The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

[andyandy]

The world's worst kept secret is finally out - the UK election will be on May 6th....

Gordon Brown will tomorrow take the fateful journey from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace to trigger a 6 May general election to be fought on a Labour manifesto that promises a series of bold initiatives to reform public services in a programme of "national renewal".

A draft of the manifesto seen by the Guardian pledges that an unprecedented fourth-term Labour government would be "bolder about the role of state intervention in markets" and deliver sweeping constitutional change. Failing police forces could be taken over by their neighbours under one radical proposal.

Brown's trip to the palace will trigger four weeks of frenetic campaigning and comes as a shock Guardian ICM poll suggests Labour is clawing back support from the Tories. The poll gives the Conservatives a four-point lead – much smaller than in other recent surveys, reflecting the volatility of the electorate.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/05/gordon-brown-election-labour-manifesto

Now that all that American health care dross has been filted out of the forum let's discuss what really matters - does Chris Grayling hate gays? Does David Cameron look good as Gene Hunt? Should Samantha Cameron be wearing high heels when she's pregnant*?

These and other hot topics in the official UK election thread! :D

*courtesy of the Daily Wail

[andyandy]

As summed up on CiF, it's

Neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism

decisions, decisions, decisions....

According to the granuiad, some of labour's core campaigning points will be



• Provisions for the management of inefficient police forces to be taken over by efficient forces. "Where service is not good enough, it will be taken over by the best", the draft says.

• Simultaneous referendums on a new voting system for the Commons and a 100% elected second chamber.

• A national youth service alongside votes at 16.

• Rights for football supporters to take over football clubs.

• A living wage of £7.60 in Whitehall, funded by a cap on the salaries of the most highly paid public sector employees.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/05/gordon-brown-election-labour-manifesto

which seem pretty lame....is that the best they've got? Surely not....

And as for the New Tories, starting off by pledging to reverse the only tax increase that labour have announced (NI rise) doesn't bode well - if they're not prepared to raise taxes on business to help slash the moumental budget deficit then either it's going to be
1) taxes up for the rich (unlikely given the old boy's network)
2) taxes up for the middle class (unlikely given the play for the middle ground)
3) Benefits down for the poor (likely)
4) Slashing public sector spending and outsourcing to the private sector (slam dunk)

oh dear...

[geni]

3) Benefits down for the poor (likely)
4) Slashing public sector spending and outsourcing to the private sector (slam dunk)


Can't. Already committed to increaseing NHS spending because of the pensioner vote. Can't really cut school budgets very much. Can't cut the subsidies to the middle classes further than labour already have. Might be able to cut with regards to FE collages. The Navy won't get it's carriers. But beyond that it's hard to see how they will get more than £10 billion or so of cuts.

So at the moment we apear to have:

Labour already cutting while claiming not to be.
Tories claiming to be planning significant cuts while giving every indication that they are not serious about doing so
Lib dems with some documented cuts but not enough
SNP/PC looking for increased spending in their respective areas
NI mob? eh who knows.

[andyandy]

Can't. Already committed to increaseing NHS spending because of the pensioner vote. Can't really cut school budgets very much. Can't cut the subsidies to the middle classes further than labour already have. Might be able to cut with regards to FE collages. The Navy won't get it's carriers. But beyond that it's hard to see how they will get more than £10 billion or so of cuts.

So at the moment we apear to have:

Labour already cutting while claiming not to be.
Tories claiming to be planning significant cuts while giving every indication that they are not serious about doing so
Lib dems with some documented cuts but not enough
SNP/PC looking for increased spending in their respective areas
NI mob? eh who knows.

With them largely ring-fencing health and education there's going to have to be savage cuts in FE and local council provision (libraries, health centres, elderly care etc), but yes i agree - it's hard to see how you can get substancial savings (of the order needed). They can hardly have big cuts in defence whilst we're still at war, they can hardly have big cuts in police or prisons without working the tabloids into an apoplexy, they can hardly cut social services because it's been woefully underfunded for years, and there's only so much "efficiency savings" they can carry on claiming to be able to find....

So tax rises it is. Apart from it's hard to see the Tories doing that. Maybe the country can just take out some new credit cards and carry on spending....:D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Let me be the first to mourn the loss of Old Labour.

I have high hopes for the PM debates. At first I they would be to much like what we have here, but after seeing Cameron in that Gay Times interview I am getting my popcorn ready. Also, they better have a worm.

[Mashuna]

there's only so much "efficiency savings" they can carry on claiming to be able to find....



It's ok - once the "efficiency savings" have been made, there's still the "elimination of wasteful procedures" and "best practice improvement plans" to come.

[Darat]

I was really hoping he'd delay it until tomorrow just to p'off all the journalists.

[Darat]

...snip...

And as for the New Tories, starting off by pledging to reverse the only tax increase that labour have announced (NI rise) doesn't bode well - if they're not prepared to raise taxes on business to help slash the moumental budget deficit then either it's going to be
1) taxes up for the rich (unlikely given the old boy's network)
2) taxes up for the middle class (unlikely given the play for the middle ground)
3) Benefits down for the poor (likely)
4) Slashing public sector spending and outsourcing to the private sector (slam dunk)

oh dear...

You missed out "cash for being married", I wonder will that include "cash for being in a civil partnership"?

[DC]

they elect a new queen? :D

[ddt]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how do you Brits manage to organize elections on such a short notice - only a month?

Over here, that costs at least 2 months. Parties that aren't represented in Parliament have to gather signatures of supporters. All parties have to register in the election office. Parties have to draw up a list of candidates. Then that list has to be approved by the party congress. Ballots must be printed and distributed. The election office sends all voters a leaflet with the list of candidates, and a voter card.

Now, I fully understand the British voting system is different, but it seems that many of the issues are still the same. So where does the British system take a shortcut?

Are the candidates approved by the party leadership or by a party congress?

Does the election office send you a list of your local candidates?

[andyandy]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how do you Brits manage to organize elections on such a short notice - only a month?

I presume it's because we have a million civil servants to mobilise -
"Stop pushing those pens lads, we've got some work to do!"*

*this may not be true :D


Are the candidates approved by the party leadership or by a party congress?

i think it works with the party HQ approving a shortlist, which then gets sent to the local party activists to vote on which they want.....pretty undemocratic really. The parties like to use the system to parachute their chums into safe seats where they're guaranteed a place in the commons....

Does the election office send you a list of your local candidates?

Don't think so, all the various candidates do however push about a million flyers through your letterbox to remind you of their existence....

[Darat]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how do you Brits manage to organize elections on such a short notice - only a month?

...snip...

Socialism.... ;)


To stand as a candidate MP all you need is to be eligible to become an MP (the requirements are not very stringent) fill in a form, make a £500 deposit (which you will lose if you don't get above a certain percentage of votes) and the signature of 10 people in the constituency you want to represent.

To become the candidate for a political party is usually handled handled at a local level with sometimes pressure or an imposed list of candidates from the central office of the party. And the major parties will have had (most) of their prospective candidates chosen for sometime (knowing that there would be a general election some time in the first half of this year).

One of the major differences I think in our systems is that our political parties are true organisations that exist all the time, so each major party will have local activists slogging away all the time, it's just the pressure and level of activity increases when there is an election due.

[DC]

Socialism.... ;)


To stand as a candidate MP all you need is to be eligible to become an MP (the requirements are not very stringent) fill in a form, make a £500 deposit (which you will lose if you don't get above a certain percentage of votes) and the signature of 10 people in the constituency you want to represent.

To become the candidate for a political party is usually handled handled at a local level with sometimes pressure or an imposed list of candidates from the central office of the party. And the major parties will have had (most) of their prospective candidates chosen for sometime (knowing that there would be a general election some time in the first half of this year).

One of the major differences I think in our systems is that our political parties are true organisations that exist all the time, so each major party will have local activists slogging away all the time, it's just the pressure and level of activity increases when there is an election due.

no Bithcertificate needed????

[Darat]

no Bithcertificate needed????

You don't even need to be British citizen.

http://british-house-of-commons.suite101.com/article.cfm/electoral_candidates


...snip...

In basic terms, anybody who is a British, Commonwealth or Irish Republic citizen can stand as a candidate in a British general election provided that they are aged 21 or over.

...snip...

[DC]

You don't even need to be British citizen.

http://british-house-of-commons.suite101.com/article.cfm/electoral_candidates

:) but Commonwealth.

[Darat]

BBC election site now live: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm

[Darat]

Might seem to be a trivial question but how will this effect "Have I got News For You"?

[Darat]

I see the BBC has already dropped any pretence of being unbiased:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14bbb26fb8e7f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19641)

:)

[KDLarsen]

"Have I got News For You"?
Ian Hislop will be over the moon once the gaffes start flowing.

Or are there rules regarding 'If you mock x party this much, you must also mock y, z and w parties this much'?

[Debaser]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how do you Brits manage to organize elections on such a short notice - only a month?


By the way, is this the shortest period allowed. Personally, calling an election for a week next Thursday would suit me just as well, given the phony war we've had pretty much since GB took over from Smiler.

[Darat]

By the way, is this the shortest period allowed. Personally, calling an election for a week next Thursday would suit me just as well, given the phony war we've had pretty much since GB took over from Smiler.

I have to agree - in fact no I don't I want to know why we couldn't have had it this Thursday! They've all made their arguments a million times, I suppose the only reason for having longer is to try and ensure that at least one of the major parties will drop an absolute clanger!

[Undesired Walrus]

As summed up on CiF, it's

Neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism


This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.

[Darat]

This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.


Useful starting place: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8515961.stm#subject=ey&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem/

[Undesired Walrus]

The BBC reported that Cameron left out the planned 'gay or straight' line when talking about 'the great ignored'.

Oh, the irony!

[Rolfe]

Is it time for me to change to my election avatar?

Rolfe.

ETA: What the hell. Done.

[Undesired Walrus]

In the spirit of politics, I'll change mine too.

[andyandy]

This: 'There all the same' rhetoric is really becoming a trite cliche. Sure, there is no denying that Labour have moved radically to the centre, but if you really think there is no difference ideologically between the main three parties, you're simply not paying any attention.

they moved radically to the centre and kept moving....

what are the fundamental ideological differences between the three parties that they're currently campaigning on?

[andyandy]

Let's compare according to the BBC:


Tories: Begin spending cuts in 2010 to eliminate most of the UK’s structural deficit within five years; real terms increases in health spending; allow charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services; scrap identity card scheme; "recognise" marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system.

Labour: Wait until 2011 to cut spending, to halve deficit in four years; increase spending on "frontline" NHS services and schools but freeze or cut spending in other areas from 2011; ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week; hold a referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote system for Westminster elections by October 2011.


We get a choice between cuts in 2010 or 2011 - this is pretty disingenious in any case, cuts are already happening and we may well be beholden to the markets if we want to hold onto AAA.

Both promise to increase NHS spending

Conservatives like the labour Academies and might have some more. Labour probably would as well.

Tories will scrap ID cards. Labour probably will as well

some tax benefits for marriage - not a big issue and not defined as to how much etc etc.

test results for cancer promptly - lump it in with general NHS provision - not a big issue

referendum on AV? You must be joking! This is the same labour party that promised voting reform several years ago and then promptly forgot about it because the current system was doing very nicely thankyou.....anyone who believes this promise is an idiot....

So that's it. Populist Daily Waily "tax breaks for marriage" vs populist emotive "more money for cancer patients". Except that the tories are also promising more money for cancer patients....

which leaves marriage tax breaks vs football clubs having a slice owned by supporters....

Oh the choices....

[Dave Rogers]

:) but Commonwealth.

Kenyan is OK, then. If the Americans don't want him, can we have him?

Ian Hislop will be over the moon once the gaffes start flowing.

Or are there rules regarding 'If you mock x party this much, you must also mock y, z and w parties this much'?

I've yet to see any politician of any party whom Ian Hislop is in any way disinclined to mock, even when they're on his team.

Dave

[Undesired Walrus]

Andy

Oh the choices....

One of the large dividing lines is the role of the state. Cameron took a big backstep into the Conservatives of the past by slamming the 'big state' and embracing small government Conservatism:

And here is the big argument in British politics today, put plainly and simply. Labour say that to solve the country's problems, we need more government.

Don't they see? It is more government that got us into this mess.

Why is our economy broken? Not just because Labour wrongly thought they'd abolished boom and bust. But because government got too big, spent too much and doubled the national debt.

Why is our society broken? Because government got too big, did too much and undermined responsibility.

Why are our politics broken? Because government got too big, promised too much and pretended it had all the answers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-in-full

Contrast this with what a Labour big whig had to say about the state:

[The] principle is that power needs to be vested in the people, but we do not reveal a powerful populace simply in the act of withdrawing the state. In fact a powerless government simply means more power for the already powerful. That is the error that runs through David Cameron’s speeches. We make powerful people by providing a platform on which people can stand.
http://davidmiliband.info/speeches/speeches_010_02.htm

Moving on, the Conservative approach to keeping the family together is typical Conservatism. Offering tax breaks for married couples is something Labour will simply not do.

Of course, one of the major differences between the Tories and the other main parties is their view on Europe. Drawing their party out of the Centre-Right European party and creating an extreme right wing, anti-federalist party for them to join is marginalising the country, not just their party from Europe if they win. That is one of the big choices at this election. A Britain that is at the front of the EU or one that stands at the back. You may have perfectly good reasons for wanting to stand at the back, but it is nonetheless a clear dividing line between the attitudes of the main parties towards such an important issue.

The list goes on, including stuff about the Tories attitudes towards voluntary organisations.

You raised AV and compared it to the promise last time. The difference is that this time the move has actually been backed in Parliament (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8505255.stm), something that never happened last time.

[cwalner]

Gordon Brown will tomorrow take the fateful journey from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace to trigger a 6 May general election to be fought on a Labour manifesto that promises a series of bold initiatives to reform public services in a programme of "national renewal.

As an ignorant colonist, this is one thing that confuses me about UK elections. Are they not regularly scheduled? How do you decide when to have elections?

I kinda get the whole parliamentary process (as opposed to our regional representation) but clarifications on that would not be missed either.

Please help put the E in JREF by explaining to me what seems a rather convoluted process just to elect a bunch of politicians.

[Fiona]

We do not have fixed-term parliaments, Cwalner.The prime minister asks the queen to dissolve parliament when he thinks it is a good time to do it, at any time not exceeding 5 years. Thus, for example, a government with a small majority can call an election within months: I think that happened in 1964 and there were two general elections within one year (open to correction on the dates)

Not sure what you mean by the second point. A Westminster MP represents a constituency and in each constituency those who wish to be elected put themselves forward (the system is a bit different in Scotland but I wont complicate matters). We don't have electoral colleges (I think that is something which exists in America? ). The candidates present themselves directly and an individual is elected by a simple majority. But I am not sure if that answers your question?

[cwalner]

Not sure what you mean by the second point. A Westminster MP represents a constituency and in each constituency those who wish to be elected put themselves forward (the system is a bit different in Scotland but I wont complicate matters). We don't have electoral colleges (I think that is something which exists in America? ). The candidates present themselves directly and an individual is elected by a simple majority. But I am not sure if that answers your question?

My understanding, which may be woefully wrong, was that in a parlaimentary system the parties each present a slate of candidates and the electorate voted for a party, not for a candidate. Then if, say the election turned out 40% Labour, 30% Tory, 20% WNP, and 10% some small party I've never heard of (SSPINHO) and parlaiment had 100 seats, then the top 40 from the labour slate would be seated, the top 30 from tory, the top 20 from WNP, and the top 10 from SSPINHO. (obviously a simplification of the numbers but I think you should understand what I am getting at).

I thought that this was why your system tended to promote larger numbers of parites, becasue you only need to get about 5-10% of the overall vote to get seated. Whereas in the US congressional seats are for specific districts and one needs to get at least 51% of that district to get seated. This tends to promote just two parties strong enough to get over 51% of enough districts to be seated.

It seems obvious from what I have heard so far that this is not completely accurate, so please correct where I have erred

[Lord Muck oGentry]

cwalner, here is a place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Fiona]

It bears no relation to the process at all, actually. We do have a party list in Scotland and it is combined with the usual constituency system: that is why I said it was more complicated: and I don't think it will help you. In other parts of europe there are various versions of proportional representation which may fit your idea of what we do: but it is not like that here. For westminster we have "first past the post" in each constituency (again with different rules for Scotland).

Of course candidates selected by the main parties are apt to be elected: but that is not due to the voting system. Independents and small parties may win a seat and they do if they get the most votes in the constituency they stand in. But FPTP tends to result in two parties and the reasons for that are complex. We could not be said to have a lot of parties here: you are correct that proportional systems do have that result very often, though

[Darat]

My understanding, which may be woefully wrong, was that in a parlaimentary system the parties each present a slate of candidates and the electorate voted for a party, not for a candidate. Then if, say the election turned out 40% Labour, 30% Tory, 20% WNP, and 10% some small party I've never heard of (SSPINHO) and parlaiment had 100 seats, then the top 40 from the labour slate would be seated, the top 30 from tory, the top 20 from WNP, and the top 10 from SSPINHO. (obviously a simplification of the numbers but I think you should understand what I am getting at).

I thought that this was why your system tended to promote larger numbers of parites, becasue you only need to get about 5-10% of the overall vote to get seated. Whereas in the US congressional seats are for specific districts and one needs to get at least 51% of that district to get seated. This tends to promote just two parties strong enough to get over 51% of enough districts to be seated.

It seems obvious from what I have heard so far that this is not completely accurate, so please correct where I have erred

Not in the general election. There are over 600 constituencies (geography and population based) in each of these there will be a list of candidates we can vote on to become our "Member of Parliament", some of the candidates will be the official representative for a political party but we vote for the individual not the party and it is simple the candidate that gets the most votes that "wins" that constituency and becomes the Member of Parliament for those voters. The "government" is formed by the political party (or parties) that can command a majority of MPs in the parliament.

[Debaser]

Independents and small parties may win a seat and they do if they get the most votes in the constituency they stand in. But FPTP tends to result in two parties and the reasons for that are complex. We could not be said to have a lot of parties here: you are correct that proportional systems do have that result very often, though

Having said this, we usually get at least six or eight candidates per constituency (and more at by-elections) to choose from. It's not from lack choice that the usual suspects always seem to get in.

[cwalner]

Thanks for the link LMo'G and for the clarification Fiona.

I am not certain where I got into my head that the UK was proportional, but I did somewhere along the line and you have helped remove that misunderstanding.

Another point (one I think I have right) is that you do not directly elect the PM (as we kinda sorta do with the president in the US - electoral college and all) but that the PM is selected more along the same lines that we select the Speaker of the House. That he/she is elected by the Parlaiment so is effectively the leader of the majority party in Parlaiment.

The one possible difference is that the Speaker of the House is also a representative where the PM is not neccesarily an MP.

Again please clarify where I got this wrong.

[cwalner]

Having said this, we usually get at least six or eight candidates per constituency (and more at by-elections) to choose from. It's not from lack choice that the usual suspects always seem to get in.

