[Archived] Election

[Hughesy]

[only2garners]

The Tory knives are being sharpened already and the North will suffer again just like it did in the 1980s. It's not over by a long way however and the public continues to have grave doubts about Cameron. Labour are still capable of turning back the evil blue tide. A hung parliament is probably the least desirable or all outcomes in that it could possibly lead to a sterling crisis and tip the economy back into recession.

On the contrary Jim, the markets have already factored in a hung parliament into currency rates. A decisive result is perversely likely to bring a rise in sterling.

What are you afraid of in a hung parliament anyway? I'm just watching a diabolical election broadcast by the Tories, warning us all that a hung parliament will come unless we all vote Conservative. I don't think it will fool me.

[jim mk2]

On the contrary Jim, the markets have already factored in a hung parliament into currency rates. A decisive result is perversely likely to bring a rise in sterling.

What are you afraid of in a hung parliament anyway? I'm just watching a diabolical election broadcast by the Tories, warning us all that a hung parliament will come unless we all vote Conservative. I don't think it will fool me.

A hung parliament is only a possibility at present and markets usually factor in only certainties. Markets don't like political uncertainty and I think a hung parliament would hit sterling badly. From a personal perspective I would welcome a hung parliament if it led to electoral reform and led to David Cameron being kept out of office.

[BuckyRover]

I don't know what is going to happen.

Looking forward to the exit polls on 6th May.

[only2garners]

A hung parliament is only a possibility at present and markets usually factor in only certainties. Markets don't like political uncertainty and I think a hung parliament would hit sterling badly. From a personal perspective I would welcome a hung parliament if it led to electoral reform and led to David Cameron being kept out of office.

All those articles I read over the weekend must be wrong then Jim. One of the factors causing more certainty is the fact that all three of the big parties are planning cuts anyway.

I guess we will see soon enough.

[philipl]

Being in London and knowing too many City-types for my own good, I can tell you a hung Parliament with the LDs as the deciding factor is about 80% priced into £ already and it is not a big factor anyway- the City types have deep faith in Vince Cable even though he would roast them personally. In fact they would want Cable as Chancellor massively in preference to Osbourne and the Tories are being given that message privately in no uncertain terms in anticipation of the post-election haggling for positions.

What is not priced in is a messy hung- ie any combination of loose Independents, the SNP, Plaid and/or Ulster MPs needed to balance up the arithmetic of forming a Government. A result like that would really send £ down a hole.

It is not impossible either- Tories ahead of Labour by 6% or so in votes cast producing roughly equal numbers of MPs for Labour and Tories with Lib Dems polling 26% or less popular vote so not increasing their number of MPs and a messy hung is on the cards. At this stage Lib Dems being around 30% makes a messy hung very unlikely but if they slip back without the Tories opening up a commanding lead, the pound could really tank.

Sky snapped Clegg at Southampton Central today:

I think Steve Richards in the Independent nailed the character of Cameron today when he described him as a "conviction opportunist":

"Clegg's sudden rise is testament to the failure of such an erratic approach to "change". If Cameron had been Blair-like in his resolution to change his party, as Blair was between 1994 and 1997, he would have won this election before the campaign had begun. Instead, most voters are not convinced and we get the endless questions about a hung parliament."

Of all people, Dominic Lawson (son of the Thatcher's Chancellor Nigel and brother of the sainted Nigella) sticks it to Cameron on behalf of the British midde classes:

"As the Economist magazine pointed out last month, "the middle class has had a worse time of it than is generally recognised". Labour have done much to support the least well-off, at least through the tax and benefits system, and have also been very good to the super-rich non domiciles: it is the "hard-working middle class" that have actually done least well out of government policies – however much Gordon Brown eulogises them in principle.

"Yet, as the Economist went on to say: "Mr Cameron epitomises British elites: he understands his high-earning peers and feels a genuine noblesse oblige towards the poor, but the people in between seem somehow beyond his ken." Who knows, perhaps a part of the sudden surge of support for the Liberal Democrats is from exactly those "hard-working middle classes", who feel overtaxed by Labour and do not feel that David Cameron is truly on their side?

