coalition is spinning? Conservatives are at an all-time low in polls since April (29%) They need to be at 40 to even have a whisker of winning. The old saying goes for US election winners 'it's the economy stupid' Do you think it's the same here? Or maybe the NHS as waiting times in A & E have shot back up to 4 hrs due to staff cuts. Either way, Labour's on 14.

Governments only care about polls when they face the prospect of not being re-elected. This one is no dpfferent to any other. It will focus on the management of its image and the provision of economic sweetners in 2014-15.

So far this one is more interested in holding the coalition together and regurgitating phrases that maintain everything which goes wrong is the fault of the previous Government and everything that goes right is the results of its good deeds. The strategy is complemented by the usual agenda of divide and rule (benefits scroungers vs hard working families, public vs private sector, rich vs poor, etc) and some predictable bogeymen (nasty unions, immigrants, overpaid civil servants) and some populist causes (tax avoidance/evasion, energy prices, gay marriage). In the next year or two it will move on to the hegativity of discrediting their opponents (by using their friends in the press to promote stories of dubious accuracy) and addressing soluble problems (like the A&E queues) before trying to roll out some tax cuts just before the next election.

Its no different to any Tory Government in its first term and I am not suggesting Labour Governments do not do much the same in a different way. Its just the way politicians behave.

Cameron knows his best chance of winning is for the Lib Dems popularity to recover and UKIP populatity to fall, neither of which will happen, so he will probably spend the last two years privatising the NHS and much of local government to the extent the Lib Dems allow.

What an awful choice the electorate faces at the next election .......

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

What an awful choice the electorate faces at the next election .......

At last - something we agree on! I can't recall a worse choice since Heath and Wilson.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Money is taken from one person to give to another. The overall effect is nil at best and negative at worst because money borrowed by the Government reduces money available for investment on a £ for £ basis.

I was not saying money should be spent in the way that you indicate. Just that if you do spend money on such things it will stimulate the economy. I fail to see why you think defence exports do not help the economy.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

I was not saying money should be spent in the way that you indicate. Just that if you do spend money on such things it will stimulate the economy. I fail to see why you think defence exports do not help the economy.

Defence exports do help the economy. I don't see how borrowing a huge amount of money each week and giving it to people who aren't working helps defence exports.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

What an awful choice the electorate faces at the next election .......

Given the choices are potentially going to be extremely unpalatable. I agree. Political interference maybe extending the downturn for longer. Rather than a more painful short sharp recession.

Moby

LauraW10 wrote: »

The current government are cutting spending (maybe) but they are also stifling growth. No growth means no tax receipts - which means bigger debts - bigger than a country would have had. That's why austerity doesn't work - it's a death spiral.

The coalition's biggest failure was smashing business and consumer confidence when they came to power - absolute madness. Labour would not have done that - so yes I believe that things would have been much better under a Labour government.

Good post...totally agree its all about confidence. The way I see it at present...... the Tories are holding on to their support quite well:(......its the Lib Dems that are crashing big time and hopefully many of their voters will return to Labour in 2015. Hopefully the Tories will also be weakened by a surge in UKIP support....but as others have said....a long way to go yet!

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Good post...totally agree its all about confidence. The way I see it at present...... the Tories are holding on to their support quite well:(......its the Lib Dems that are crashing big time and hopefully many of their voters will return to Labour in 2015. Hopefully the Tories will also be weakened by a surge in UKIP support....but as others have said....a long way to go yet!

That's because you either don't realise that this is a balance sheet recession or you don't understand how they work.

Deleveraging is a necessary precondition of recovery. The only debate to be had is about how to do it. Labour want deleveraging to happen marginally more slowly but even they agree that it must happen at a Government level.

If you think that voting in Labour is going to return the welfare state to how it was in the boom days you are likely to be sorely disappointed. Choosing between Labour and Tory at the moment is really just choosing between managers, both will be pursuing almost identical economic policies.

DecentLivingWage

Generali wrote: »

That's because you either don't realise that this is a balance sheet recession or you don't understand how they work.

Deleveraging is a necessary precondition of recovery. The only debate to be had is about how to do it. Labour want deleveraging to happen marginally more slowly but even they agree that it must happen at a Government level.

If you think that voting in Labour is going to return the welfare state to how it was in the boom days you are likely to be sorely disappointed. Choosing between Labour and Tory at the moment is really just choosing between managers, both will be pursuing almost identical economic policies.

One big difference is, Labour won't give lush cash handouts to millionaires - I'll go with that! Fairer cuts!

PS Pound Falling Against The Dollar - Obama & Growth winning & leaving Uk behind! :

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12-07/euro-pound-fall-against-dollar-on-us-jobs-report

Generali

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

One big difference is, Labour won't give lush cash handouts to millionaires - I'll go with that! Fairer cuts!

PS Pound Falling Against The Dollar - Obama & Growth winning & leaving Uk behind! :

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12-07/euro-pound-fall-against-dollar-on-us-jobs-report

I think it would be a great idea for the British economy to be more like the US's. The US Government spends under 40% of GDP and normally less than 1/3rd. The UK Government is spending almost half of UK GDP and it hasn't been under 40% for any significant period for decades as far as I am aware.

I'm surprised you are so supportive of President Obama as he is considerably more Libertarian than David Cameron's Conservative Party or even Mrs Thatcher's.