We actually do too in the US, even for the presidency. I don't think I've ever participated in a general election with less than 4 candidates for any particular office.

[Darat]

Thanks for the link LMo'G and for the clarification Fiona.

I am not certain where I got into my head that the UK was proportional, but I did somewhere along the line and you have helped remove that misunderstanding.

Another point (one I think I have right) is that you do not directly elect the PM (as we kinda sorta do with the president in the US - electoral college and all) but that the PM is selected more along the same lines that we select the Speaker of the House. That he/she is elected by the Parlaiment so is effectively the leader of the majority party in Parlaiment.

The one possible difference is that the Speaker of the House is also a representative where the PM is not neccesarily an MP.

Again please clarify where I got this wrong.


Couple of things - strictly speaking the PM does not have to be an MP however that is not how things are done these days so leave that to one side.

What generally happens is because either the Conservative party or Labour party gain an overall majority in Parliament (it is more likely to be the Conservatives this time) the leader of that party becomes the PM.

[Agatha]

Fiona will be able to explain the situation in Scotland which is too complex for me at this time of night.

In England, votes are cast for a person (standing for a political party which may or may not be one of the three main ones). In general, the first past the post system means that one of the three main parties tend to get in, but not always. The leaders of the three main parties stand as candidates in their respective constituencies, and are voted for just as every other MP.

In the last general election in 2005 in my constituency, the three main parties put up a candidate, as did UKIP and the English Democrats. This was the result:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/141.stm

It will almost certainly be a two horse race again - Paul Holmes is a popular MP who spends a lot of time in the constituency and talking to voters.

[Agatha]

There is also the tradition that the three main parties do not put up candidates against the Speaker (currently Conservative John Bercow, so Labour and Lib Dem won't put up candidates). There is a chance that UKIP will stand against the Speaker, and I heard on the radio today that they might win.

[Fiona]

I heard that a couple of weeks ago, Agatha. It will interesting if they do that

[Agatha]

I don't know how I am going to sustain this level of excitement for another four weeks; I'm like this for every election since I used to fold up Labour campaign leaflets for my mother at the age of about six! Though I have never actually voted Labour in my 30 years of voting.

[Debaser]

So cwalner, there you have it.

Amongst other things, the timing of a General Election is in the gift of the Prime Minister such that he can choose the most favourable time, and once elected as Speaker of the House you may remain in Parliament, unchallenged, until you get bored of the whole farce (or like Speaker Michael Martin grossly embarrass the House).

That's why we Brits are told to glory in the majesty that is our unwritten constitution.

[Rolfe]

Fiona will be able to explain the situation in Scotland which is too complex for me at this time of night.


In Scotland, for a Westminster election, it's exactly the same as anywhere else. One vote per person, cast in the constituency where you live. The candidate in the constituency who has the largest number of votes becomes the MP.

All the parties have their candidates sorted out and in place (PPC - prospective parliamentary candidate) long before the election is called, in most constituencies anyway. I've been listening to our SNP PPC working the constituency for two years. Anybody else who wants to stand as an independent is perfectly free to do so, subject to the requirements detailed by another poster above. Again, most people who are thinking about standing will have their ducks in a row in advance, although simply getting on the ballot paper is hardly rocket science. Very few independents ever get elected, but occasionally local issues force a surprise.

The only real difference in Scotland (and Wales) is the existence of the SNP (or PC) which leads to some constituencies being potential four-way marginals.

Voting is the same for a Westminster election in every constituency though, no matter which country.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I don't know how I am going to sustain this level of excitement for another four weeks; I'm like this for every election since I used to fold up Labour campaign leaflets for my mother at the age of about six! Though I have never actually voted Labour in my 30 years of voting.


I guess I better get my head out of my backside and volunteer pronto.

Rolfe.

[Agatha]

Ah, thanks for that, Rolfe (for the explanation, not for the leaflet-folding :D ) I was confused.

[funk de fino]

You missed out "cash for being married", I wonder will that include "cash for being in a civil partnership"?

This one will really grip my ****

[Fiona]

That was my fault: we have a different system for the so-called Scottish Parliament, as LM0'G's link showed.

[Lensman]

The PM is indeed an MP, he/she is the leader of the largest party in Parliament, the leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.

Each party elects it's own leader, there is a mix of MPs & the various constituency parties if I remember correctly.

[Rolfe]

Ah, thanks for that, Rolfe (for the explanation, not for the leaflet-folding :D ) I was confused.


As Fiona said, the system is different in the elections for the Scottish (and Welsh) devolved parliaments. That system is quite complex, and while somewhat proportional, is not true PR. (It's been said it was worked out to be the method which would most disadvantage the SNP. I couldn't possibly comment.)

It's different yet again in the elections for the local councils in Scotland.

This isn't one of these elections though - another year for that. This is a Westminster one, and FPTP all the way down.

Rolfe.

[ddt]

The PM is indeed an MP, he/she is the leader of the largest party in Parliament, the leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.
For becoming PM or even minister, you have to be an MP, haven't you?

But about the PM being the leader of the largest party - what happens when you have a hung Parliament? And, ahem, parties actually have to try to form a coalition?
Then he doesn't necessarily have to be the leader of the largest party, does he? And there's a decent chance this time there is going to be a hung parliament, and the UK has to take that next step in political civilization. ;)

[Fiona]

He doesn't have to be an MP, ddt: there have been PM's who were in the house of lords. I do not think anything has changed in legal terms to prevent that: but it would not be done now for the climate has altered

I do not think we have ever had a hung parliament but I do not know for sure. In 1964 the largest party had a majority of something like 3 and one or two died or something: so they had another election. At least I think that is what happened.

There have been times when the largest party had to rely on small party votes as well: I seem to remember that falling out with the ulster unionists led to an election at one time for that reason: but the PM was still the leader of the largest party and they would not give that away because the PM has a lot of power he exercises on the basis of royal prerogative

[Lord Muck oGentry]

For becoming PM or even minister, you have to be an MP, haven't you?

Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom

Mandelson is a current exception. I'm no expert on this, but the Commons seems to resent it if a senior minister ( secretary of state or Cabinet rank) is in the Lords, leaving a junior minister ( minister of state) to answer for his department in the Commons.

Technically, the PM could be in the Lords. But that isn't a real possibility nowadays.

[andyandy]

Mandelson is a current exception .

Mandelson's in the cabinet and he isn't even human. :boxedin:

[andyandy]

Then he doesn't necessarily have to be the leader of the largest party, does he? And there's a decent chance this time there is going to be a hung parliament, and the UK has to take that next step in political civilization. ;)

we like our politics simple - 5 year autocracies are so much less messy than all that continental faffing around with coalitions....:)

[geni]

Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom

Mandelson is a current exception. I'm no expert on this, but the Commons seems to resent it if a senior minister ( secretary of state or Cabinet rank) is in the Lords, leaving a junior minister ( minister of state) to answer for his department in the Commons.


Also Baron Adonis.

Having a least a few lords in the cabinet is pretty common since it allows the prime minister to bring in people that are useful but either unable or unwilling to get elected.

[geni]

There is also the tradition that the three main parties do not put up candidates against the Speaker (currently Conservative John Bercow, so Labour and Lib Dem won't put up candidates). There is a chance that UKIP will stand against the Speaker, and I heard on the radio today that they might win.

Something I suspect the tories have mixed feelings on. On one had both a UKIP and the speaker lossing their automatic relection would both be problematical for them. On the other hand it would get rid of Bercow something political unviable through any other method.

[cwalner]

The PM is indeed an MP, he/she is the leader of the largest party in Parliament, the leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.

Each party elects it's own leader, there is a mix of MPs & the various constituency parties if I remember correctly.

He doesn't have to be an MP, ddt: there have been PM's who were in the house of lords. I do not think anything has changed in legal terms to prevent that: but it would not be done now for the climate has altered


Ok, now I am confused again. Both you seem to indicate that Gordon Brown is simultaneously the Prime Minister and an MP (which I assumed to mean Member of Parlaiment). What happens if say Labour wins the majority, but Brown loses his seat in his constituency?

Some have also mentioned a speaker, how is that position chosen?

And to Darat, why do you feel that Conservatives are favored in this election and are Conservatives the same as the Tories (they seem to reference the same ideology)?

Pardon all of these seemingly basic questions, but I am finding out that I knew a lot less about your political workings than I thought I knew.

[Fiona]

Ok, now I am confused again. Both you seem to indicate that Gordon Brown is simultaneously the Prime Minister and an MP (which I assumed to mean Member of Parlaiment).

Yes.

What happens if say Labour wins the majority, but Brown loses his seat in his constituency?

Good question. There would be a number of ways of dealing with that: I think the most likely thing would be an MP of that party would stand down in a safe seat and there would be a by-election: I think that has happened before (Douglas-Home is the closest precedent I can think of though he was not an member when he got the leadership, I think). Or they could choose a new leader: either way the deputy leader would cover while they did, I think. I will be interested to hear from more knowledgeable people, though: it must have happened more than once, cos everything has. :)

Some have also mentioned a speaker, how is that position chosen?

He is elected by the MP's from amongst their own number, in a secret ballot. Candidates must be nominated by 12 MP's and at least some of those must not be from his own party. Absolute majority wins it: and if that is not achieved they eliminate the one with the least vote and vote again till they get one. A sitting speaker moves directly to a vote and they only start the process again if the motion to re-elect fails: but I do not know if that has ever happened.

[geni]

Ok, now I am confused again. Both you seem to indicate that Gordon Brown is simultaneously the Prime Minister and an MP (which I assumed to mean Member of Parlaiment). What happens if say Labour wins the majority, but Brown loses his seat in his constituency?

That doesn't normaly happen since people identified as leadership material in either party tend to get safe seats.

When it does happen find a less than useful MP in a safe seat, send them off to the lords and then hold a by-Election to get the candiate for prime minister into the commons.

A slightly different situation would be Alec Douglas-Home in 63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinross_and_West_Perthshire_by-election,_1963


Some have also mentioned a speaker, how is that position chosen?


Officially by a vote of MP's. Unofficially by some rather messy behind the scenes manoeuvres then a vote by MPs.


And to Darat, why do you feel that Conservatives are favored in this election and are Conservatives the same as the Tories (they seem to reference the same ideology)?

The conservative party are derived from the tories yes and are often known by that name. They are favored well mostly because labour are rather unpopular at this point and David Cameron has nicked enough of their traditional ideas to avoid getting completely hammered as the nasty party.

[cwalner]

The conservative party are derived from the tories yes and are often known by that name. They are favored well mostly because labour are rather unpopular at this point and David Cameron has nicked enough of their traditional ideas to avoid getting completely hammered as the nasty party.

So essentially discontent over how things are and voting for non-incumbents rather than actually an ideological shift.

My mother had a great phrase for this: Same Circus, Different Clowns

[Rolfe]

I don't see Gordon Brown losing in Kirkcaldy in a hurry. And if he does, Labour as a whole are royally :rule10ed across the country anyway.

But theoretically, if it happened....

Geni and Fiona are technically right - they could find someone to resign a safe Labour seat, and put up Brown as the by-election candidate. However, I think that would go down like a lead balloon.


They'd have a period of instability before the by-election anyway - who would act as PM in that time?
The voters of that constituency might well be pretty annoyed at their votes being taken for granted like that - so much so that a whole bunch of people who didn't vote in the general election might come out for the specific purpose of foiling the plan.
The country in general might be very very annoyed - and the anti-Labour press would stoke that. Brown is already the PM with no mandate (he took over from Blair in the middle of a parliamentary term). If he subsequently couldn't even hold his own seat, he'd be extremely damaged goods.
The Parliamentary Labour party would probably rather select a new leader than go through the humiliation of getting a lame duck back into the House at a by-election.

So I'd say, practically, that if the unthinkable did happen, Brown would be cut loose and there would be a short and dirty fight to elect a new leader from among the successful candidates.

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

In this case I think you are right, Rolfe: I was trying to answer more generally however, since Cwalner seems interested in the process.

[Rolfe]

why do you feel that Conservatives are favored in this election and are Conservatives the same as the Tories (they seem to reference the same ideology)?


The Conservatives and the Tories are the same thing. Properly, they are "The Conservative and Unionist Party", and a bunch of other names so that they can both stop other groups using a name they are known by, and try to make themselves appear relevant in the "provinces".

"Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party." Meh.

They're favoured because they're not the incumbents. I don't think they have any killer policies that are attracting voters.

They have a big hill to climb though. The demographics dictate that when they increase their support they tend to pile up votes in constituencies that are already safe Tory seats. No point. It's harder for them to get the votes in the marginal constituencies where it really counts.

There was a lot of huffing and puffing about this on the TV tonight. However, it was explained very succinctly on the radio news, if only I could remember the exact words. Basically it's going to take only a very small swing for Labour to lose its overall majority, but it's going to take the second-biggest swing for 60 years for the Tories to get an overall majority of their own.

A big reason for this is the rise of the smaller parties. Sixty years ago only a small handful of MPs weren't either Conservative or Labour. Now, not only are the LibDems a reasonable force, there's the SNP and PC mopping up constituencies in Scotland and Wales. Not to mention the possibility that UKIP or the Greens or even a protest-group independent might scrape something (or even the BNP, perish the bloody thought).

Enough of that and Westminster will have to start behaving like a grown-up representative parliament rather than an elected dictatorship, even without PR forcing it in that direction. Labour and the Tories will still be the largest parties, but they'll have to do deals with the smaller parties if they want to achieve anything.

The largest party might hope for a coalition with the LibDems, if that would be enough to get the overall majority, but would that do it? And even if it did, would it be the best outcome? The experience in Scotland for the past three years indicates that a minority government can actually function quite well. On that occassion the LibDems refused to consider entering a coalition, and though they may subsequently have regretted it I think it was very much for the best.

So, we go out and vote, and then we see what happens.

But first, we get out there canvassing and leafletting and getting our vote out any which way we can.

Rolfe.

[geni]

[LIST]
They'd have a period of instability before the by-election anyway - who would act as PM in that time?

Harman. Labour as the incumbant party don't actualy have to do anything until after the summer recess. They have a lot of time to sort things out. Cameron losing would be more problematical.


The voters of that constituency might well be pretty annoyed at their votes being taken for granted like that - so much so that a whole bunch of people who didn't vote in the general election might come out for the specific purpose of foiling the plan.


Historicaly hasn't happened.


The country in general might be very very annoyed - and the anti-Labour press would stoke that. Brown is already the PM with no mandate (he took over from Blair in the middle of a parliamentary term). If he subsequently couldn't even hold his own seat, he'd be extremely damaged goods.

Against that he would have won a general election generaly thought to be unwinnable.


The Parliamentary Labour party would probably rather select a new leader than go through the humiliation of getting a lame duck back into the House at a by-election.

So I'd say, practically, that if the unthinkable did happen, Brown would be cut loose and there would be a short and dirty fight to elect a new leader from among the successful candidates.

There isn't anyone. The millibands have been going sideways, the Blairites are out of play after what was left of them got hammered by that despatches program. Darling is unlikely to make a move until after Brown has been very safely burried.

[Rolfe]

Well, it's completely hypothetical anyway. In the vanishingly unlikely event of him losing Kirkcaldy, the Labour party would not have an overall majority. So either of us can second-guess till the cows come home.

I still think they'd dump him. They'd decide the party had won in spite of him, and Jim Hacker would get the job.

Rolfe.

[geni]

The Conservatives and the Tories are the same thing. Properly, they are "The Conservative and Unionist Party", and a bunch of other names so that they can both stop other groups using a name they are known by, and try to make themselves appear relevant in the "provinces".

"Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party." Meh.

In fairness the Tory-Unionist links go way back.



They're favoured because they're not the incumbents. I don't think they have any killer policies that are attracting voters.

Inheritance tax issue probably helps with the middle classes with houses in south east england.



They have a big hill to climb though. The demographics dictate that when they increase their support they tend to pile up votes in constituencies that are already safe Tory seats. No point. It's harder for them to get the votes in the marginal constituencies where it really counts.

There was a lot of huffing and puffing about this on the TV tonight. However, it was explained very succinctly on the radio news, if only I could remember the exact words. Basically it's going to take only a very small swing for Labour to lose its overall majority, but it's going to take the second-biggest swing for 60 years for the Tories to get an overall majority of their own.

Torries need to pick up about 100 seats labour lose majority with less than 20.


A big reason for this is the rise of the smaller parties. Sixty years ago only a small handful of MPs weren't either Conservative or Labour. Now, not only are the LibDems a reasonable force, there's the SNP and PC mopping up constituencies in Scotland and Wales. Not to mention the possibility that UKIP or the Greens or even a protest-group independent might scrape something (or even the BNP, perish the bloody thought).

Richard Taylor may have a reasonable chance of holding on in Wyre Forest. Can't see UKIP or and especialy the greens picking up any seats.


Enough of that and Westminster will have to start behaving like a grown-up representative parliament rather than an elected dictatorship, even without PR forcing it in that direction. Labour and the Tories will still be the largest parties, but they'll have to do deals with the smaller parties if they want to achieve anything.

The largest party might hope for a coalition with the LibDems, if that would be enough to get the overall majority, but would that do it? And even if it did, would it be the best outcome? The experience in Scotland for the past three years indicates that a minority government can actually function quite well.

The SNP were able to buy up enough votes to pass their budget but at westminister than kind of thing could get expensive fast.

[geni]

Well, it's completely hypothetical anyway. In the vanishingly unlikely event of him losing Kirkcaldy, the Labour party would not have an overall majority. So either of us can second-guess till the cows come home.

Eh He's got both UKIP and the BNP running against him. You could almost feel sorry for the tories there.

[cwalner]

Ok,

So major parties are Labour (center left) and Conservative (center right)

I am guessing here now:

Minor parties are LibDem (Liberal Democrat - left), SNP (socialist?), PC (Poltically Correct? - I know this is wrong), UKIP (UK independent party - centrist?), Green (Tree Huggers) and BNP (The ones who forgot why you fought Germany in the 40's)

And if I understand recent history correctly, Thatcher was a Tory, and there has not been a Tory government since she left, pretty much dominated by Labour.

Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

[geni]

Minor parties are LibDem (Liberal Democrat - left),

Traditionaly center (bits of them derive from the wigs) probably left at the moment.


SNP (socialist?),


Scotish nationalist. Left. The scotish socialists are a seperate party if they are still around.


PC (Poltically Correct? - I know this is wrong),


Welsh nationalists.


UKIP (UK independent party - centrist?),


Hard right anti EU. Think the most liberal memebers of the US republican party.


Green (Tree Huggers) and BNP (The ones who forgot why you fought Germany in the 40's)

Pretty much.


And if I understand recent history correctly, Thatcher was a Tory, and there has not been a Tory government since she left, pretty much dominated by Labour.

After Thatcher left the tories managed to win one further election under John Major. Labour have been in power since 1997.


Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

Tories also supported the war so while the lib dems might pick up something I can't see it being a significant factor.

[Fiona]

The way I see it, Thatcher destroyed her party and that has kept them out of power. Fortunately for them Blair destroyed his party in much the same way. And that has left a great many people with nowhere to go. I have the option of the SNP, which is not ideal but it is an alternative; but if I lived in England I would be at a total loss.