"After all, the Lib Dem pledge to lift the income tax threshold to £10,000 and clobber the super-rich tax avoiders might be designed to help the least well-off, but the biggest beneficiaries (on the admittedly suspect assumption that the super-rich will hang around long enough to fund it) will be those closest to the median income. Most perplexingly of all for David Cameron, he finds that the political leader who has so entranced floating voters and who threatens to stymie a smooth transfer from Labour to Conservative, comes from a family even wealthier than his own; but then Nick Clegg never joined the Bullingdon Club."

[Paul]

Gordon Brown is most definitely responsible for the deficit we now have.

He devised the regulatory system, the buck stops with him. The US toppled the first domino, but if our banking system had been more robust, rather than lending money that it didn't have, we wouldn't have seen the financial system topple like it did.

I'm sick and tired of America being blamed, Bill Clinton didn't tell Brown to use the US as his model, he took it of his own accord.

Even more ridiculous is blaming the banks for telling him they only needed light regulation, surely Brown should be making his own decisions and not be told how to prevent banks misbehaving by the banks themselves. Mad.

While I see where you are coming from with this post Bryan I feel you ignore too many other aspects of the recent financial crisis. If you can point to a major government which has not been effected by the banking crisis the point would have some validity. The world wanted cheap money and we got it, then spent it by the billion on life-styles many could not afford. Today the chickens are coming home to roost. However while times are tough they have for the public been tougher, despite this being the "worst recession" since the 30s. For example under the Conservative administration and recession house repoessessions where:

1990 - 145,350

1991 - 186,649

1992 - 142,162

Under Labour in the worst recession of modern times the figures are:

2007 - 137,656

2008 - 142,626

2009 - 93,463

So even at the peak of the current recession (2009) 50% fewer people lost their homes. The source is county courts, England and Wales, via the Ministry of Justice.

The Office for National Statistics shows RPI inflation at +/- 10% in 1990, against +/- 4% in 2009.

I don't deny the country faces severe problems but two easily found random examples demonstrate the Conservative party would have performed no better and probably far worse. Have you had to use a hospital recently? If not you may find it difficult to appreciate the huge improvements in public services we all enjoy. Electing a Conservative government threatens that progress. Cameron glibly talks about mending a broken society - much of it was in bits long before the Labour party came to power and for Cameron to talk about mending it is a joke.

My gut feeling says even if the Labour Party had a combination of Jack Kennedy and Nelson Mandela standing as leader they'd get a kicking. It's a bit like 1997, the electorate have had enough, no matter what it may lead to they want changes. I hope I'm wrong but If I'm not hold onto your hats. Anybody in the public sector- start praying now !

Within the NHS under Labour there is already deep concern as re-organisation and merging of Primary Care Trusts is resuling in job losses now. Clearly there have to be cuts in public spending, it's how and where that is crucial and if as you imply the Tories win the election the resulting job losses, sorry efficiency savings, will be very severe.

We must not elect a Conservative government. Give the Lib Dems a chance by all means but please not Cameron. Anyone too young to have lived through 18 years under the Conservatives needs to find out what they are considering supporting. Cameron offers nothing of any substance to this country, he doesn't have a policy of any sort other than change, change, change. If people so desperately want change, as in 1997, why is Cameron holding on by his fingernails? If he really had a message, was a believable force for change, he would by now have the election won as Blair did in 1997.

[Glenn]

As it seems it's become the done thing to include funny politically motivated pictures in here to offset the debate a little, I have to include this one that went viral a couple of days ago.

http://ow.ly/i/1g5M/original

[American]

Love this column about an agency set up a few years back to improve policing. They came up with about half a billion in cuts - roughly saving tax payers the same amount that is spent on this new agency every year...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/dont-panic-post/post/dont_panic/15/investigation-highlights-further-government-misspending.html

[thenodrog]

1990 - 145,350

1991 - 186,649

1992 - 142,162

Under Labour in the worst recession of modern times the figures are:

2007 - 137,656

2008 - 142,626

2009 - 93,463

So even at the peak of the current recession (2009) 50% fewer people lost their homes. The source is county courts, England and Wales, via the Ministry of Justice.

1. Notwithstanding that you've obviously cherry picked those years can you back up your choice by giving valid and tangible reasons for the difference?

btw Paul...... I'm not being funny but only you could refer to the 'peak of a recession'!

[broadsword]

While I see where you are coming from with this post Bryan I feel you ignore too many other aspects of the recent financial crisis. If you can point to a major government which has not been effected by the banking crisis the point would have some validity. The world wanted cheap money and we got it, then spent it by the billion on life-styles many could not afford. Today the chickens are coming home to roost. However while times are tough they have for the public been tougher, despite this being the "worst recession" since the 30s. For example under the Conservative administration and recession house repoessessions where:

1990 - 145,350

1991 - 186,649

1992 - 142,162

Under Labour in the worst recession of modern times the figures are:

2007 - 137,656

2008 - 142,626

2009 - 93,463

So even at the peak of the current recession (2009) 50% fewer people lost their homes. The source is county courts, England and Wales, via the Ministry of Justice.

The Office for National Statistics shows RPI inflation at +/- 10% in 1990, against +/- 4% in 2009.

I don't deny the country faces severe problems but two easily found random examples demonstrate the Conservative party would have performed no better and probably far worse. Have you had to use a hospital recently? If not you may find it difficult to appreciate the huge improvements in public services we all enjoy. Electing a Conservative government threatens that progress. Cameron glibly talks about mending a broken society - much of it was in bits long before the Labour party came to power and for Cameron to talk about mending it is a joke.

Within the NHS under Labour there is already deep concern as re-organisation and merging of Primary Care Trusts is resuling in job losses now. Clearly there have to be cuts in public spending, it's how and where that is crucial and if as you imply the Tories win the election the resulting job losses, sorry efficiency savings, will be very severe.

We must not elect a Conservative government. Give the Lib Dems a chance by all means but please not Cameron. Anyone too young to have lived through 18 years under the Conservatives needs to find out what they are considering supporting. Cameron offers nothing of any substance to this country, he doesn't have a policy of any sort other than change, change, change. If people so desperately want change, as in 1997, why is Cameron holding on by his fingernails? If he really had a message, was a believable force for change, he would by now have the election won as Blair did in 1997.

Whilst we live in a global economy, different countries were affected by this banking crisis to different extents. We were one of the worst-placed nations to withstand it, you can't really blame "the world" for that. (Although I'd rather be in the UK than Greece or Ireland right now.)

You have found two examples at random there - would you say that we've reached a peak of reposessions, making that a fair comparison? How about bankruptcies?

If the Tories get in, they've said they will not fill new vacancies as they arise, it may well be that that's the think end of the wedge and they'll be swingeing cuts. But it's worth pointing out that in a recent survey, Labour is now less trusted with the NHS than the Tories (albeit this was something that was published in the Daily Mail, I've not scrutinised it for veracity http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269036/General-Election-2010-Labour-longer-trusted-NHS.html). Are you quite sure that Tories will take a huge axe to the public sector? They were last in govt 13 years ago. Labour was kicked out in 1979, and got back in 18 years later, they'd changed quite a lot, hadn't they? For what it's worth, Cameron has put the NHS at the centre of his manifesto, I guess it's a case of whether you believe him or not.

I've not had any NHS treatment recently, but I remember having to wait 3 years for a routine op when the Tories were in power. I'm sure the NHS has got better, but has all the money spent been spent wisely? For instance http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article6946336.ece - the world's largest non-military IT project that isn't essential for frontline services. And that's from the mouth of Alistair Darling.

If you spunk millions and billions up the wall, eventually you will improve things, but will you always get value for money?

Labour's raided the gold reserves for pennies, raided personal pensions, increased stealth taxes, bailed out the banks with public money after the regulatory system failed. Now, we're in a position where the coffers are dry and they still want to spend money to "secure the recovery" (by increasing employer's NI to make it more expensive for them to hire people?)