What bothers me is that where no electable party represents enough of the people they tend to go for extremists: and while we are far from that yet it does seem that smaller parties are gaining some ground. It makes me uneasy

[garethdjb]

I do not think we have ever had a hung parliament but I do not know for sure. In 1964 the largest party had a majority of something like 3 and one or two died or something: so they had another election. At least I think that is what happened.



The first election in 1974 resulted in a hung parliament. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974) It only lasted 8 months though.

There's an online quiz thingy here (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/) which lets you know how you may wish to vote according to the policies of the main parties. And also lets you play spot the BNP policy. . . .

PC stands for 'Plaid Cymru', meaning 'party of Wales'.

[andyandy]

Also just curious, I remember noticing a lot of discontent with Blair over the Iraq war and a sense that he was too conciliatory to the US. The scene in Love, Actually where Grant's PM stands up to an aggressively cowboyish POTUS (Thornton) was not lost on us here. Has this carried over to Brown and is it an issue for Labour in the election.

Iraq was a (relatively) big issue in the 2004 elections - though it didn't stop Blair and New Labour getting re-elected....

I'd say foreign policies are about zero on a scale of importance for voters in this election....

I suppose opposition to the EU might get a few votes for UKIP, but beyond that? It's all domestic.

[Fiona]

Not so sure, andyandy: there was an "interview random voters on the street" on the radio today in Dartmouth. The biggest issues against labour seemed to be the Iraq war and illegal immigration.

Immigration is not an issue here: but many of my friends were labour party activists and most of them are no longer. They will not work for labour and some will not even vote for them because of that war. The situation may be different elsewhere, however, and I freely grant that the " cradle" support is firm here too. But it has made some difference and that effect has not been fully discounted. Bringing Blair in is a mistake IMO

[geni]

To translate the parties into US terms:

Labour-Ralph Nader could find a home here.
Tories-Outside the issue of healthcare (where he would be way too right wing) Obama could probably find a home here
Lib-dems. Errrrr I suppose some wierd fusion of the ACLU lite and the green party might be as close as you could get

SNP-there is no american equiverlent
PC (Plaid Cymru) Imagaine some kind of far left massachusetts independence movement.
UKIP-think the more secular and liberal parts of the republican party
Democratic Unionist Party- I'm not sure they even have an economic policy but socialy think southern baptists with an irish accent
Ulster Unionist Party-See the tories
Sinn Féin err cross Alaskan Independence Party with Ralph Nader might get you somewhere.
SDLP-there is no american equiverlent
Respect – The Unity Coalition- err think about the most left wing party that you can then quadrupal it. Or think George Galloway there's no practical difference.

[ddt]

He doesn't have to be an MP, ddt: there have been PM's who were in the house of lords. I do not think anything has changed in legal terms to prevent that: but it would not be done now for the climate has altered

Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom

Mandelson is a current exception. I'm no expert on this, but the Commons seems to resent it if a senior minister ( secretary of state or Cabinet rank) is in the Lords, leaving a junior minister ( minister of state) to answer for his department in the Commons.

Technically, the PM could be in the Lords. But that isn't a real possibility nowadays.
Thanks for reminding ministers can also be from the House of Lords. I knew that. :(

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

[Fiona]

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

No. You have to be a member of the house to have speaking rights, and even to be allowed on to the floor. There have been instances when a lord has been allowed to address the commons: according to a bbc article I found the last time it happened was in 1814.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/25/peter-mandelson-constitution

[geni]

Thanks for reminding ministers can also be from the House of Lords. I knew that. :(

But why is it unusual for a minister, especially the PM, to be from the Lords? Is a Lord/minister not allowed to defend his policies in the House of Commons? And vice versa, is minister from the Commons allowed to defend his policies in the House of Lords?

The two houses don't mix. I understand there was some unpleasantness in the mid 17 century.

Certianly a lord couldn't adress the commons without the commons agreeing to it and they would be unlikely to do so on a regular basis such as for half an hour every wednesday.

[ddt]

No. You have to be a member of the house to have speaking rights, and even to be allowed on to the floor. There have been instances when a lord has been allowed to address the commons: according to a bbc article I found the last time it happened was in 1814.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/25/peter-mandelson-constitution
Thanks. So when Wellington was PM in the 1830s, he never visited the Commons. :jaw-dropp Or did he pull the same trick as Douglas-Home?


The two houses don't mix. I understand there was some unpleasantness in the mid 17 century.
Ah, I never realized the stance of the Lords during that.


Certianly a lord couldn't adress the commons without the commons agreeing to it and they would be unlikely to do so on a regular basis such as for half an hour every wednesday.
Clear. And vice versa - does every Ministry have a Peer as a junior minister to go the House of Lords, or isn't there the need to visit the House of Lords as often as the Commons?

[Rolfe]

In fairness the Tory-Unionist links go way back.


Oh, the "unionist" bit is actually referring to Ireland, we know that. We reserve the right to get miffed about it anyway,

Inheritance tax issue probably helps with the middle classes with houses in south east england.


See my point about piling up more votes in the seats they already won.

Torries need to pick up about 100 seats labour lose majority with less than 20.


Exactly. The probabilities lie in the middle. Though having sat up all night on 9th/10th April 1992, much of it on the phone to a friend who is a Labour activist, I'm NEVER taking anything for granted.

Richard Taylor may have a reasonable chance of holding on in Wyre Forest. Can't see UKIP or and especialy the greens picking up any seats.


Probably not, but odd things happen sometimes.

The SNP were able to buy up enough votes to pass their budget but at westminister than kind of thing could get expensive fast.


Mmmm, expensive for whom? Obviously I'm not happy about the parts of the manifesto the SNP had to ditch, but arguably the result was a consensus somewhere in the general region of the popular will. It would be an interesting experiment, anyway,

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

Thanks. So when Wellington was PM in the 1830s, he never visited the Commons. :jaw-dropp Or did he pull the same trick as Douglas-Home?

No I do not think he ever sat in the commons: but that was not quite the same as itwould be now because the commons was not sovereign at that time. I was wrong that there was no legal change to prevent a PM sitting in the lords. Apparently that has been impossible since 1911: though ministers still can, as has been shown.


Clear. And vice versa - does every Ministry have a Peer as a junior minister to go the House of Lords, or isn't there the need to visit the House of Lords as often as the Commons?

There is a need to get legislation through both houses but as the lords no longer have a power of veto it is not necessary to have a peer attached to every ministry so far as I know: there are "working peers" appointed by each of the parties so that when they are in government they steer the bills, I believe. Again those more knowledgeable than I am will correct me if I am wrong on this

[cwalner]

To translate the parties into US terms:

Labour-Ralph Nader could find a home here.
Tories-Outside the issue of healthcare (where he would be way too right wing) Obama could probably find a home here
Lib-dems. Errrrr I suppose some wierd fusion of the ACLU lite and the green party might be as close as you could get

SNP-there is no american equiverlent
PC (Plaid Cymru) Imagaine some kind of far left massachusetts independence movement.
UKIP-think the more secular and liberal parts of the republican party
Democratic Unionist Party- I'm not sure they even have an economic policy but socialy think southern baptists with an irish accent
Ulster Unionist Party-See the tories
Sinn Féin err cross Alaskan Independence Party with Ralph Nader might get you somewhere.
SDLP-there is no american equiverlent
Respect – The Unity Coalition- err think about the most left wing party that you can then quadrupal it. Or think George Galloway there's no practical difference.

got it,

Funny how your far right (but not completely insane) party is seen as equivalent to the liberal end of our right wing party.

I also think the description of PC would better apply to Sinn Fein since they actually have a fund raising presence in Massachusetts (heavy Irish-American constituency like say the Kennedy family). This was a big issue in the states back when the IRA was active, because Sinn Fein was typically portrayed in the media here as a political front for the IRA (not sure if that is how they were viewed there though)

And while typically short lived and completely irrelevant, there have been some California independence parities in the past, some focused on the Bay Area, so that might apply to PC more.

And I guess the BNP is your version of the teabaggers?

[Francesca R]

My election avatar is a mix of red and blue (which makes purple), but substantially lightened (to a pale pink). And it's a coincidence.

[Undesired Walrus]

And I guess the BNP is your version of the teabaggers?

It isn't all that Conservative when it comes to its views on nationalising the banks, industry etc, but probably on immigration (Halt all immigration) and capital punishment (Fry up the peados).

It's more outrightly racist than the teabaggers, with its leader calling the gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps a 'complete lie'.

[Francesca R]

The way I see it, Thatcher destroyed her party and that has kept them out of power. Fortunately for them Blair destroyed his party in much the same way.That might be an argument for term limits?

[Fiona]

Sorry? I don't follow that

[Francesca R]

They both won three elections and went bad in the third term. There is a view that if there was a two term limit on a PM, leadership would be refreshed before it decayed to that point.

[Fiona]

I don't agree that either of them went bad in the third term: I think they were atrocious from day one but it took a long time for folk to notice ;)

More seriously: The PM is not president. The rot set in because they started to behave as if they were and a supine parliament let them. So for me such a change would necessitate a whole lot of other changes which I would need to see spelled out before I would contemplate that

[andyandy]

Not so sure, andyandy: there was an "interview random voters on the street" on the radio today in Dartmouth. The biggest issues against labour seemed to be the Iraq war and illegal immigration.

Immigration is not an issue here: but many of my friends were labour party activists and most of them are no longer. They will not work for labour and some will not even vote for them because of that war. The situation may be different elsewhere, however, and I freely grant that the " cradle" support is firm here too. But it has made some difference and that effect has not been fully discounted. Bringing Blair in is a mistake IMO

I'm surprised iraq's still playing as an issue....bringing blair back i suppose serves to remind people of how angry they were about it....like you say, probably a mistake.

i think immigration will play as an issue (though it'll be interesting to see how the parties dance around it without appearing racist...), but i was lumping that together with other domestic policies....

[Darat]

I don't agree that either of them went bad in the third term: I think they were atrocious from day one but it took a long time for folk to notice ;)

More seriously: The PM is not president. The rot set in because they started to behave as if they were and a supine parliament let them. So for me such a change would necessitate a whole lot of other changes which I would need to see spelled out before I would contemplate that

And the media help create this impression of a President - because for them it is simpler to report "Brown did this" and so so on. It is one of the reasons I am against the televised debates between the PM & the Tory and liberal party leaders.

[Fiona]

Agreed, Darat

[commandlinegamer]

The two houses don't mix. I understand there was some unpleasantness in the mid 17 century.

Indeed, some people were very cut up about that.

[Undesired Walrus]

And the media help create this impression of a President - because for them it is simpler to report "Brown did this" and so so on. It is one of the reasons I am against the televised debates between the PM & the Tory and liberal party leaders.

There is no doubt that hearing from the leaders on the issues is important. Yes, you may vote for your local candidate, but the UK Parliamentary system has an incredibly strong whip system. Chances are that your local candidate will be voting with the Government most of the time.

Plus, what the leadership of the governing party puts before parliament are going to be the big issues on what your local candidate will be voting on. The ideology of the Government is going to be what gives your MP the chance to vote on issues that matter to you. Private members bills hardly ever become law, and most of the time they function in order to draw attention to Government bills.

It's worth taking all the information on before casting your vote: your candidates, their leader, their shadow cabinet.

[Worm]

Our constituency is pretty solidly Lib Dem (42% in 2005).

That may change this time, though I'm not sure the Tories can realistically expect a 15% swing. What would be very interesting if the Tories did indeed win is that their candidate is our current MSP, and it would bring back the whole debate (locally) of whether you can realistically be an MP and an MSP

Not sure how many MSPs are in that situation - though Alex Salmond is one, which gives that side of the argument weight :)

[andyandy]

It's worth taking all the information on before casting your vote: your candidates, their leader, their shadow cabinet.

This is an interesting issue - the Tories are still almost solely carried by Cameron. Osbourne's a bit of a light-weight. Then who else is there? I love politics but when it comes to naming Cameron's front bench? There's the old dogs of Hague and Clarke. And? Theresa May? I think....

and that's it.

I think this represents a pretty big failure on behalf of the tories - that they've not got many names into the public consciousness. The election on a national level is just about Cameron - the second most important person nationaly is probably Mrs Cameron.

[geni]

got it,

Funny how your far right (but not completely insane) party is seen as equivalent to the liberal end of our right wing party.

Well parties are more national so you can't really be very right win in some areas and more moderate in the swing seats. You've also got the issue of the NHS which limits the amount of right wing drift you can have while remaining remotely viable.


I also think the description of PC would better apply to Sinn Fein since they actually have a fund raising presence in Massachusetts (heavy Irish-American constituency like say the Kennedy family).

No. Sinn Fein might actualy get NI to join Ireland one day. It seems unlikely that PC will ever get welsh independence.


This was a big issue in the states back when the IRA was active, because Sinn Fein was typically portrayed in the media here as a political front for the IRA (not sure if that is how they were viewed there though)

They were a front for the IRA. Fortunately the more moderate memebers were able to use it to get enough leverage over the IRA to get most of it to stop with the violence.


And while typically short lived and completely irrelevant, there have been some California independence parities in the past, some focused on the Bay Area, so that might apply to PC more.

PC have been around for a while.


And I guess the BNP is your version of the teabaggers?

English Democrats Party (pretty minor party no MPs a few local councillors) would be closer to the teabaggers. BNP derive from the old style far right with some very slick marketing.

[cwalner]

Another question for you Brits. I have seen the phrase 'shadow cabinet' here and on other threads. From context it appears to be ministerial cabinet set up by the opposition, rather than the government. Is this correct? What other nuances am I missing as well?

[Francesca R]

Yes except they're obviously not ministers, but also-rans. For the third largest party they're called "The [Lib Dem's] Treasury Spokesperson" etc

[cwalner]

Yes except they're obviously not ministers, but also-rans. For the third largest party they're called "The [Lib Dem's] Treasury Spokesperson" etc

Do they have any official power/duties or are they appointed simply to be spokespersons on the relevent political topics for the party in question?

[Francesca R]

They get to bully other MPs in their party and take their lunch money and stuff, due to being more important and getting on telly a bit more.

[Worm]

They are assumed to be who would get the role in the actual cabinet should that party win power, but it's by no means a guarantee.

[uk_dave]

Do they have any official power/duties or are they appointed simply to be spokespersons on the relevent political topics for the party in question?

They shadow the government minister for whichever department, so if the chancellor makes a statement or policy decision, the shadow chancellor is usually the person the media will go to for the alternative viewpoint. Similarly with the other government departments.

In my opinion this is one of the reasons why we can have an official election campaign of such short duration: the public already know who the main players are. In the US (it seems) as if a politician who may not have a very large nationwide profile can be selected to run for president and so has to spend much longer getting the voters to 'know him/her' (though not in the biblical sense....or possibly....ermm...anyway..) and also, apart from VP you don't really know who he is going to appoint as major players in his cabinet (though of course in UK election those players have to win their constituency elections to even be in with a chance of going to head the dept they have shadowed, and the new PM will probably shake up the posts in any case just to keep the new cabinet on their toes) so you can't really base your decision on what the government as a whole may look like.

[cwalner]

They get to bully other MPs in their party and take their lunch money and stuff, due to being more important and getting on telly a bit more.

hehe,

reminds me of what a US expat that lived in England for some time once said about one of your government's more peculiar (at least to us) practices.

He described how once a week, the PM had to go to Parlaiment to be insulted.

(This was in the context of the interruption of Obama's first State of the Union address, where a Republican interrupted and called him a liar)

[cwalner]

They shadow the government minister for whichever department, so if the chancellor makes a statement or policy decision, the shadow chancellor is usually the person the media will go to for the alternative viewpoint. Similarly with the other government departments.

In my opinion this is one of the reasons why we can have an official election campaign of such short duration: the public already know who the main players are. In the US (it seems) as if a politician who may not have a very large nationwide profile can be selected to run for president and so has to spend much longer getting the voters to 'know him/her' (though not in the biblical sense....or possibly....ermm...anyway..) and also, apart from VP you don't really know who he is going to appoint as major players in his cabinet (though of course in UK election those players have to win their constituency elections to even be in with a chance of going to head the dept they have shadowed, and the new PM will probably shake up the posts in any case just to keep the new cabinet on their toes) so you can't really base your decision on what the government as a whole may look like.

Thanks, so while primarily media spokespersons for the opposition, they do serve a larger unofficial purpose as well.

[zooterkin]

I'm surprised iraq's still playing as an issue....bringing blair back i suppose serves to remind people of how angry they were about it....like you say, probably a mistake.



I think that while there are still British soldiers dying there, and in Afghanistan, it's still going to be an issue, though probably not a decisive one since the Tories would almost certainly have done Bush's bidding too.

[Debaser]

Thanks, so while primarily media spokespersons for the opposition, they do serve a larger unofficial purpose as well.

I was under the impression that, in recent history, the Shadow Chancellor at least receives a sort of briefing from the Treasury's civil servants during this pre-election period, so that when he finally opens the safe in Number 11 and finds nothing but a sixpence covered in stale Christmas Pudding, it's not too much of a shock. I can't remember if this courtesy also extends to the other Big Two, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Darat]

Do they have any official power/duties or are they appointed simply to be spokespersons on the relevent political topics for the party in question?

There is an official opposition in the Westminster parliament, and it even has a very UK style title "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". The position of the "Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" gets paid a state salary, like a cabinet minister would, gets a chauffeur driven car and most of the same perks as a member of the actual cabinet. And if I remember correctly they will be briefed by civil servants from time to time.

[andyandy]

He described how once a week, the PM had to go to Parlaiment to be insulted.

(This was in the context of the interruption of Obama's first State of the Union address, where a Republican interrupted and called him a liar)

you should see how they bully Nick Clegg Over - the leader of the Lib Dems - they all start to have a chat when he tries to speak.....

our country is run by children.....:)

[cwalner]

The position of the "Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" ....
This is a great example of the many quirks in British Government that soooo fascinates me.

The few times I have caught coverage of Parlaiment is also a treat. I love the way UK politicians can be so full of proper ettiquette while insulting somebody.

'The esteemed and honorable member from Lower Tadfield clearly would have difficulties locating his posterior if using both hands and utilizing a map'

[Debaser]

you should see how they bully Nick Clegg Over - the leader of the Lib Dems - they all start to have a chat when he tries to speak.....

our country is run by children.....:)

You mean, those few that are actually left in the chamber after the traditional charge to the bar once the 'proper' PMQs is over.

[uk_dave]

you should see how they bully Nick Clegg Over - the leader of the Lib Dems - they all start to have a chat when he tries to speak.....

our country is run by children.....:)

There was a snippet on Radio4 a few weeks back about how the microphones in the chamber pick up....certain sounds.

The example given was of Diane Abbott* making slurping/sucking noises** while her parliamentary colleague Keith Vaz waxed obsequiesly about a new government minister.
It was v. funny.

*I think
** Arse kissing

[Duffy Moon]

From today's Times:

"Samantha Cameron put Sarah Brown on the spot yesterday by campaigning solo for the first time in two of the Tories’ target seats.
The wife of the Conservative leader adopted a woman-of-the-people look in skinny black jeans and Converse trainers as she toured a charity project for the homeless in Leeds North East and listened to villagers’ concerns in the Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg & Goole.

Mrs Cameron, 38 and pregnant, seemed “very normal and down-to-earth”, said Andrew Percy, the Tory candidate for Brigg. Charity workers expressed admiration for her empathy and “the depth of her understanding of social issues”.

Her attempts at classlessness were slightly undermined, however, when she stopped for lunch with her father, Sir Reginald Sheffield, at his Thealby Hall estate. Sir Reginald, the hunting, shooting and fishing eighth baronet, owns 3,000 acres of Lincolnshire, is a descendant of Charles II and traces his family back to a 13th century Knight Templar"

[Architect]

I was under the impression that, in recent history, the Shadow Chancellor at least receives a sort of briefing from the Treasury's civil servants during this pre-election period, so that when he finally opens the safe in Number 11 and finds nothing but a sixpence covered in stale Christmas Pudding, it's not too much of a shock. I can't remember if this courtesy also extends to the other Big Two, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The principal opposition party (or in the case of Scotland, parties) have access to Civil Servants in order to brief/advise on some of the key policies they are bringing forward as part of their election campaign. My understanding is that this is to prevent them completely bolloxing up and making complete tits of themselves in their first week in office.

[Undesired Walrus]

How are the Tories justifying their proposal to radically raise the Inheritance tax threshold?

It seems that a party that complains consistently about unemployed people sitting around getting money for doing nothing should support a large inheritance tax.

Does it serve any purpose other than making people stinking rich?

[Francesca R]

Inheritance tax tends to be very unpopular with most people. It is also a relatively easy tax to avoid (shame death isn't). If it wasn't such an emotive issue with the population, people may realise that it is one of the most efficient taxes out there (but still--easy to avoid)

[Undesired Walrus]

As I understand it, the threshold is about to go up to £350,000. Perhaps the Tories could get away with raising the ceiling to -say- £700,000, but they are raising it all the way to millionares.

The hypocrites, to complain about the gap between rich and poor and the deficit while wasting 1billion on a tax break for those who happen to have rich relatives. And as everyone knows, working for your grandparents/aunties love is the easiest work you will have to do.

[Darat]

Read this in today's Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-if-youre-looking-for-class-war-just-read-camerons-policies-1939666.html

...snip...

He will give a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain – with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife's). Then he promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another £2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent. Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another £3.2bn to the same 1 per cent. Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor. To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.

...snip...

[Francesca R]

Any sources for it in the Tories' stuff? I haven't looked but don't recall a promise to remove the 50% rate (probably an aspiration, but then it might well be Labour's aspiration too . . . if they'd always wanted to tax the rich at 50% they would have done it before now)

[cwalner]

This discussion on the Inheritence Tax made me curious. Does it currently even apply at all to the Queen and her heirs, or are they exempt?.

ETA
Also what is the argument that the Tories use to oppose it. In the US the most common argument against it is that it is a double tax, in that the wealth was taxed as income as it was earned already, then taxed again when the person died and passed it on to his/her heirs.

I would expect such an argument to gain even less traction in the UK than it does in the US because you have substantially more institutionalized wealth having evolved into capitalism from feudalism, whereas the US was not founded until after the rise of capitalism in the west.

[Damien Evans]

Monster Raving Loony Party still around?

[richardm]

This discussion on the Inheritence Tax made me curious. Does it currently even apply at all to the Queen and her heirs, or are they exempt?.

AFAIK the Queen is currently exempt; until recently she didn't pay income tax either, so I don't know whether there might be plans to change it (presumably not). There was certainly a lot of hoo-ha when her mother died, because the Queen didn't pay tax on her thumping great inheritance, but the members of staff who were given various bequests would have had to. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-mother-leaves-her-estate-to-the-queen-651501.html) Although it may have been an argument over a matter of principle, because it seems doubtful to me that many of them would receive bequests in excess of the £250000 threshold.


Also what is the argument that the Tories use to oppose it. In the US the most common argument against it is that it is a double tax, in that the wealth was taxed as income as it was earned already, then taxed again when the person died and passed it on to his/her heirs.
Yeah, I think that's about it.


Edit:
Monster Raving Loony Party still around?

Indeed they are; although it's worth noting that Screaming Lord Sutch's party is the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and not to be confused with any johnny-come-lately loonies.

[Francesca R]

This discussion on the Inheritence Tax made me curious. Does it currently even apply at all to the Queen and her heirs, or are they exempt?.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSG-00819.doc

The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes and she has paid local rates (Council Tax) on a voluntary basis. In 1992, however, The Queen offered to pay income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis. As from 1993, her personal income has been taxable as for any taxpayer and the Privy Purse is fully taxable, subject to a deduction for official expenditure. The Civil List and the Grants-in-aid are not remuneration for The Queen and are thus disregarded for tax.

Although The Queen's estate will be subject to Inheritance Tax, bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. This is because constitutional impartiality requires an appropriate degree of financial independence for the Sovereign and because the Sovereign is unable to generate significant new wealth through earnings or business activities. Also, the Sovereign cannot retire and so cannot mitigate Inheritance Tax by passing on assets at an early stage to his or her successor.

[Lothian]

I was under the impression that, in recent history, the Shadow Chancellor at least receives a sort of briefing from the Treasury's civil servants during this pre-election period, so that when he finally opens the safe in Number 11 and finds nothing but a sixpence covered in stale Christmas Pudding, it's not too much of a shock. I can't remember if this courtesy also extends to the other Big Two, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The principal opposition party (or in the case of Scotland, parties) have access to Civil Servants in order to brief/advise on some of the key policies they are bringing forward as part of their election campaign. My understanding is that this is to prevent them completely bolloxing up and making complete tits of themselves in their first week in office.

I don't think Civil servants provide advice or info to the Tories. I think it is the other way round. The Tories have been in the various departments outlining their plans so that they can be implemented fairly quickly should they gain power.

I would be surprised, for example, if there is not currently a team of civil servants taking an unusually keen interest in the inheritance legislation so that there is a complete report detailing the options available ready to be placed on a ministers desk on 7th April, should the Tories gain power.

[Undesired Walrus]

Monster Raving Loony Party still around?

Yep. Still campaigning for a 99p coin and a three-inch high wall around Britain to trip up foriegn invaders.

I believe their current leader is a cat.

[cwalner]

Yep. Still campaigning for a 99p coin and a three-inch high wall around Britain to trip up foriegn invaders.

I believe their current leader is a cat.

Is this a serious political party in the UK?

I believe that they are actually registered as a party, but are they serious, or is this just some form of elaborate, extended practical joke?

[Debaser]

I would expect such an argument to gain even less traction in the UK than it does in the US because you have substantially more institutionalized wealth having evolved into capitalism from feudalism, whereas the US was not founded until after the rise of capitalism in the west.

Just to slightly derail this thread, but give you an insight into that institutionalised wealth and feudalism, there was a drama on TV several months ago re the Viking and Norman invasions of 1066. It ended with a shocking caption stating that something like 80% (or possibly 90%) of land in Britain was still owned by direct descendants of those Norman invaders.

[Undesired Walrus]

They are a registered political party, but they are probably more irreverent than mentally ill. They usually get about 300 votes in a constituency election.

[Giz]

Just to slightly derail this thread, but give you an insight into that institutionalised wealth and feudalism, there was a drama on TV several months ago re the Viking and Norman invasions of 1066. It ended with a shocking caption stating that something like 80% (or possibly 90%) of land in Britain was still owned by direct descendants of those Norman invaders.

Not that it isn't a shocking headline, but is that perhaps due to there having been so much intermarriage over the course of a thousand years that almost everyone (well 80-90% anyway) has a Norman ancestor in their family tree?

For example:

(from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/2002/05/olson.htm ):

Humphrys began to notice something odd. Whenever a reliable family tree was available, almost anyone of European ancestry turned out to be descended from English royalty—even such unlikely people as Hermann Göring and Daniel Boone. Humphrys began to think that such descent was the rule rather than the exception in the Western world, even if relatively few people had the documents to demonstrate it.
…
Much of Humphrys's genealogical research now appears on his Web page Royal Descents of Famous People. Sitting in his office, I asked him to show me how it works. He clicked on the name Walt Disney. Up popped a genealogy done by Brigitte Gastel Lloyd (Humphrys links to the work of others whenever possible) showing the twenty-two generations separating Disney from Edward I. Humphrys pointed at the screen. "Here we have a sir, so this woman is the daughter of a knight. Maybe this woman will marry nobility, but there's a limited pool of nobility, so eventually someone here is going to marry someone who's just wealthy. Then one of their children could marry someone who doesn't have that much money. In ten generations you can easily get from princess to peasant."



So perhaps it should be nearer 100%! (And John Prescott may be the scion of Royalty!)

[Francesca R]

Also what is the argument that the Tories use to oppose it. In the US the most common argument against it is that it is a double tax, in that the wealth was taxed as income as it was earned already, then taxed again when the person died and passed it on to his/her heirs.In my experience the most common refrain is something like people "work hard all their lives to build up savings to leave to their children, and the bloody government want to just grab it".

Not so much that the money has already been taxed (the same applies to council tax and VAT) but that it's simply immoral. The sense of injustice lessens when it's a millionaire stranger's estate of course. Similarly the situation with elderly social care (which has never been run as a universal state-funded system like the NHS) is overwhelmingly regarded as morally disgusting since it requires the elderly to use up their savings and potentially sell their home to pay for their own care if they need it in their final years. (All political parties say they want to change this yet none have. Labour got close just recently but avoided it for the last 13 years)

IMO the public becomes strikingly libertarian (if you can call it that) in its views of the assets of the elderly. In many ways this is irrational (although not in the case of the increasingly large fraction of the electorate who are elderly of course)

[Debaser]

Not that it isn't a shocking headline, but is that perhaps due to there having been so much intermarriage over the course of a thousand years that almost everyone (well 80-90% anyway) has a Norman ancestor in their family tree?


Perhaps.

189,000 families own two-thirds of the UK’s 60 million acres, of which nearly three-quarters is owned by the top 40,000. The biggest individual landowner turned out to be the Duke of Buccleuch with 277,000 acres, and the wealthiest was the Duke of Westminster with 140,000 acres...Land owned and controlled by Britain’s Royal Family, comprising the Crown Estates, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and private land, amounted to some 677,000 acres. Meanwhile, Britain’s 16.8 million homeowners accounted for barely 4 per cent of the land, about the same as that owned by the Forestry Commission, the top institutional landowner.

www.labourland.org/downloads/papers/WhoOwnsPaper.pdf

[Reginald]

On the subject of minor parties (many of which are hilarious) always check out the big politicians declaration (and by elections) due to the higher chance of TV coverage.

The returning officer has to read the names, which is highly amusing and the TV channel used to voice over the party. Well worth staying up for.

The Monty Python Election Night Special (on you tube I believe) was probably what encouraged me to enjoy such events.

Lord Buckethead of the gremloids was always about some place, the previously mentioned and much missed Lord Sutch, Give the royal billions to schools, Elvisly Yours Elvis Presley Party, Acne Party, "Democratic Monarchist, Public Safety, White Resident" (51 votes btw) and Tory.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And as for the New Tories, starting off by pledging to reverse the only tax increase that labour have announced

Only tax rise? I wish that were true.

Increased National Insurance (to pretend they were not breaking a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax rates)
New 50% rate
New 60% rate
Removal of tax relief on pension contributions for high earners.
Increased Stamp Duty Land Tax rates.

There have been a great many tax increases, problem is that public spending has risen even faster. Result is a huge deficit.

[zooterkin]

The first casualty of the election - Stuart MacLennan, the Labour candidate for Moray, has been deselected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8610934.stm) following some ill-advised comments on Twitter.

[andyandy]

The first casualty of the election - Stuart MacLennan, the Labour candidate for Moray, has been deselected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8610934.stm) following some ill-advised comments on Twitter.

I think this is quite interesting as a future issue - most teenagers now put all manner of personal information on the web - fast forward 10-20 years when they want to become politicians or enter the public eye? There's going to be a never ending stream of resignations for youthful indiscretions....

the only people suitable for politicians will be the Willy Hauge types who decide they want to go into politics whilst still in secondary school....and take suitable care of their online entries as a result....

Just checked the Wail to see what other "Deeply Offensive" tweets he'd made....the only one that i'd say was borderline was the fair-trade reference to slaves....maybe a joke but in bad taste. The rest? "young man uses swear words shock!" Oh well, guess he regrets it all now....

In a series of extraordinary rants, he called David Cameron and Commons Speaker John Bercow 'tw*ts', and Labour MP Diane Abbott a '******* idiot'.

Campaigning: Stuart MacLennan with Sarah Brown last year
He said of X Factor contestants Jedward: 'Oh for ****'s sake not that pair of odious little s***s.'
He also referred to the elderly as 'coffin dodgers' and 'ugly old boots', boasted of drinking heavily and called fellow train commuters 'chavs'.
The Scot even sneered about his country's whisky industry, which employs thousands in what might have been his constituency.
'Johnnie Walker Red Label is so awful they can't sell it in Scotland,' he said.
His Twitter account is followed by Downing Street, the Prime Minister's wife Sarah Brown and Cabinet ministers Ed Balls, Ben Bradshaw and John Denham - but astonishingly, none saw fit to tell him his remarks were inappropriate.
Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy even defended Mr MacLennan, who was fighting the marginal Scottish constituency of Moray, against calls for him to be sacked, insisting it was simply a 'mistake'.
But after Labour tried to defuse the outrage by ditching the Edinburgh University graduate, Mr Murphy was forced to condemn him.
Opposition politicians described the messages - which are known as 'tweets' - as 'repugnant and insulting' and suggested they were in character with Labour's ' desperate and dirty campaign'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264940/Labour-ditches-Stuart-MacLennan-foul-mouthed-rants-Twitter.html#ixzz0kdnTGbqd

If I say Cameron is a tw*t does that mean my political career is over too? ;)

[Fiona]

@ Jaggy Bunnet
Is that really the way this works out?

I was reading this:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf

So far as I can understand it, public spending is expressed as a percentage of national income. In 2008/9 the UK was 10th out of 28 countries which the OECD has figures for: and 3rd of the G7.

Looking at the table, many of the countries which have a higher proportion of public spending are those countries which have well developed public services. It seems to me that there is some question as to why this is a bad thing and I have not seen this explained.

It is stated in that paper that the percentage of public spending is heavily affected by recession because income falls and social security payments rise: that is what one would expect. Aside from that, there is a political element also: so we see that in the early 80's recession many countries saw an increase in the percent of public spending. When that recession ended some of those same countries maintained the percentage: but the uk chose to let it fall. There was again a recession in the 90's and again percentages rose: in that case some of those other countries chose to let the rate fall back after the recession ended: and the uk chose instead to do what those countries did in the 80's. I may be wrong, but the reason for the different decision in those two cases seems to me to be related to the fact that in the 80's the tories were in power: and in the late 90's it was labour. There is not much difference between the parties nowadays but this does seem to be one clear distinction.

So far I am not seeing that the increase in pubic spending in the UK is out of line with other nations, long term: and I am not seeing why it is a bad thing, either. The projection is that the UK will see the biggest increase of all the nations studied between 2007 and 2010: but the actual ratio is certainly not higher than that of many other nations: the OECD table shows that in 2008 5 nations were spending 50% or more in the public sector and the projection for the UK seems to be that it will peak at 48% in 2010/11.

I do not argue that this is a good thing, in itself: clearly it depends what you are spending the money on. The last time we saw those levels was 1982/3 and it seems to me that there was both a global and a domestic (political) component at that time. In particular social security spending was very high then because the government had decided quite deliberately to "restructure" the economy and this included very high unemployment as a means to improvement. It does not really matter if you agree with that policy or not: it it still the case that this level of public spending was sustained in the UK for those years: and is sustained in other countries.

I keep hearing that it is not sustainable, however. I just dont understand why not and this article at least does not tie its conclusion to the data in a way that helps me.

[Reginald]

It would seem the Conservatives are now offering £150 a year for couples to get/stay married.

I suspect this is going to be seen as rather a let down, given the amount of trumpeting that Cameron has been doing about it over the last month or two.

Even the Times don't like it much http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7093802.ece

£3 a week! If you are going to try your hand at social engineering (something I'm sure was a criticism levelled at labour by the conservatives in the past) at least make the carrot on the end of the stick at least the value of a real carrot.

Not to mention another cost from the party who not so long ago could focus on nothing else but deficit reduction.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

@ Jaggy Bunnet
Is that really the way this works out?

Depends what terms you are using. Typically deficit refers to the difference between govt revenues and spending.

On that basis the UK deficit for 2009 was very similar to that of Greece. And the only country with a higher deficit was Iceland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7269629/Britains-deficit-third-worst-in-the-world-table.html

Public sector net borrowing (which is usually expressed as a percentage of GDP) was 60.3% at the end of Feb 2010.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

On the government's own figures (which include some pretty optimistic looking growth figures) it will rise to 75% by the end of the next parliament.

[Lothian]

It would seem the Conservatives are now offering £150 a year for couples to get/stay married.

I suspect this is going to be seen as rather a let down, given the amount of trumpeting that Cameron has been doing about it over the last month or two.

Even the Times don't like it much http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7093802.ece

£3 a week! If you are going to try your hand at social engineering (something I'm sure was a criticism levelled at labour by the conservatives in the past) at least make the carrot on the end of the stick at least the value of a real carrot.

Not to mention another cost from the party who not so long ago could focus on nothing else but deficit reduction.It is not social engineering (according to a Tory spokesmanon R4 this morning) It is about helping those low income couples where there is only one wage earner. Apparently a couple with one earner earning £20,000 a week are taxed higher than a couple where both earn £10,000.

This to me raises a couple of key questions.

Why not help unmarried couples where one earns £20,000 and the other does not work?

If the concern (as expressed in the interview) is helping low income couples and the best measure the Tories can come up with is this one it suggests they don't really understand the tax system they are taking over. There are far better and fairer ways to give tax breaks to low income couples.

Unless this is about social engineering after all.

[Fiona]

Ok. Why does it matter? I am not being facetious, I really don't know.

In the first source you have provided the complaint is that they ran a deficit in boom years: I accept that. I do not understand why that is a problem. The ratio of public spending to total income is a political decision and our ratio is not that high in the scheme of things. The relationship with public inome is different. Either those other countries ran a deficit too: or the income was higher.

If the income was higher that must come from tax, primarily. We can have a higher tax rate or we can have more money to tax (to put it very crudely). But it cannot be the latter if I understand this correctly: because these are ratios. So am I right in thinking it is because those countries accept higher tax?

If so the antipathy to tax may be what makes the difference: perhaps those countries with a higher public spending ratio do not do so on a deficit because tax is higher: and if that is the case there is no compelling argument for a cut in public spending. Yet we are told that is inevitable. I don't see why except as a matter of political decision.