I tell you what, if Labour hadn't improved public services, I'd hate to see what they'd have to do to the public purse if they were actually to make improvements.

What you have to realise is that whoever holds the reins of power after May 6th, the medicine (spending cuts or taxes or both) is not going to taste nice. You've really gone off at a tangent anyway, I was talking about the banking crisis, you've given me a very one-sided PPB for the Labour party.

If things have really been that great, why are Labour currently in third place? They've bogged things up BIG TIME!

[jim mk2]

1. Notwithstanding that you've obviously cherry picked those years can you back up your choice by giving valid and tangible reasons for the difference?

You need to read your local paper more.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/general_election_2010/news/8118049.Labour_pledge_10_000_council_homes/

[jim mk2]

If you spunk millions and billions up the wall, eventually you will improve things, but will you always get value for money?

How do you define value for money ? Billions and billions have been spent on the NHS and education, but the result is we now have hospital and school facilities that are some of the best in the world. Governments by their nature waste money but this government has invested in the country's infrastructure money that after the public squalor of 18 Tory years desperately needed to be spent. My complaint is that Labour have not spent enough. The transport system for example, especially the railways, is still chronically underfunded and billions more need to be spent to bring up to the highest European standards.

There would be no need for swingeing spending cuts to public services if the tax system were managed properly. Billions of tax revenues each year are not collected because the the inland revenue does not have the resources to chase people, especially the super-rich, who are avoiding payment. The super-rich are also still under-taxed and if making them pay more results in them leaving the country, so be it. Perhaps London house prices might then go down to less astronomical levels.

An indication of Conservative thinking is Cameron's pledge to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m, costing the country billions in lost tax revenues and handing out tax favours to the privileged few while at the same time cutting public services and putting people out of work. It is this inherent unfairness of Tory philosophy that is the reason why people will never vote for a party that values greed and self-interest at the expense of the majority.

[broadsword]

How do you define value for money ?

Paring bureaucracy to a minimum, not fighting unnecessary wars, not sinking money trying to bring in unwanted ID card schemes, not trying to run visitor attractions (the Millennium Dome) would be a start.

[jim mk2]

Paring bureaucracy to a minimum, not fighting unnecessary wars, not sinking money trying to bring in unwanted ID card schemes, not trying to run visitor attractions (the Millennium Dome) would be a start.

Privatising state utility companies for short-term gain but long term loss, closing down entire coalfields and putting thousands of miners out of work and then importing coal from Australia and Russia, and fighting an unnecessary war in the Falklands would be others.

[broadsword]

Wouldn't deny that.

But does it detract from the point that Labour have been particularly profligate?

[Paul]

1. Notwithstanding that you've obviously cherry picked those years can you back up your choice by giving valid and tangible reasons for the difference? ['quote]

The Guardian published the figures last Saturday - the table did cover perhaps 25-30 years, can't remember now but I'll find it later. I picked the years because, in my memory we were in recession 1990 - 92 (though I could be wrong) and are again now. Tangible differences? well my guess, and it is my opinion that's all, is higher mortgage rates in 1990 - 92 put more people in trouble than currently.

btw Paul...... I'm not being funny but only you could refer to the 'peak of a recession'!

OK "trough" of a recession

[Paul]

I've not had any NHS treatment recently, but I remember having to wait 3 years for a routine op when the Tories were in power. I'm sure the NHS has got better, but has all the money spent been spent wisely?

I don't have time to answer the whole post but will try to later. I do want to answer this though. In the last three years I have fallen off my garage roof and damaged nerves and muscles which control the opening of the eye and been knocked off my bike breaking my hand and dislocating my thumb. Recently my son had blood tests indicating a thyroid problem.

In each case the treatment has been rapid and superb at every step. All the staff, both medical and administrative, were right on top of the job and one could not ask for better.