ETA: I also don't understand what we actually owe as a percentage of national income: many people owe 3 times their income just to put a roof over their heads and this is seen as perfectly fine: if we actually owe 60% of our income we have a long way to go before that should be a problem. Certainly it is mounting at present as it would in a recession: but it looks to me as if we can take it a lot further before it should even make us uneasy. And we have been in surplus relatively recently: is there any reason to worry that will never happen again ?

[Francesca R]

So far as I can understand it, public spending is expressed as a percentage of national income. In 2008/9 the UK was 10th out of 28 countries which the OECD has figures for: and 3rd of the G7.The IFS uses OECD data which is posted here (http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html). In 2008, general government outlays were 47.5% of GDP but the number increases to 53.4% in 2010. As you say, the size of this is influenced by the recession. You are right to point out that there are many other countries in Europe where public spending is that high; in the UK typically it has not been, and neither have the tax rates required to pay for it (been).

What matters more is the deficit (revenue minus spending). That is as bad in the UK as it is in Greece, and will--on the projections of all political parties--be larger than Greece for the next several years (data downloadable from same OECD link). Had the UK joined the euro (which was a Blairite dream back before 2005, and still is a Lib Dem objective) then Britain would be facing the level of austerity currently being self-imposed in Ireland and Greece, and required by supranational lenders (read: IMF) in Latvia and Iceland. In any case Britain unavoidably will require massive fiscal retrenchment well beyond what has been signalled to date. Thanks to its independent currency/monetary policy it may have the "relative luxury" of spreading the pain out over a longer period.

(For some colour on what Ireland is doing, I can recommend this post by Stephanie Flanders (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/04/irish_lessons_for_the_uk.html) [BBC]. Ireland is avoiding a sovereign debt crisis thanks to these extremely harsh measures. Greece is teetering on the brink of one. You may know about the fate that has befallen the other two--they have both seen national income fall by more than a quarter in two years.)

Looking at the table, many of the countries which have a higher proportion of public spending are those countries which have well developed public services.Comments on whether the UK public services are "good" inevitably call forth political preferences. Some people dislike the government providing services regardless of how well they do it. Others think the state should perform a large number of functions to the exclusion of private markets but struggle to see them done without large amounts of waste.

I keep hearing that it is not sustainable, however. I just dont understand why not and this article at least does not tie its conclusion to the data in a way that helps me.Whatever, fiscal sustainability is ultimately determined by the path of total spending and a government's ability to generate revenue. The latter is exhaustible, and in any case the UK government has not raised revenue in line with spending since 2001 (hence the deficit--and in the case of persistent deficits, a government is at the mercy of international bond markets whether it likes it or not and whether it is right, left or centre).

In fact, running budget deficits immediately before the recession--that is, after 15 years of economic expansion--now looks like a hugely irresponsible act of deception by Gordon Brown. Had taxes risen in line with spending since 2001, it is arguably more likely that the spending plans would have had to be kept in check much earlier than now.

(see this chart (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/127464bc037644c89a.jpg) out of The Economist)

The other false idea that most politicians put about is the idea that Britain's fiscal policy can be re-railed without cutting spending and by only imposing taxes on the top 2% of the population. I have seen no serious analysis that gives that idea any credence.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In the first source you have provided the complaint is that they ran a deficit in boom years: I accept that. I do not understand why that is a problem.

It's a problem if the people that you need to keep lending you money see it as a problem. Because either they require you to pay a higher price, or they stop lending to you.

ETA: I also don't understand what we actually owe as a percentage of national income: many people owe 3 times their income just to put a roof over their heads and this is seen as perfectly fine: if we actually owe 60% of our income we have a long way to go before that should be a problem.

Double counting is the problem. National income is made up of the income of all the people and businesses in the country. They need to use that income to pay their own debts, so if they have debts of three times their income, they are already using their cash to pay those debts. If the government also owes large amounts they need to raise taxes on those same incomes to pay their debts. The same income has to pay both debts, so it isn't a matter of comparing the size of each.

[zooterkin]

Ok. Why does it matter? I am not being facetious, I really don't know.

In the first source you have provided the complaint is that they ran a deficit in boom years: I accept that. I do not understand why that is a problem.

My understanding is that the deficit is the increase in overall debt (the National Debt) in one year. If you're increasing the overall debt in good years, rather than attempting to pay it off, then surely things are going to reach a point when the debt is practically unpayable? At the moment, a significant part of the deficit is simply the interest payments on existing debt.

[Francesca R]

If so the antipathy to tax may be what makes the difference: perhaps those countries with a higher public spending ratio do not do so on a deficit because tax is higher: and if that is the case there is no compelling argument for a cut in public spending.You have it correct, but that assuredly is a compelling argument to cut spending in the UK. How may parties do you know getting elected on a ticket of: "We'll spend money we need, tot it all up and send you a tax bill later"?

Yet we are told that is inevitable. I don't see why except as a matter of political decision.But raising taxes is not as simple as passing a commons vote. Political decisions like that end up being society's decisions. (And you know this, so I am not sure what you meant)

many people owe 3 times their income just to put a roof over their heads and this is seen as perfectly fine:True but most people don't owe this, other than when they are relatively young and the "present value" of the future product of their own labour is still very high. It is hard to get a mortgage like that when you're over 50.

if we actually owe 60% of our income we have a long way to go before that should be a problem. Certainly it is mounting at present as it would in a recession: but it looks to me as if we can take it a lot further before it should even make us uneasy.There isn't a magic number. Some countries have managed OK for more than a decade with public debt ratios above 100%. But the bottom line is that it depends on your (country's) creditworthiness with lenders, not how much it bothers you (as a nation).

And we have been in surplus relatively recently: is there any reason to worry that will never happen again ?The fraction of years in which UK governments have run primary surpluses (= a surplus before interest payments on sovereign debt outstanding) is pretty small. Even under the conservative administration these were largely flattered by the proceeds from selling state assets like BT, BA, British Gas, (RailTrack) etc. These are not repeatable, even if one regards them as economically good decisions in the first place (and permit me to guess you do not). The Labour admin had a couple of years of surpluses at the start of the first Blair term, only because their incoming manifesto promised to stick--for three years--to prior Tory spending plans from the 1997, 6 and earlier budgets. (Without this promise, they presumably calculated that they would be less likely to win office). Pretty much as soon as that expired, and ever since, Labour has only borrowed more each year.

It is prudentTM to run surpluses and repay debt when national income is growing strongly. After 2000, Gordon Brown never did that.

[andyandy]

just out of interest, who are people on this thread planning to vote for?

I reckon I could guess most people's affiliations....:D

I'm voting Green. Yes it's a wasted vote. Yes some of their policies are a bit dumb. But they are the only left wing party we have amongst all the right-wingers (UKIP/BNP) and neo-liberals (lab/con/lib). I couldn't possibly stomach voting labour after their abject economic and social failures. I can't stomach voting for Call Me Dave's New Tories - which will be exactly the same rich boy's network of small state privatisers as always. And lib-dems? What is their purpose? A third party neo-liberal alternative if you don't like neo-liberalism.....So, Greens it is! :)

what about you lot?

[Darat]

Seriously I'll have to see what the non-Tory candidates in my area say. I do know I won't be voting for my current MP (who will be re-elected) because 1) I think the Tory party as a whole are still a group of horrible people, 2) public statements he has made in his shadow cabinet position and 3) (and this is the most important one for me) since the last election I've met him and had some correspondence with him and he holds too many views that I simply do not agree with and therefore he cannot represent me in any meaningful manner.

[Darat]

Remember our tax rates compared to most of the other big economies in the EU tend to be less, from corporate tax to income tax to VAT. So perhaps the answer is simply to increase our taxes to say the level of France or Germany, countries that apparently the Tories think have better handled the financial crisis and subsequent recession than the UK.

[andyandy]

Remember our tax rates compared to most of the other big economies in the EU tend to be less, from corporate tax to income tax to VAT. So perhaps the answer is simply to increase our taxes to say the level of France or Germany, countries that apparently the Tories think have better handled the financial crisis and subsequent recession than the UK.

but these are job-killing taxes! Do you want to kill jobs? Do you?! :D

i agree - basically we need to raise taxes across the board, VAT, income tax, NI - regardless of how loud super-rich business men squeal. We need to cut public spending - but not in the disingenous way it's being done now - we can't pretend that everything's going to be efficiancy savings and natural wastage....How about we lop £20 billion off the military budget? Let's be radical about this, if billions have to be saved I'd rather they were saved on bombs and bullets rather than on any other public service.

We should of course have fully nationalised most of the UK banking sector - and taken significant stakes in the ones that we didn't. Instead we've taken all the risk, pumped billions into the financial system and then allowed billions of private sector profit to be accrued as a result. Yes shareholders would have suffered. Yes pension funds may have been hit. Yes global financial markets wouldn't have liked it. But, i think it would have been a better alternative than what we've ended up with - which at the end of the day will be the poorest people in society taking the biggest hit....

Goodness. Maybe I should vote communist :D

[Professor Yaffle]

Yet again, I have no idea - other than that it won't be Tory, BNP or UKIP.

ETA: I came out 100% Green party on that policy quiz thingy earlier in the thread.

[andyandy]

Yet again, I have no idea - other than that it won't be Tory, BNP or UKIP.

ETA: I came out 100% Green party on that policy quiz thingy earlier in the thread.

where's the quiz? I couldn't find it....

[Professor Yaffle]

where's the quiz? I couldn't find it....

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Click on the green banner at the top right hand corner. They basically give you excerpts of the different policies in selected areas without telling you which party they belong to. You click on the one you agree with most.

[andyandy]

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Click on the green banner at the top right hand corner. They basically give you excerpts of the different policies in selected areas without telling you which party they belong to. You click on the one you agree with most.

Thanks

My results:

Issue Parties policies you chose
Economy Lib Dems
Education Green Party
Health / NHS Green Party
Welfare Green Party

The only one i actually recognised was the economy one for the greens - which goes on about renewables. And I didn't choose that.

Interesting! Looks like i am a Green :D

[Agatha]

just out of interest, who are people on this thread planning to vote for?

I reckon I could guess most people's affiliations....:D

I'm voting Green. Yes it's a wasted vote. Yes some of their policies are a bit dumb. But they are the only left wing party we have amongst all the right-wingers (UKIP/BNP) and neo-liberals (lab/con/lib). I couldn't possibly stomach voting labour after their abject economic and social failures. I can't stomach voting for Call Me Dave's New Tories - which will be exactly the same rich boy's network of small state privatisers as always. And lib-dems? What is their purpose? A third party neo-liberal alternative if you don't like neo-liberalism.....So, Greens it is! :)

what about you lot?

I will be voting Lib Dem - in a relatively safe Lib Dem seat which is being heavily targeted by Labour.

I have today received a 'personal' letter from Gordon Brown's office warning me against voting Tory. Umm, I think they got 8% of the vote here last time.

[zooterkin]

My results:



The only one i actually recognised was the economy one for the greens - which goes on about renewables. And I didn't choose that.

Interesting! Looks like i am a Green :D
I think I chose the same four areas, and came out with 3 Labour and 1 Lib-Dem, which was only slightly surprising, as I was brought up to vote Liberal. As I'm in John Redwood's constituency, I'll be wasting my vote and not voting Tory.

[Francesca R]

just out of interest, who are people on this thread planning to vote for?The constituency I live in has been Labour for as long as I am aware except for a brief period in 1982 when its MP defected to the SDP, but then lost. It has some trivia including (i) first declared gay MP (Chris Smith) and (ii) where the Blairs lived before they moved to SW1, and (iii) where the Granita pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granita_(restaurant)) took place (now a TexMex diner :D ). The 2005 result made it a marginal seat for Labour which they almost lost to the Lib Dems.

I think that the (national) outcome I want least at this point* is a Labour overall majority on 6 May and on that basis it is most logical that I vote for Bridget Fox (http://www.bridgetfox.co.uk/) (Lib Dem), whom I've met several times, and who has been deputy leader of Islington Council, and is OK. However, since it's a general election, I don't tend to associate it with local issues, or even the quality of the local candidate too much.

Incidentally the lineup of the three big parties is all women. I have seen Emily Thornberry (http://www.emilythornberry.com/) around a bit. Never seen Antonia Cox (http://www.antoniacox.com/). (There is also a Green candidate)

*FTR I voted for Smith (Labour) in '01 and Thornberry (same) in '05; I was away in New Zealand (where I come from) on holiday in May '97 and didn't vote, though it would have been for Labour then too. In '92 I was a mere slip of a thing (well, 17)

[Delscottio]

just out of interest, who are people on this thread planning to vote for?



I'll be voting for labour again, almost pointless voting here anyway - in the last 50 years or so I doubt Labour would have polled less than 65% of the total vote. The absolute safe seat.

[mummymonkey]

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Click on the green banner at the top right hand corner. They basically give you excerpts of the different policies in selected areas without telling you which party they belong to. You click on the one you agree with most.

Well, that was helpfull!

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s228/mummymonkey/votes.jpg

[Reginald]

Lib Dem.

I wouldn't vote Tory if they paid me.

Alas I'm in one of those seats where they old ladies have blue rinses and spend more on "finest" cat food than I do on my weekly shop, while complaining that they have no money because it's all going to layabouts and foreigners and what a nice young man that Mr Cameron is and his lovely wife...wonderful news isn't? The baby?......so yes your typical Tory safe seat by some massive majority.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yet again, I have no idea - other than that it won't be Tory, BNP or UKIP.

ETA: I came out 100% Green party on that policy quiz thingy earlier in the thread.

Me too! I really liked the design of that test. Of course it didn't as if you were a strategic or naive voter :p .

[Darat]

£550m annually to send "a message"... What a waste of time.

[ddt]

Me too! I really liked the design of that test. Of course it didn't as if you were a strategic or naive voter :p .

I chose 6 subjects, and I came out 83% Greens, 17% Labour. I could have achieved 100% Green - I spotted their European policy easily and didn't chose it. Most of the policies of either UKIP or BNP were also easy to discern, but for the rest, I wouldn't be able to distinguish the major parties even if you held a gun to my head.

I think Tsukasa has a point: this kind of quiz is not very suited for the strategic voter. And in a district system like the UK has, I'd also vote strategically: has my preferred candidate any chance at all, or should I go for a second choice?

The election quizzes we have in Holland typically present a (long) list of yes/no questions, and in the end present how much you agree with every party; so that format would give you more handles for choosing an alternative.

[Francesca R]

By strategic do you mean what we call tactical (http://www.tacticalvoting.org/) voting?

[ddt]

By strategic do you mean what we call tactical (http://www.tacticalvoting.org/) voting?

Yes. My bad for using the wrong word.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Remember our tax rates compared to most of the other big economies in the EU tend to be less, from corporate tax to income tax to VAT. So perhaps the answer is simply to increase our taxes to say the level of France or Germany, countries that apparently the Tories think have better handled the financial crisis and subsequent recession than the UK.

Should we increase our top rate of income tax to equal that of France (40% above €70k) or Germany (45% above €250k)? In the UK our rate hits 40% earlier than either France or Germany (at around €42k) and goes higher than either at 50%.

What about corporate rates then?

Well this comparison site:

http://www.pearse-trust.ie/services.asp?id=13&cid=undefined&gclid=CNL3-5DG_KACFUNb4wodaghtAg

shows the UK corporation tax rate as being lower than only 4 European countries (Belgium, France, Spain & Malta) although this is slightly misleading as for Germany it does not include the impact of trade tax which makes the effective rate in Germany about the same or possibly slightly above the UK.

VAT we are lower than most EU countries, typically 19-21%. Don't expect this to last long as getting rid of the deficit is going to involve both tax rises and spending cuts. VAT is the one the Treasury want to increase and arguably the easiest politically (although why is not immediately apparent).

It used to be true that the UK had lower tax rates than most other economies, but over the last few years they have been cutting their rates and we have increased ours. Sorry, adjusting rates to EU levels is not going to solve the problem.

[Darat]

Should we increase our top rate of income tax to equal that of France (40% above €70k) or Germany (45% above €250k)? In the UK our rate hits 40% earlier than either France or Germany (at around €42k) and goes higher than either at 50%.

What about corporate rates then?

Well this comparison site:

http://www.pearse-trust.ie/services.asp?id=13&cid=undefined&gclid=CNL3-5DG_KACFUNb4wodaghtAg


...snip...

According to the Wikipedia (I know!) site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe_) Germany's corporation tax is over double what your site says - can anyone confirm either lot of figures?

How much would raising VAT to 20% across the board (with the usual exempts) raise?

[Francesca R]

Using 2007 data there was a bit of room before Britain's total government revenue take from the economy (41.8%) got as high as Germany's (43.8%). That gap will be smaller now, or closed. Italy (46.4) takes a bit more than Germany, and France more than Italy (49.6%). Most rich countries outside Europe are some way lower. Link (http://www.economist.com/displayImage.cfm?imageURL=http://media.economist.com/images/20091121/CFN500.gif) (may need subscription) (Numbers include tax and social welfare contributions)

There is no way on god's green earth that you can raise the tax take by 2% of GDP just by soaking the rich, never mind the more like 5% additional burden that the UK would need in order to continue with present spending (post recession).

And since you have to get the electorate to agree . . . it is not going to happen IMO. So, very large spending cuts are a racing certainty. As I said, the only relative luxury the UK has is that external forces are not requiring it all to be done in a year or two.

[Francesca R]

How much would raising VAT to 20% across the board (with the usual exempts) raise?I think the most it can possibly raise (assuming no change to spending at all by anyone) is about 1% of GDP per year. The deficit is 11.8% now. But assuming it slows the economy and automatic stabilisers increase then it would be lower than that.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

According to the Wikipedia (I know!) site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe_) Germany's corporation tax is over double what your site says - can anyone confirm either lot of figures?

How much would raising VAT to 20% across the board (with the usual exempts) raise?

Which is why I noted specifically that its figure for Germany was misleading and explained why. Unfortunately that was in the bit you snipped...

The difficulty arises because while the national German rate is 15% (plus 5.5% of this as a solidarity surcharge) there is also a local trade tax to pay, the rate of which varies by locality. Taking an average trade tax rate (I think one is a deductible expense from the other, although that may have changed) you get a rate that is generally a bit below 30%. In other words, about the same or slightly above the UK rate, which is what I posted. And you cut from the quote.

Putting VAT up by 2.5% would raise around £13bn pa. Or around 7% of the current deficit level of c£170bn pa.

[Undesired Walrus]

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Click on the green banner at the top right hand corner. They basically give you excerpts of the different policies in selected areas without telling you which party they belong to. You click on the one you agree with most.

* Labour 66.67%
* Green Party 16.67%
* Lib Dems 16.67%

[Darat]

Which is why I noted specifically that its figure for Germany was misleading and explained why. Unfortunately that was in the bit you snipped...
...snip...

But did read - I didn't realise what you were referring to as "trade tax" was what the wikipedia article called "local corporate tax".

[Small Town Jesus]

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Click on the green banner at the top right hand corner. They basically give you excerpts of the different policies in selected areas without telling you which party they belong to. You click on the one you agree with most.