However I agree there is wastage. Recently I requested an eye operation to resolve the injury above. I turned it down three years ago. Note I REQUESTED and it was offered almost immediately. Now after various checks etc i was offered the operation in mid April but had to decline as I can't take two weeks off work at this point. I now have to go through the whole routine again to get an operation in November. If I had been told at the first appointment I needed two weeks recuperation, instead of being told at pre-operative a deal of time and money could have been saved. The hospital can't simply postpone the operation as it impacts onthe waiting list figures. Now this is daft and a prime example of how money can be saved.

Compare this with an American friend of mine. His son in law broke an elbow in a cycling accident. The doctor suggested he needed an MRI scan which he can't afford to pay for. The insurers say it is not necessary and will only pay for the MRI scan if a second opinion states it is necessary - he can't afford the second opinion!! Where would we be without the NHS? When I broke my hand I got an MRI scan as a matter of routine.

[broadsword]

I remember graduating in 1994, and it was very very difficult to get a decent job. I also remember interest rates being particularly high then. If you had the "wrong" type of mortgage, your monthly repayments were absolutely eye-watering. Deciding to join the ERM was not a good move. Nor should we consider being part of the Euro, what a fix that's in. I read earlier that the Greek problem may end up causing a second credit crunch.

Labour has presided over a lot of economic growth, but then they have been riding on the coat-tails of global economic growth. Funny, but I seem to remember Gordon Brown taking the plaudits for that, but when the brown stuff hit the fan, it was teh global economy's fault.

I don't have time to answer the whole post but will try to later. I do want to answer this though. In the last three years I have fallen off my garage roof and damaged nerves and muscles which control the opening of the eye and been knocked off my bike breaking my hand and dislocating my thumb. Recently my son had blood tests indicating a thyroid problem ...

I'm glad you've had prompt treatment, but you need to be careful not to extrapolate indiviual anecdotal evidence into a grand conclusion about the NHS.

A friend of mine has had a lot of problems with his medial ligament in his knee. A keen runner, he's not been able to run properly for over a year. He's tried all sorts of approachs, with no relief. He's been to see an NHS physio, who packed him off with some exercises. He was begging for an MRI scan, but didn't get one.

[RibbleValleyRover]

First major gaffe of the campaign as Brown calls a woman bigoted, forgetting he still had a microphone on. It’s all over the news at the moment.

[broadsword]

Got to admit, that's just made me laugh.

[LeChuck]

What did she say? Sounds like she was tackling him about immigration, so maybe she was.

In a funny way it could help him, shows there is a bit of personality lurking under that dull exterior.

[jim mk2]

A friend of mine has had a lot of problems with his medial ligament in his knee. A keen runner, he's not been able to run properly for over a year. He's tried all sorts of approachs, with no relief. He's been to see an NHS physio, who packed him off with some exercises. He was begging for an MRI scan, but didn't get one.

The NHS always has and always will be brilliant in dealing with acute problems but for less acute problems it has been necessary to wait. I had a cruciate ligament problem many years ago which meant I couldn't play football but I could walk OK. The operation eventually took place - but I had to wait for a considerable time. That was back in the 1980s so I would imagine those sort of waiting times have been reduced now. Your friend should keep pressing his GP for a scan.

[RibbleValleyRover]

What did she say? Sounds like she was tackling him about immigration, so maybe she was.

In a funny way it could help him, shows there is a bit of personality lurking under that dull exterior.

According to C4:

Mrs Duffy had confronted Brown on the subject of the deficit, tuition fees, benefits and immigration.

She told him: "My family have voted Labour all their lives - my father even sung Red Flag, but now I am ashamed of saying I'm Labour.

Perhaps prompting Brown's criticism that she was a "bigot", Duffy also told Brown: "You can't say anything about the immigrants - all these Eastern Europeans were flocking in."

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/vote_2010/gordon+brown+calls+labour+voted+ampaposbigotedampapos/3628887

===

Not sure this will impact on the election much. He will lose some voters over it, because a lot of people believe immigration is out of control. At the same time some will see it as showing his human side and might vote for him.

Can't see it being a game changer.

[Hughesy]

As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".

It comes after Labour vowed for him to meet more ordinary voters.

The comments were made after speaking to Gillian Duffy, with Mr Brown not realising that he had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt.

He told an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."