I was 50% Labour and 50% Green on that quiz. Interestingly I chose Labour's environmental policy over the Greens.

My constituency is currently Labour but could go Tory this time round so I will be voting Labour as an anti-Tory vote. I voted Green at the last general election and Labour at the more recent by-election. The Lib-Dems are way behind.

I probably wouldn't vote Green if there was any danger of them coming to power as I don't agree with their european policy but they are who I tend to favour in a protest vote.

[Rolfe]

I didn't do the quiz, because I didn't see the point. I intend to vote SNP, and SNP policies weren't included in the selection.

I went to a coffee morning in Peebles this morning, followed by a council of war with the candidate and her agent. Got handed a big bag of leaflets with the instruction that this was for my village and the surrounding area, get on with it. We're not a target seat, and it's a huge constituency - the actual election rooms and organisation and so on are an hour and a half's drive away. So if I (and the local councillor) want any help, we're going to have to recruit it ourselves.

I'm busy making a list of the streets in the village, and planning to get the low-hanging fruit first. The big detached houses, especially those on the two very steep roads, and the outlying properties and farmhouses, might not get done unless we get a few more hands on deck. I wonder if anyone will get to the surrounding hamlets?

It's tempting to jack it in and hightail off to a neighbouring constituency we're actually targeting and which will be organised like a military campaign, but no, we need to cover the country, and I'll do my little bit of it.

Rolfe.

ETA: Well, I've made my little list, about 36 streets in total, handily grouped into manageable rounds with the low-hanging fruit at the top. (This would be easier if I didn't have a stinking cold.) It occurs to me that this could be fun for the extremely nosy part of me - it's the perfect excuse to march up to these big houses in their large plots, and see just what's behind the bushes and the hedges. Let's hope it stays fine.

[Fiona]

It's a problem if the people that you need to keep lending you money see it as a problem. Because either they require you to pay a higher price, or they stop lending to you.

Ok. Both you and Francesca seem to agree that the problem with the deficit is that the lenders will not tolerate it. And that is my views also. There does not seem to be any comelling reason for that; at least not if the thing is in any way comparable with what ordinary people have been encouraged and keen to do. But it is a political fact. And indeed I do not like debt of any kind: so that has been one of the reasons I would not touch labour with a barge pole (only one, mind). So that is fine with me.

Double counting is the problem. National income is made up of the income of all the people and businesses in the country. They need to use that income to pay their own debts, so if they have debts of three times their income, they are already using their cash to pay those debts. If the government also owes large amounts they need to raise taxes on those same incomes to pay their debts. The same income has to pay both debts, so it isn't a matter of comparing the size of each.

The reasons given for not increasing tax sufficiently to deal with this problem seem to be two: the people will not tolerate it; and they cannot afford it. I accept that the people do not like tax rises. I do not think that is very surprising because they have been told tax is a bad thing so long and so loud without any countervailing voice. But that does not make it true, and I do not think it is.

The same income does have to pay both debts: I understand that. But I do not believe there is insufficient inome in most households to do that. In fact a raise in the basic rate of tax (even by quite a lot) would not be crippling to people on the average wage.

This year if you earned £37000 a year you would pay £6105 in income tax. (20% of 37,000- 6475 personal allowance). If the rate had been higher by two percent you would pay £6716: an increase of £611 a year. You would take home £517 per week as compared with £528 now.

We are told that there is no public service which cannot find efficiency savings of this order: maybe. By the same token I can say there is no household which cannot find efficiency savings of this order. (both are not true for some depts/ people, but leave that aside: those who advocate public spending cuts do). The transfer of the money from the private to the public purse will have no effect because it will still be spent (indeed it will all be spent instead of some part of it going to savings).

So far I see no rational case for not doing it this way on the basis of the numbers. But there are other considerations. Public spending cuts will increase the deficit because more people will be claiming benefits. That is agreed by all the sources we have seen so far. Tax increases may do the same: people will not have that money to spend and there will be an effect on jobs, as well.

Public spending cuts will also have costs for households: the person without a job in public service will be your son or daughter, and so they will stay there instead of moving out: and they will not contribute, because they have no job. The gran who cannot find a place in a care home will be your gran, and you will have to look after her with less help: so you will have to give up some hours of work for that. The child care you were relying on won't be subsidised or won't be available, so you won't be able to work full time because of that, either. Your bins won't get emptied, so you will have to drive your rubbish to the dump, and that means buying more petrol. Your roads won't be mended and, while that might ease some of your frustrations, it is likely to be hard on your car. And on and on. I doubt you will get away with less than £611 a year.

Of course the cutters will say that the "savings" will not affect you: it is all "waste" that will be cut and front line staff will still be there. Problem is we have been eliminating it consistently since 1979. Either it cannot be done or it has been done

For me the public have had a party and they did not expect to pay the wine bill: that was fantasy and anyone with any brains knew it was fantasy. Now we are being asked to believe that we can clean the house without doing any work. And that is fantasy too

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Problem is we have been eliminating it consistently since 1979. Either it cannot be done or it has been done

This is just wrong. Public Sector productivity has been falling since 1997:

http://publicservices.cbi.org.uk/media/press_release/00289/

whereas in the private sector it has been growing.

It is utter nonsense to suggest there is no waste to cut in the public sector, as a look at the jobs section of the Guardian should tell you.

There will be cuts in services, the size of those will depend on how willing/able whoever wins the election are to tackle the waste that does exist.

And that is before anyone starts talking about the unfunded final salary pension crisis that is building up in the public sector.

[Lothian]

This is just wrong. Public Sector productivity has been falling since 1997:

http://publicservices.cbi.org.uk/media/press_release/00289/

Interesting that the first example in that article is of a "private partner."

Focusing on improving outcomes rather than meeting targets. For example, a private-sector provider running the cleaning contract at a large West Midlands hospital discovered that staff spent as much time getting around the hospital as cleaning. The service was re-designing to give staff their own zones increasing efficiency.
There are huge amounts of private sector involvement in the civil service. In my experience these all lead to a more expensive and less efficient service.

[Fiona]

Well there is a whole separate debate to be had about what "productivity" means and how it is measured. But the examples given on that site are not very persuasive at all: it is certainly true there is waste: a lot of it arises from the very "efficiency" drives which were supposed to cut costs: that is what the target culture was all about, really; it was what "privatisation" and "Tendering" were all about as well: and as you can see the article attacks the outcomes of both of those measures.

It is easy to say that there is waste: that is true in every organisation of every stripe. Getting rid of it is not so easy. And some of what is characterised as waste or inefficiency is nothing of the sort: bed occupancy in hospitals is one such example.

The attack on public sector pensions is also a very partial argument which I find unpersuasive. But whatever your views on this my point stands: there is nothing which demonstrates that cutting public service is the only way to deal with the problems we face. That there is no mainstream political party offering an alternative strategy is not evidence that there is no practical alternative: we have heard that before and it was not true then and it is not true now. There is no political alternative any more, however. And in the long run that is bad for democracy and bad for the society we live in. At least that is my perspective.

[Damien Evans]

Yep. Still campaigning for a 99p coin and a three-inch high wall around Britain to trip up foriegn invaders.

I believe their current leader is a cat.

That's awesome.:D

ETA: Just checked their website and Alan Hope (their leader since the cat died) is at 1,000,000 to 1 to be prime minister from William Hill. Not sure I'd make that bet...
http://www.omrlp.com/

[Francesca R]

Ok. Both you and Francesca seem to agree that the problem with the deficit is that the lenders will not tolerate it. And that is my views also. There does not seem to be any comelling reason for that; at least not if the thing is in any way comparable with what ordinary people have been encouraged and keen to do.See my previous reply about this. I find it rather odd that you would describe the collective wisdom of lenders to be uncompelling. It is what it is. Note that as of today, there is no issue whatsover with the UK government financing itself in the credit market, and FWIW it is still rated AAA. The danger is that when there is a problem, markets are rather unforgiving and swift at imposing very punitive consequences for governments (and their people)

Another difference in respect of home loans, is that the borrower pledges collateral to the lender in the form of a secured charge on the property they are buying. If that security wasn't available, you would not see institutions lending 3x salary to people (nor loan sharks BTW). Nobody who owns a gilt has any recourse to anything other than the trust in the UK government to honour its obligations.

But it is a political fact.Rather, an economic one. The government bond market is highly non-political (and it has brought down previous UK administrations). It is concerned with earning a return on money lent, and in being extremely confident about getting the return of the money lent.

The reasons given for not increasing tax sufficiently to deal with this problem seem to be two: the people will not tolerate it; and they cannot afford it. [ . . . ] But that does not make it true, and I do not think it is.I don't understand this. The reason why tax may not be increased seems to be that people (the electorate) may not be willing to pay it. And if that is the case, then it does make it true. One would need to have a stongly authoritarian philosophy of society to think differently, no?

Of course they may be willing to pay sharp tax rises (and/or suffer other income losses) when threatened with the consequences of sovereign default and risk of social breakdown (Greece's government, like Ireland's, still commands quite strong public support despite having had to inflict unprecedented hardship on most of the population in attempt to recover from its borrowing malaise). But it is gross failure of government to force the stakes to that level. It doesn't really matter IMO if you call it errors or deliberate deception; I suspect some of both.

[Francesca R]

Well there is a whole separate debate to be had about what "productivity" means and how it is measured.Productivity means output per hour, or per person, or per unit of some other factor. And output typically has a monetary unit, though it could be some non-monetary outcome. If one is concerned with productivity gains or losses, then it doesn't matter if the output measure is monetary or not as long as it is internally consistent.

I would always tend to regard efficiency savings touted by politicians to mean increases in output per person, or reductions in people per unit output--hence it typically should mean less hiring or staff cuts. That they don't say this outright is spin/dishonesty, and is playing to a largely irrational popular belief that it is a bad thing to cut out wasteful employment.

[Fiona]

Yes I read your previous reply if this is the one you mean

You have it correct, but that assuredly is a compelling argument to cut spending in the UK. How may parties do you know getting elected on a ticket of: "We'll spend money we need, tot it all up and send you a tax bill later"?

If we had a party which put forward that platform we would see. I think it is perfectly possible, because the rationale is a great deal more complex than you imply here. It is a persuasive argument: but it has not been made. And that is a failure of a different kind


But raising taxes is not as simple as passing a commons vote.

Of coure it is.

Political decisions like that end up being society's decisions. (And you know this, so I am not sure what you meant)

Yes, they are society's decisions. I am not sure what you mean

True but most people don't owe this, other than when they are relatively young and the "present value" of the future product of their own labour is still very high. It is hard to get a mortgage like that when you're over 50.

So the country is too old? I didn't know that

There isn't a magic number. Some countries have managed OK for more than a decade with public debt ratios above 100%. But the bottom line is that it depends on your (country's) creditworthiness with lenders, not how much it bothers you (as a nation).

Yes.

The fraction of years in which UK governments have run primary surpluses (= a surplus before interest payments on sovereign debt outstanding) is pretty small. Even under the conservative administration these were largely flattered by the proceeds from selling state assets like BT, BA, British Gas, (RailTrack) etc. These are not repeatable, even if one regards them as economically good decisions in the first place (and permit me to guess you do not). The Labour admin had a couple of years of surpluses at the start of the first Blair term, only because their incoming manifesto promised to stick--for three years--to prior Tory spending plans from the 1997, 6 and earlier budgets. (Without this promise, they presumably calculated that they would be less likely to win office). Pretty much as soon as that expired, and ever since, Labour has only borrowed more each year.

Yes that may have been the calculation they made: I think they were wrong but we will never know. I think no matter what the manifesto was they would have won in 1997. But I also think, unlike you, I would guess, that the refusal to raise tax to fund those improvements was based on a shift in the political analysis of a large part of the party. In short they are wedded to low tax as a good thing in itself. That makes them Tories (shorthand). They are also, of course, political cowards. The combintion is lethal

It is prudentTM to run surpluses and repay debt when national income is growing strongly. After 2000, Gordon Brown never did that.

It is common sense to raise tax to fund better public service, if better public service is what you want. It is dishonest to encourage people to increase their personal debt as if that has no consequence, and to mirror that nonsense in the national economy as well. That is not a failure of the labour party alone: all parties are now talking as if the public sector is somehow divorced from the lives of the majority of the electorate: as if the cuts can be made and will not directly affect them.

It is folly to suggest that this argument has nothing to do with the "errors" of the banking and financial institutions and their propagandists: and to continue to listen to their prescriptions as if they had any credibility. As I said: many of the problems in the public sector are a direct result of those prescriptions in the past: yet we are supposed to act as if we arrived up the clyde on a tea biscuit yesterday. The public memory is short, and they rely on that: they may be right. We will never know so long as no alternative is offered

[Fiona]

Productivity means output per hour, or per person, or per unit of some other factor. And output typically has a monetary unit, though it could be some non-monetary outcome. If one is concerned with productivity gains or losses, then it doesn't matter if the output measure is monetary or not as long as it is internally consistent.

I would always tend to regard efficiency savings touted by politicians to mean increases in output per person, or reductions in people per unit output--hence it typically should mean less hiring or staff cuts. That they don't say this outright is spin/dishonesty, and is playing to a largely irrational popular belief that it is a bad thing to cut out wasteful employment.

So productivity is completely divorced from wages? I did not know that. It is also completely divorced from staffing levels? The output per person (whatever that means for a nurse) goes up if there are fewer nurses, is the way I understand it. So it makes sense to have ony one nurse in a hospital that used to have 100? Course the patients will die: but the experiment will be a success :)

It is more complex than that, and you know this. First you have to decide what you are trying to achieve. Then you have to recognise that there is a level of staffing required to achieve it. Those are not uncontroversial calculations: it was announced today on radio 4 that the NHS has improved in terms of medicicine in the last few years: that is what the loss of "productivity" has done. So it is a question of what you want as a society.

[Francesca R]

So productivity is completely divorced from wages? I did not know that. It is also completely divorced from staffing levels?Quite the contrary.

The output per person (whatever that means for a nurse) goes up if there are fewer nurses, is the way I understand it.I don't know what it means for a nurse, but it would probably go up if fewer nurses delivered the same measured output.

it was announced today on radio 4 that the NHS has improved in terms of medicicine in the last few years: that is what the loss of "productivity" has done.Of course the aggregate health outcome / medical benefit delivered (and I don't know how those are measured) can certainly improve while productivity and efficiency simultaneously fall.

[Francesca R]

Yes I read your previous reply if this is the one you meanNo, the one where you liken a public debt ratio to the mortgage obligations of someone who is probably under 50.

[Francesca R]

It is common sense to raise tax to fund better public service, if better public service is what you want.And yet, this has not been done. The better service was financed by borrowing. And the public has not been shown what magnitude of tax increase is required to keep it going, which is why many people still think that it can be done by taxing the rich. And because the UK has had almost a decade of public spending splurge without the associated tax hikes, what it would have to pay up now in tax hikes would include a decade of back-pay for services already consumed and paid for with debt that is owed.

It is highly likely that given full knowledge of what it costs, UK society would actually decide "No we don't want public service that expensive". And that is a decision that society should make. And it is asking the wrong question to say "Do you want it?" without saying what it costs.

[Fiona]

Quite the contrary.

Indeed

I don't know what it means for a nurse, but it would probably go up if fewer nurses delivered the same measured output.

Sure would. But it does not go up if fewer nurses produce less "measured output". And it goes down if more nurses produce more "unmeasured output".
So if you don't know what it means for a nurse you cannot make an informed decision.

And that is the problem. Who decides on the measures? How important are they? We saw this with the tendering process: first it was focussed on "cheapest" and we got a whole new tier of admin people to run the tendering. I presume they were factored into the equation but I do not know that for certain: I do know that the capital expenditure is in a separate budget from the running costs so I don't know how that is factored in.

We see the legacy of that in my local hospital. The food comes from Newcastle. It is inedible, and a lot of people do what they do in Calcutta: they take in food for their relatives. Shame about the people who don't have any relatives, but hey ho. The productivity and efficiency has gone up because they sacked all the in house catering people. And there is a meal for every patient, so the measured output is the same. Course when the consultant said my mum had to be on a special diet she didn't get it 3 days out of five because there was a lack of flexibility in the system: and that might be a "measured outcome". The number of meals that go in the bin is not a "measured outcome" though: and the export of the balance of the cost to relatives is not a "measured outcome" either. One of the hidden costs of "efficiency", I reckon

To be fair, in some areas these problems were recognised: so we moved from "cheapest" to "best value". That meant a whole new set of administrative arrangements: and a new batch of paper/computer work to implement them. Didnt make any obvious difference. "Best value" depends on measuring the outcomes too: and they measure what is easy to measure (like number of meals) and not the things that are hard to measure (like who eats them and how much the cost is stuck on the relatives)

Of course the aggregate health outcome / medical benefit delivered (and I don't know how those are measured) can certainly improve while productivity and efficiency simultaneously fall.

That is the problem: if you can say that sentence then your use of the words "productivity and efficiency" is a term of art rather than what most people mean by it. That ambiguity is rife in this debate

[Fiona]

And yet, this has not been done. The better service was financed by borrowing. And the public has not been shown what magnitude of tax increase is required to keep it going, which is why many people still think that it can be done by taxing the rich. And because the UK has had almost a decade of public spending splurge without the associated tax hikes, what it would have to pay up now in tax hikes would include a decade of back-pay for services already consumed and paid for with debt that is owed.

It is highly likely that given full knowledge of what it costs, UK society would actually decide "No we don't want public service that expensive". And that is a decision that society should make. And it is asking the wrong question to say "Do you want it?" without saying what it costs.

Give us the true cost of either option and the choice, and we will see.

[Francesca R]

if you can say that sentence then your use of the words "productivity and efficiency" is a term of art rather than what most people mean by it. That ambiguity is rife in this debateNo, my use of the term was to define it for you, since you asked. And it is quite deterministic.

[Fiona]

Ah I see how that misunderstanding arose: when I said there is a whole debate to be had about it that was not a question: it was a statement of fact. If you are using it in a specialised sense that is absolutely fine: so long as we are clear that it is a term of art in your useage there is no confusion. But you do not get to tell me what the words "actually" mean because the sense in which you use them is not universal and it happens that it serves to obscure as much as it illuminates. Now that we know what you mean we can look at whether it is helpful: as I have shown, I don't think it is, very

[Francesca R]

It's a pretty standard definition, but I don't have any interest in a dictionary debate :)

[Fiona]

No in fact I think I must concede the dictionary point anyway: the point is that it carries the implication that it is a good thing and if all the factors are taken into account it probably is. They usually aren't though and that is what I am trying to get it. Hurrah words are no good if you do not look at what they actually refer to

[Darat]

And yet, this has not been done. The better service was financed by borrowing. And the public has not been shown what magnitude of tax increase is required to keep it going, which is why many people still think that it can be done by taxing the rich. And because the UK has had almost a decade of public spending splurge without the associated tax hikes, what it would have to pay up now in tax hikes would include a decade of back-pay for services already consumed and paid for with debt that is owed.

It is highly likely that given full knowledge of what it costs, UK society would actually decide "No we don't want public service that expensive". And that is a decision that society should make. And it is asking the wrong question to say "Do you want it?" without saying what it costs.

Earlier you stated that "Using 2007 data there was a bit of room before Britain's total government revenue take from the economy (41.8%) got as high as Germany's (43.8%). That gap will be smaller now, or closed. "

That would seem to indicate that we have had the "associated tax hikes" to the levels of countries like Germany but now you are now saying we haven't.

To me the idea of borrowing money over the last 10 years to try and fill in the hole that had been created by previous government underspending (compared to what the public wanted) and introducing the "associated tax hikes" seems quite a sensible approach otherwise it would have taken much longer to get our government services to anything like the standards that the public wanted. (And we can conclude that all the major parties agree that this is what the public want since they are all "ring fencing" NHS spending, as an example.)

[Francesca R]

Give us the true cost of either option and the choice, and we will see.To pay for services without increasing public debt, government revenue has to equal government outlays. Right now, with spending at 53.3% according to the OECD (which I am using in preference to HM Treasury), and revenue at 40.1% there is a gap of -13.3% of GDP (IE larger than the deficit as reported in national statistics). As you have already observed, some of this is due to the recession (IE cyclical) and will disappear once the economy recovers. The OECD data makes an estimate of the deficit that is non-cyclical (annex table 28 (http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html)), and it is -9.8% of GDP. So that's what would need to be raised to preserve structural public spending if the economy was running at potential output, and benefit transfers (among other things) were happening at some normal rate, rather than a recession rate (which is higher).

Note that this would freeze the level of outstanding public debt, it would not reduce it. But over time as the economy grew, public debt as a fraction of GDP would fall.

UK GDP measured in pounds was £1.4 trillion in 2009 (table C1 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/oie0210.pdf)), so 9.8% of that is £137 billion. So that is the annual increase in taxation required. This ignores the almost universally accepted (among economists, that is) notion that taxes produce gross income/output losses, called the excess burden of taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_burden_of_taxation) or the deadweight loss. If increasing the nation's tax bill by £137 billion (every year) could be expected to reduce the potential rate of growth in GDP, then it would end up being a larger fraction of national income than 9.8%.

You have Jaggy Bunnet's and my estimates (which are independently very close together) that a 2.5% VAT hike would raise a maximum of 1% of GDP, or £13 billion in today's money. Since the more one raises a tax rate, the less marginal tax revenue it yields, you can get a feel for what the ball park is for your idea.

I suggest that there is no earthly way this magnitude of government revenue can be raised in the UK, short of a debt crisis. I may be wrong.

[Francesca R]

Earlier you stated that "Using 2007 data there was a bit of room before Britain's total government revenue take from the economy (41.8%) got as high as Germany's (43.8%). That gap will be smaller now, or closed. "

That would seem to indicate that we have had the "associated tax hikes" to the levels of countries like Germany but now you are now saying we haven't. The gap has not changed, that was my bad.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Earlier you stated that "Using 2007 data there was a bit of room before Britain's total government revenue take from the economy (41.8%) got as high as Germany's (43.8%). That gap will be smaller now, or closed. "

That would seem to indicate that we have had the "associated tax hikes" to the levels of countries like Germany but now you are now saying we haven't.

Think you are connecting two separate points:

Whether or not the overall tax burden has increased to German levels; and

Whether or not that increase has been sufficient to pay for the increased spending.

It is perfectly possible to have increased the tax take and at the same time have increased spending by more, meaning that the "associated tax hikes" for that spending have not taken place.

[Francesca R]

To me the idea of borrowing money over the last 10 years to try and fill in the hole that had been created by previous government underspending (compared to what the public wanted) and introducing the "associated tax hikes" seems quite a sensible approach otherwise it would have taken much longer to get our government services to anything like the standards that the public wanted. (And we can conclude that all the major parties agree that this is what the public want since they are all "ring fencing" NHS spending, as an example.)As above, the associated tax hikes have most certainly not been introduced. If you think they have you are even more optimistic than every political party, since none of them show the budget deficit disappearing in the next parliament (or even the next two of them), and you really ought to show this.

The rest of what you are saying amounts to endorsing the approach of "asking" the public to vote for public spending outcomes without telling them what these cost. No, that is deluded, and duplicitous, and bad policy.

[Undesired Walrus]

just out of interest, who are people on this thread planning to vote for?

I reckon I could guess most people's affiliations....:D

I'm voting Green. Yes it's a wasted vote. Yes some of their policies are a bit dumb. But they are the only left wing party we have amongst all the right-wingers (UKIP/BNP) and neo-liberals (lab/con/lib). I couldn't possibly stomach voting labour after their abject economic and social failures. I can't stomach voting for Call Me Dave's New Tories - which will be exactly the same rich boy's network of small state privatisers as always. And lib-dems? What is their purpose? A third party neo-liberal alternative if you don't like neo-liberalism.....So, Greens it is! :)

what about you lot?

Andy, how do you feel about the fact that the Greens don't practice skepticism?

The Green Party believes that experiments on human embryos could have unforeseen outcomes harmful both to individuals and to society. We would work for an immediate international ban on all cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos, whether for research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes. We do think that the use of 'adult' (or 'mature') stem-cells has promise for both research and therapeutic purposes and does not involve the same risks and ethical issues as embryonic stem-calls. The Green Party would work to allow the use across the EU of adult stem-cells, subject to the precautionary principle.

Yes, we believe that complementary and alternative medicine has a role in public health care. The Green Party, for example, is in favour of increased funding for research on methods of integrated conventional and holistic treatments for cancer. We want the gradual inclusion of complementary therapies within NHS provision so that patients have access to all available and appropriate treatments. Complementary therapies can often prevent the situation worsening and thus save resources. We would oppose attempts to regulate complementary medicine, except by licensing and review boards made up of representatives of their respective alternative health care fields.

http://www.layscience.net/node/581

[mummymonkey]

That's awesome.:D

ETA: Just checked their website and Alan Hope (their leader since the cat died) is at 1,000,000 to 1 to be prime minister from William Hill. Not sure I'd make that bet...
http://www.omrlp.com/


I liked this one

Due to the increasing number of children afraid of needles, I propose the destruction of the tedious, scary and often painful process of school vaccinations.
Instead, I propose that highly trained nurses should be given free reign on the playground with specially modified tranquillizer rifles which apply vaccinations as well as a tranquillizer. This would have two main benefits: It would be less scary for the children as they will not know what hit them, also it will be more fun for the nurses

[Darat]

As above, the associated tax hikes have most certainly not been introduced. If you think they have you are even more optimistic than every political party, since none of them show the budget deficit disappearing in the next parliament (or even the next two of them), and you really ought to show this.

...snip...

Er.. remember it was your mistake in claiming the gap had closed or near enough, that is what would have required the "associated tax hikes". So what we have at the moment is pretty good empirical evidence that we can ignore the "business community" complaints about things like the NI increase, next year and that there is some room to increase taxation overall to help provide additional revenue to pay down the deficit without it causing economic hardship for the country as a whole.



The rest of what you are saying amounts to endorsing the approach of "asking" the public to vote for public spending outcomes without telling them what these cost. No, that is deluded, and duplicitous, and bad policy.


Totally disagree the government was very upfront that it was borrowing heavily to try and overcome the past underfunding. If we hadn't had the financial crisis but still had had a recession I don't think there would have been anything like the focus there is on the deficit.

[Francesca R]

No idea what that post means but I don't see it as referring to anything I have posted.

[Reginald]

.........If we hadn't had the financial crisis but still had had a recession I don't think there would have been anything like the focus there is on the deficit.

Actually had the Conservatives not chosen to be the loud voice of doom just a short while ago, how world financing would turn its back on the UK, how the pound would crash dive to lira-esque levels...how it was so so important to get the deficit sharply under control....(before suddenly changing position entirely and promising gimmicks).

I think we would have just carried on.

The Global aspect of this whole situation is one that is being deliberately ignored by the Conservatives imo.

[funk de fino]

Totally disagree the government was very upfront that it was borrowing heavily to try and overcome the past underfunding. If we hadn't had the financial crisis but still had had a recession I don't think there would have been anything like the focus there is on the deficit.

I agree with this.

[Matthew Best]

I'm going to vote for Bridget Fox, just like Francesca R. I can't say I much like the look of her, and Emily Thornberry seems decent enough, but I just can't bring myself to reward Labour with my vote after the last few years. So Lib-Dems it is.

[Undesired Walrus]

Wow, you live in L.Square?

[Matthew Best]

Actually, I have just moved from Leicester Square to Islington - this will be the first election where I vote in Islington. I'm still on the electoral roll in Westminster so I presumably could vote there as well if I wanted to, but it's a solid Conservative seat that never changes hands so it would be a bit pointless (though interestingly the Labour candidate there is the drummer from Blur so conceivably he might come and knock on my door, which would be fun).

[Undesired Walrus]

BTW, this report (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economy-set-to-speed-up-and-beat-uks-rivals-says-oecd-1938647.html) from the OECD is sure to cheer up the Government.

[Fiona]

To pay for services without increasing public debt, government revenue has to equal government outlays.

Not quite. Government outlays include regular spending but they also include things like the bank bail out, which was of the order of £850 billion, per "The Independent". It may be that you are positioning that as debt rather than deficit, though. Yet the interest is surely in the income and expenditure account? I presume it is. It is true that once incurred that debt must be paid and that interest must also be paid: so it seems to me that the largest part of this problem derives from that. I do not know the interest rate on that debt and I know that not all of it is direct debt: but at least 110 billion is direct debt; and I think rather more than that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

Right now, with spending at 53.3% according to the OECD (which I am using in preference to HM Treasury),

Earlier I thought you gave figures from the IFS. The IFS figure I found was for 2008/9: so that may account for the difference: but it is a very big difference to happen in one year and it is well beyond what the IFS paper predicted. I see no reason to accept your figure over that one. But it is probably a matter of choice. There is not much hard data in economics, so far as I can see.

If you use the IFS figures for 2008/9 (presumably "actual", since the paper was written in Sep 2009) spending was 43.2% of national income: and that was £618.6 billion. So the total national income was £1432 billion. If your figure for revenue is correct at 40.1% the gap is much lower than you suggest: but I see no reason to rely on that either. The tax payers alliance (not much in favour of tax I gather) gives figures for government revenue of 416.2 billion for 2008. 67.2% of government spending on these figures: so the deficit would then be of the order of 43.2 -32.8 = 10.4%.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vu1RJoxepYQJ:www.taxpayersalliance.com/CEBR.pdf+united+kingdom+government+revenue+2008-9&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiy1WcKJ648aEiC00gGJcDpR5rmhtRyTzLu-7uzP4TVrC83Kd90cuLixa0NsWWbMJaGP2shatmbTAEEaCjYNmh B5_cfA-ciV6KisAZYiOG1t8Z07HwF-wwBqlzoH-Ulmnj3PBJo&sig=AHIEtbQLmsMxTx7iac6MWoVHpW5qOC1osQ

The OECD data makes an estimate of the deficit that is non-cyclical (annex table 28 (http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html)), and it is -9.8% of GDP. So that's what would need to be raised to preserve structural public spending if the economy was running at potential output, and benefit transfers (among other things) were happening at some normal rate, rather than a recession rate (which is higher).

I am not sure about this. How does that fit with the IFS comparison of fiscal policy under labour and the conservatives where it says that

• The structural budget deficit has evolved in a remarkably similar way under
Labour since 1997 to the way in which it evolved over the first 11 years of
Conservative government from 1979.
o Both parties inherited large structural budget deficits from their
predecessors: 4.8% of national income in 1978–79 and 2.9% of national
income in 1996–97.
<snip>
o To summarise, both governments presided over a fiscal strengthening in
their first three years in office followed by a weakening over the
following eight. But we should note that Labour has used more of its
borrowing to finance capital investment rather than current spending
than the Conservatives did. Under the Conservatives, the structural
budget deficit continued to deteriorate until year 14 (1992–93). It
remains to be seen when it will reach its trough under Labour.

Per the IFS structural deficit was 2.7% of national income in 2007 and was projected to rise to 3.6% in 2008 (not outurn figures though: I have not been able to find those). If that is correct then the amount of structural deficit would be 51.52 billion. It will have increased this year, but we do not seem to have figures yet (or I have missed them) .

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zNq9G4QRpjYJ:www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn79.pdf+non+structural+deficit+uk+2008&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgeoGW-LHyBoZSPoZztgs4nVMlHl3kwGT-WQgTCDF4Lca6fmCJ8y01XG6k-ISER1SlO5U503sr5ctdxuRVNvFhR9OwgBLDjgW1aCyBGc2kQbz Jrq8O18OpgC434CLmV8vroQ1Oz&sig=AHIEtbT7XfOzShXl0Fv1aYdkuvz_IXsbxg

UK GDP measured in pounds was £1.4 trillion in 2009 (table C
[quote1 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/oie0210.pdf)), so 9.8% of that is £137 billion. So that is the annual increase in taxation required.

Not sure how GDP compares with total national income but it is clear that the figures are the same. No idea why we should prefer one over the other. Maybe they are just different names for the same thing

Seems like you pays your money and you picks your economist :). At least the only difference here seems to be which set of figures you accept: and the numbers are very different.

<snip>

You have Jaggy Bunnet's and my estimates (which are independently very close together) that a 2.5% VAT hike would raise a maximum of 1% of GDP, or £13 billion in today's money. Since the more one raises a tax rate, the less marginal tax revenue it yields, you can get a feel for what the ball park is for your idea.

I do not know what vat has to do with this: perhaps you are directing this at Darat?

I suggest that there is no earthly way this magnitude of government revenue can be raised in the UK, short of a debt crisis. I may be wrong.

I found this interesting

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-95.html

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Cameron's latest attempt to recover from his gay slips is to erase from the record the crime of gay sex with over 16 year olds for those who were convicted when that was on the books.

My god, what a revolutionary :rolleyes: !

[Matthew Best]

I'm still on the electoral roll in Westminster so I presumably could vote there as well if I wanted to,

Apparently, I should have written "instead", rather than "as well" in that sentence. Sorry.

[MarkCorrigan]

WOO HOO!

We actually have a real motherloving scientist standing in Hinckley and Bosworth! He's standing here specifically to unseat the drooling moron David Tredinnick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_%28politician%29). Oh happy day! (http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot.com/2010/03/scientist-to-take-on-tredinnick-mp-in.html) The piece of filth only held on by a couple of thousand votes last time. Let's unseat the worthless little pusball and elect someone who is infinately more qualified.

Hell, a kumquat is infinately more qualified than Tredinit.

[Darat]

No idea what that post means but I don't see it as referring to anything I have posted.

I'm sure others will.

[zooterkin]

For those interested in some of the numbers behind the current election, the BBC's More or Less podcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/) may be interesting. (This is actually a compilation of a daily segment on the Today programme.)

[Fiona]

Something which is puzzling me.

According to the information I found and linked above, there has been a "structural deficit" consistently since at least 1979. It has varied in amount but it seems to be nearly always there. It is argued here that we need to eliminate structural deficit one way or another: at least that is what I take from Francesca's post where she says:

To pay for services without increasing public debt, government revenue has to equal government outlays. Right now, with spending at 53.3% according to the OECD (which I am using in preference to HM Treasury), The OECD data makes an estimate of the deficit that is non-cyclical (annex table 28), and it is -9.8% of GDP. So that's what would need to be raised to preserve structural public spending if the economy was running at potential output, and benefit transfers (among other things) were happening at some normal rate, rather than a recession rate (which is higher).

If we have had a structural deficit every year for 30 years it would seem that this should have been a crisis long ago. If it is true that a balanced budget is required we do not seem to have ever achieved it. So why must we achieve it now?

I do know that there is a school of thought which claims that a balanced budget is a primary goal of policy and that this should be a guiding principle of economic policy. I know that there are those who wish to return to the gold standard as well. But they have not been in the ascendant for many years and I do not see why we should suddenly accept their arguments. What has changed?

It is possible that there is a real change: but it is also possible that a school of thought which has not made its case is using the current circumstances opportunistically. It brings us back to the level of debt and although we have tried to separate income/expenditure from net debt in the last couple of pages I don't think we can do that. It seems to me that what we need to do on deficit spending depends on a prior assumption about what the level of debt should be: and that this is implicit in Francesca's analysis. So we cannot exclude that from the conversation

The part of my question which has not so far been addressed is the comparison. I asked for an analysis of the costs of cutting public spending and of the costs of raising tax. To be honest I did not expect anyone here to give us that: my point was that both of those analyses should be put before the public and we should be able to vote on them. But Francesca appears to have taken it as a question directed to her and she has addressed only the part about raising tax. She has asserted, yet again, that the public will not stand for it.

So what we need now is an analysis of the costs of cutting public spending to match current revenue, as she argues is necessary. (I do not accept her figures because I now think they are based the idea that we must freeze or reduce national debt and I see no reason for that: but leaving that to one side). I accept that she may also believe that some tax rises will form part of the solution and that the whole deficit need not (can not?) be met through public spending cuts. But for simplicity let us compare the two extremes

Public spending in 2008 was £618.6 billion. On Francesca's figures we need to find £137 billion in savings: Jaggy Bunnet's figure is higher. That means we need to cut 22% of public expenditure.

62% of public expenditure goes on health, education, pensions and welfare. Of the remainder I think that about 26% is spent by local government. As I said above, we have made immense efforts to cut out waste and increase efficiency over 30 years: and we have not succeeded at all. I see no reason to imagine we can do it now.

One of the links I gave above shows that more of the structural deficit spending in recent years has gone on capital investement than used to be the case. It is a question of how those things are recorded in accountancy terms and it curious that such spending appears on the revenue account: but leave that aside. What I want to know is what evidence is there that we can in fact meet any significant proportion of this 137 billion sum from cutting waste? 22%? I dont think so.

So how much of those cuts are really going to exported to be met from household incomes? And how does that compare to the amount of extra tax which households would have to pay if the shortfall were met in that way instead

This is the information we need in order to make an informed choice: but I have not been able to find it

[Darat]

...snip... But Francesca appears to have taken it as a question directed to her and she has addressed only the part about raising tax. She has asserted, yet again, that the public will not stand for it.

...snip...

And I think we have empirical data that shows that this is simply not the case, this is from the "OECD Factbook 2009: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics © OECD 2009"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14bc2e9283eabe.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19689)

Now that is only for 2007 and I assume we had some tax increases since then that are not included but it can be seen the average tax rate for the average worker in the UK is a bit below the average for the group of countries and a lot less than comparable countries and economies e.g. France and Germany. Whilst people may complain about taxation there is not any indication that France and Germany are about to socially explode because of the level of taxation.

I think there is a strong argument that since the public wants services at least at the level of countries like France and Germany than we have to increase taxation.

Doesn't alter the deficit "issue" but like I said earlier, that's only an issue this time around because of the financial crisis and the way the parties have attempted to use that for political advantage and of course because huge figures presented in a "knowing" way by the media make for the "good" headlines and scary stories that the newspapers in particular like to run.

[Fiona]

I agree, Darat. Income tax has been portrayed as a monster to fear, very strongly and for a long time. The political class and the media have all bought in to this and it seems that some are truly persuaded of this: and more have a particular political agenda: and the rest do not necessarily believe it but they have become convinced that this is the public perception. Given the propaganda there is some truth in the idea that the public do not like income tax, maybe: I remain sceptical that they will not tolerate it.

It is not so long ago that the base rate was 22%: not even long since it was 25%. I do not recall any great clamour for a cut: more low level grumbling which has hardly abated. People grumble about tax, shock!.

It is argued that the tories won elections on a promise to cut tax and that this is evidence that the public really wanted those cuts and will not stand for any reversal. I do not see anything to support that conventional wisdom. Are there any polls showing that the level of taxation was the main reason behind voting decisions? People vote for a package and it is quite hard to tease out what are the decisive factors: but it suits the neo-conservatives to repeat this ad nauseam.

Have we actually cut tax since this mantra came to the fore? Well if people will not stand for high tax we must have: but I seem to remember both parties claiming that the other has in fact raised the level of taxation while saying they are not doing that: stealth tax comes to mind.

Income tax is progressive and it is transparent: but if people really cared about the level of tax as much as is claimed then less open tax would not be accepted either: the people are not stupid and they notice it in vat and on petrol and in council tax: this does not bring governments down so far as I can see

I personally would prefer the bulk of government revenue to come from income tax where I can see it and where I have some confidence that it is reasonably fairly applied. There are real problems in getting the very rich to pay it: but that applies to most forms of taxation. Tax on sales such as vat are presented as a way of getting round that: but it does not work and it is quite regressive: tax on luxury goods might work better, I don't know. Tax on property is also a way of getting round that: but the council tax is viciously regressive and so far as I can see that was the only reason for moving to that system: the poor widow in the 6 bedroom house notwithstanding.

There is room for some tax on property and luxury goods and on capital: but basic income tax is the fairest tax we have, with all its faults. And that is the one which has been demonised. I wonder if these two facts are, by any chance, related :)

[Francesca R]

Not quite. Government outlays include regular spending but they also include things like the bank bail out, which was of the order of £850 billion, per "The Independent". It may be that you are positioning that as debt rather than deficit, though.Not just me, the Treasury excludes the impact of financial intervention (their term) from the budget too. Some people think the budget deficit is so large due to bailing out Lloyds/HBOS and RBS, but that it all off-budget.

And this is the correct treatment IMO as well--the £850 billion total you see (60% of UK GDP, which is synonymous with national income yes) is the gross amount of debt guarantees and Bank of England asset purchases as well as the government's purchase of RBS and Lloyds/HBOS. None of these are current expenditure in the sense of paying for goods or services. Debt guarantees are not investment either. The RBS and Lloyds/HBOS rescues are asset swaps, which are technically investments, though not the type that government usually makes, since they are investments of last resort. The Treasury maintains that the ultimate (permanent) impact of those to the public could be a profit. Up to you whether you agree.

The bottom line is that bailouts etc are not included in the Treasury's budget numbers (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr09_annexb.pdf), nor as far as I know in the OECD estimates. The IFS, by the way, adopts HM Treasury forecasts, except where it provided the comparison with the rest of the OECD in the report you linked for the number I think you quoted.

Yet the interest is surely in the income and expenditure account? I presume it is. It is true that once incurred that debt must be paid and that interest must also be paid: so it seems to me that the largest part of this problem derives from that. I do not know the interest rate on that debt and I know that not all of it is direct debt: but at least 110 billion is direct debt; and I think rather more than that. Part of the bailout activity will have to be funded by increasing the debt. I have seen numbers similar to yours. However if the BoE buys the debt (which it has) then this is more akin to monetisation (printing money).

Per the IFS structural deficit was 2.7% of national income in 2007 and was projected to rise to 3.6% in 2008 (not outurn figures though: I have not been able to find those). If that is correct then the amount of structural deficit would be 51.52 billion. It will have increased this year, but we do not seem to have figures yet (or I have missed them)The Treasury (and other political parties) exclude investment spending from the structural deficit, so they calculate it as cyclically-adjusted revenue minus non-investment spending. This accounts for about 4% of the difference from the OECD number I gave before. (The Treasury's pre-budget report, December 09, linked above, does also show the cyclically-adjusted deficit including investment spending, which is in Table B2, page 168 (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr09_annexb.pdf), and is -9% of GDP. The smaller number is -5.5%, same table. The March 2010 budget revised this lower to about -4.6%--see the slideshow here (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4798)). You can also see in the Treasury's pre-budget report that they predict economic growth will be 2% in 2010/11, and 3.25% every year thereafter. Almost all private forecasts are lower than that. And forecasting growth is a mugs' game anyway IMO. Suffice it to say that even assuming the most rapid growth the UK was able to achieve in its housing/finance boom, a huge budget tightening is required.

Seems like you pays your money and you picks your economist :). At least the only difference here seems to be which set of figures you accept: and the numbers are very different. And yes, public finances are a data minefield, which is why politicians are often able to help themselves to numbers that flatter themselves and discredit others.

[Fiona]

So at least on one set of figures the deficit (4.6%) is within the normal range seen since 1979 (though at the high end of that range: and on another it is above it at 5.5%. Which, given the proposition that this is the worst financial crisis for a very long time, one might expect to happen. I still do not see any justification for the draconian measures proposed: nor do I see how this is better dealt with by cutting public spending.

[Francesca R]

Which draconian measures?

Maybe you're reading something I have not said.

I said: There is no way on god's green earth that you can raise the tax take by 2% of GDP just by soaking the rich, never mind the more like 5% additional burden that the UK would need in order to continue with present spending (post recession). in post 167, using the degree of tightening that is in the budget numbers. All political parties are proposing that, over 5 years. All of them expect the bulk to come from public spending cuts.

Then there was some discussion about keeping all spending unchanged and some implicit suggestions from yourself and Darat that this could all be financed by tax increases, and I have pointed out the extra revenue that would be required to do this with no borrowing at all. (It is one of Gordon Brown's fiscal rules that borrowing to finance public investment is OK by the way, which is why the Treasury considers the structural deficit to be "only" -5%, that is really the "sustainable" deficit according to those fiscal rules.)

[Soapy Sam]

Is this a serious political party in the UK?

I believe that they are actually registered as a party, but are they serious, or is this just some form of elaborate, extended practical joke?

The MRLP are as close as we are likely to get to a "None of the above" option on the voting paper.

No politician has the guts to authorise it.

[Darat]

Nope I'm not implying that my point is that there seems to be empirical evidence that our current level of taxation could be increased and by quite a bit, without it having any severe economic or social effects.

So, for instance, the claims by business "leaders" that the small additional costs they will face with the planned increase in NI will result in something terribly negative for the economy can be dismissed, and since they are the Tory's stated reasons for saying they will not implement the planned raise if they form the next government we can also dismiss the Tory's plans as nonsensical.

[Francesca R]

According to the information I found and linked above, there has been a "structural deficit" consistently since at least 1979. It has varied in amount but it seems to be nearly always there. It is argued here that we need to eliminate structural deficit one way or another: at least that is what I take from Francesca's post where she saysI never said that the budget had to balance. If the government borrows at about the same rate as the economy grows, then the public debt ratio is stable. I thought you raised the idea that current spending could, and should be paid for entirely out of revenue. It couldn't. And no credible analysis I have seen thinks it can be sustained with borrowing either, nor a combination of borrowing and tax. Ergo--spending cuts.

[Francesca R]

I think there is a strong argument that since the public wants services at least at the level of countries like France and Germany than we have to increase taxation.Sounds like a very weak argument to me. A strong one would be "if the public wants services at the level of countries like France and Germany and is willing to pay the tax necessary, then we should increase taxation".

I would like to hear a justification of why you think that an answer to the question "Do you want the service" automatically implies willingness to pay.

[Fiona]

[quote]I said: There is no way on god's green earth that you can raise the tax take by 2% of GDP just by soaking the rich, never mind the more like 5% additional burden that the UK would need in order to continue with present spending (post recession). in post 167, using the degree of tightening that is in the budget numbers. All political parties are proposing that, over 5 years. All of them expect the bulk to come from public spending cuts.

Since nobody mentioned "soaking the rich", perhaps it is you who is reading things which have not been said?

2% of GDP is 28 billion. Income tax produced 157 billion last year. My arithmetic is not good but it seems to me that if we raise it to 25% we achieve the same result in 5 years as we do by cutting public spending, if what you say is correct. As to continuing the same level of spending in a recession: we increase debt to do that; at least we have done so for a very long time. That brings us back to the level of debt which is sustainable, does it not?

And of course none of the big political parties is offering that as an alternative: that is what this conversation is about. It has not been established that this is not an alternative: yet that is what we are asked to believe. I don't.

Then there was some discussion about keeping all spending unchanged and some implicit suggestions from yourself and Darat that this could all be financed by tax increases,

It is not implicit. I am asking for a good reason why it is not an alternative. And I am not following your argument which purports to show that.


and I have pointed out the extra revenue that would be required to do this with no borrowing at all. (It is one of Gordon Brown's fiscal rules that borrowing to finance public investment is OK by the way, which is why the Treasury considers the structural deficit to be "only" -5%, that is really the "sustainable" deficit according to those fiscal rules.)

You have chosen a set of figures which support your argument: you have not shown why those are to be preferred. You have said that we need 137 billion. So let us go with that. How do you propose to cut 22% from public spending. What programmes will you cut and what financial burden will those cuts place on the people of the country? More or less than the increase in tax which you see as impossible? How much more or less?

[Darat]

Sounds like a very weak argument to me. A strong one would be "if the public wants services at the level of countries like France and Germany and is willing to pay the tax necessary, then we should increase taxation".

I would like to hear a justification of why you think that an answer to the question "Do you want the service" automatically implies willingness to pay.

My argument was of the form "If we want X we have to pay Y", how isn't that clear?

[Fiona]

I never said that the budget had to balance.

Then I have misunderstood your post. If government income equal to government outlay does not come to a balanced budget on the current account what does it mean?

If the government borrows at about the same rate as the economy grows, then the public debt ratio is stable. I thought you raised the idea that current spending could, and should be paid for entirely out of revenue.

Don't see how you could have got that out of what I said. We are not communicating well it seems. I have pointed out twice that the ratio of public debt fluctuates a lot and has done since 1979. What I am asking is why is this a problem now, since it seems that public debt is either within the range of fluctuation or slightly above it: not enough above it to show that debt will rise to the 12% which is conventionally judged to cause a debt crisis

It couldn't. And no credible analysis I have seen thinks it can be sustained with borrowing either, nor a combination of borrowing and tax. Ergo--spending cuts.

I know that is what you think: but you have not shown why you think it. All you have said is that the people will not stand for the tax increase which will be required. That has nothing to do with "credible analysis", or at least not on what you have told us so far.

[Fiona]

Sounds like a very weak argument to me. A strong one would be "if the public wants services at the level of countries like France and Germany and is willing to pay the tax necessary, then we should increase taxation".

I would like to hear a justification of why you think that an answer to the question "Do you want the service" automatically implies willingness to pay.

I can't speak for Darat: I never said it automatically means a willingness to pay. I said the alternatives should be put before the electorate honestly and they should vote on that if they think it is the most important thing.

It is you who is assuming that it is not an option because they are automatically unwilling to pay

[Francesca R]

My argument was of the form "If we want X we have to pay Y", how isn't that clear?You said "Since [we want X . . . ]" which implies that we do. We might in the sense of wanting our cake and eating it too, but we might not, knowing it will cost Y.

[Soapy Sam]

Dangerous precedent, asking the populace what they are willing to pay for.
They might decide not to pay for nuclear submarines. Or politicians.
Then where would we be?

[Francesca R]

Greece is seeing the consequences of not troubling them with payment demands.

[Francesca R]

2% of GDP is 28 billion. Income tax produced 157 billion last year. My arithmetic is not good but it seems to me that if we raise it to 25% we achieve the same result in 5 years as we do by cutting public spending, if what you say is correct.The IFS "Green Budget" published in February has a list of possible tax increases and estimates of their revenue yielded in table 7.2 page 162 (http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2010/gb2010.pdf). That has raising it to 24% raising £16bn. So maybe it needs to go to at least 27% to get £28bn. It has been at that rate before.

That's for a 2% tightening which is not enough to remove HMT's cyclically adjusted deficit excluding investment, which needs 5%. In other words, if the only tax hike was +7% on the basic rate, there would still have to be spending cuts to get the other 3% of GDP covered, and that assumes that borrowing to finance investment continues, and that the aggressive looking growth assumptions are fine.

It has not been established that this is not an alternative: yet that is what we are asked to believe. I don't.It hasn't been established that it is an alternative. As you say, no party is running for election with such an alternative. My default assumption is that it is not at all viable, and that the MRLP would poll higher.

[Francesca R]

Wow, you live in L.Square?

Actually, I have just moved from Leicester Square to IslingtonLeicester square is only about 2km from me, but Holborn & St Pancras is in between the constituencies, where Frank Dobson has been Labour member for decades (He was Labour candidate for Mayor of London in 2000 but was obliterated in the Ken Livingstone snafu*)

So far I am seeing about 4x as many Labour signs on people's railings than flourescent orange LibDem diamonds. I wonder if opinion has swung back to Labour. I don't think anyone would dare show a Tory sign.

*snafu in that Livingstone was willing to run for Labour but they didn't select him so he ran independently and won by a mile. He won again, but back with Labour, in 2004.

[Fiona]

29 billion from a 3 p increase in tax on basic and higher rate, it looks like. In one year.

What are the costs to the population of a cut of 22% in public spending?

[Francesca R]

29 billion from a 3 p increase in tax on basic and higher rate, it looks like. In one year.I think that is two separate estimates--one says £15bn, the other reckons £14.5bn. What do you mean "in one year"?

What are the costs to the population of a cut of 22% in public spending?No idea. High, I think.

[Fiona]

In one year means in one year. You said the public spending cuts would be spread over 5 years, I think. And what you say we need is 137 billion. 27 billion each year. So if you are correct and those are two estimates then we achieve the same effect by in increase to 25% as we do by the public spending cuts. Or so it seems to me.

What we need is a comparison of what that costs for the people: we cannot do that unless you can say how much it will cost them for the public spending option. That seems to be wholly missing from this debate. Curious.

[Reginald]

Where is George Osborne?













(I wont add "when you need him.")

[Francesca R]

I didn't say "we need £137 billion" either. That number is the total cyclically-adjusted UK deficit according to the OECD. So if real spending stays steady and there is no borrowing (or privatisations) then it would need to be raised in tax. In real life, spending will fall, borrowing will continue, and tax will raise a lot less than that.

I still don't know what you mean with the rest of the post, sorry.

[Fiona]

So how much do we need, Francesca?

[Francesca R]

According to the IFS's Gemma Tetlow (whom I've met), using HMT forecasts, £67 billion (see page 26 and 27 (http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2010/tetlow.pdf), I linked this above).

According to private sector it varies, but is generally higher than that.

[Darat]

You said "Since [we want X . . . ]" which implies that we do. We might in the sense of wanting our cake and eating it too, but we might not, knowing it will cost Y.

First part of my statement:....since the public wants services at least at the level of countries like France and Germany....

Since ;) the governments since 1997 have all been elected on a promise to raise the standards of services such as the NHS and education, indeed in regards to the NHS a big talking part has been to get our NHS spending up to a so-called "EU average", and the electioneering message for this election is that Labour & Tory will both "ring fence" NHS and education spending I'm pretty confident that the major parties believe that the public does want that level of service. Now it may be they are wrong as to what the public wants but my own anecdotal evidence is that they aren't. So that establishes the first part of my argument.

My second part was ".... we have to increase taxation."

I stated what I thought we wanted and then how we had to pay for it. So that is, as I said, an argument of the form of "If we want X we have to pay Y".


Now if you want to argue that we can reach and maintain the "service levels" of countries such as Germany and France in regards to health and education without having to have a similar tax burden as those countries I'd like to hear how you propose we do that.

[Darat]

Where is George Osborne? ...snip...

As long as the answer is "not in the media" I think Cameron is happy!

[cwalner]

Now if you want to argue that we can reach and maintain the "service levels" of countries such as Germany and France in regards to health and education without having to have a similar tax burden as those countries I'd like to hear how you propose we do that.

Just ask US conservatives. According to them we have the best health care system in the world and the best education system in the world (far surpising any EU country) and we have a much lower tax burden than even the UK.

[Darat]

Just ask US conservatives. According to them we have the best health care system in the world and the best education system in the world (far surpising any EU country) and we have a much lower tax burden than even the UK.

:D

[Undesired Walrus]

http://www2.labour.org.uk/manifesto-splash

Labour Manifesto is out.

I can't remember where one usually buys these in the flesh. Is it at WH Smith's and places like that?

[Francesca R]

Since ;) the governments since 1997 have all been elected on a promise to raise the standards of services such as the NHS and education, indeed in regards to the NHS a big talking part has been to get our NHS spending up to a so-called "EU average", and the electioneering message for this election is that Labour & Tory will both "ring fence" NHS and education spending I'm pretty confident that the major parties believe that the public does want that level of service.Which of course does not mean the public wants to pay for it. After all, governments since 1997 were all elected on a promise not to raise the basic or upper rate of income tax as well.

Now it may be they are wrong as to what the public wants but my own anecdotal evidence is that they aren't. So that establishes the first part of my argument.If the public wants something that is internally inconsistent, the resolution is to change X or Y or a bit of both. In my view it is highly unlikely that the only thing that will change is Y (the tax take). And this is consistent with the budget plans of all three parties.

Now if you want to argue that we can reach and maintain the "service levels" of countries such as Germany and France in regards to health and education without having to have a similar tax burden as those countries I'd like to hear how you propose we do that.I have argued no such thing, therefore you won't be hearing about it.

[Darat]

Which of course does not mean the public wants to pay for it. ...snip...

I have argued no such thing, therefore you won't be hearing about it.

Well as someone else said recently - "I have argued no such thing...", my argument was about the costs involved in wanting X.

[Darat]

http://www2.labour.org.uk/manifesto-splash

Labour Manifesto is out.

I can't remember where one usually buys these in the flesh. Is it at WH Smith's and places like that?

Or in couple of days time call at your local Labour party's office they should be able to give you one.

ETA: Bloody hell just looked at the website - ugly or what!

[Undesired Walrus]

But you can buy them at WH Smith too?

[Darat]

You have been able to do so in the past - I don't know if they will bother with that route this time, I think I once bought one of the parties manifesto at a book-chain like Waterstones.

[Undesired Walrus]

ETA: Bloody hell just looked at the website - ugly or what!

Perhaps after the election Labour will come to their senses and drop that hideous font they've been using for a good decade now. What's it called?

I'd choose good, reliable Bell MT.

[Rolfe]

Sigh. I delivered nearly 200 leaflets yesterday. Bits of me hurt.

Rolfe.