Politics Thread!

[pogo]

The problem with the Greens is their policies don’t add up. I mean arithmetically, their sums don’t add up. In a way it doesn’t matter as even if they double their number of seats they’d only have two which puts them probably behind six to eight other parties in the running to form a coalition. Except you keep on hearing them talk as if they will be key coalition partners.

The only party likely to get seats in double figures is the SNP, so any coalition will have to involve them, but I can’t see how; they have nothing in common with the Tories and in Scotland they are in opposition to Labour, or vice versa, and so are also far apart from them on many issues, or at least on all the ones that matter to the SNP. Giving the SNP even a fraction what they would want would make whoever did it very unpopular in England and so be electoral suicide for 2020.

A coalition not involving the SNP would likely be even harder to assemble. The other parties will probably have far fewer seats and so more would need to be involved, and it’s hard to imagine a workable coalition with e.g. UKIP, the Lib Dems and some NI parties all involved. Probably it won’t be necessary as polls suggest a hung parliament is much less likely, though polls can be wrong, and we’ve never had an election with so many parties likely to win multiple seats, or at least not in recent history, so polls might be an especially poor guide.

[pogo]

Last Week Tonight on Labour’s pink van stunt:

[zip accident]

* softly whistles 'colonel bogie'*

[merman]

Yes, let's concentrate on the trivialities like Ed Miliband's kitchen or the colour of a van instead of dealing with important issues like

- ONE MILLION PEOPLE needing to visit food banks
- more people having to claim housing benefits, which now goes straight into the pockets of greedy private landlords because of
- this government's poor record on building new social housing and affordable homes*
- 1 in 5 teachers without proper qualification

AND the number 1 aim of the "long term economic plan" being to reduce the deficit having FAILED.



*Cameron's announcement of 200,000 new affordable homes does not stand up to scrutiny. He's scrapping rules to allow builders to build cheaply and make a larger profit, while getting rid of the requirement of small developments to include social housing. By affordable it means based on homes of a similar type in the same area - so in some areas that "affordable" price tag is over £450,000....

[offyoutoddle]

AND the number 1 aim of the "long term economic plan" being to reduce the deficit having FAILED.

staggering how many people have lost sight of that one too isn't it. So many who felt a coalition was a way to temper the excesses of the parties they did and didn't like, yet they didn't realise they instead of the best of all worlds they may actually get the worst of all worlds.

Frankly I've always felt ideologically not voting was an insult to all who gave their lives throughout our history for our democracy, yet I'm increasingly finding it harder and harder to work out what the hell to do this year.

[pogo]

AND the number 1 aim of the "long term economic plan" being to reduce the deficit having FAILED.

Er, they have reduced the deficit, from its peak in 2009/10. Not as quickly as predicted then but the economic crisis turned out much worse than expected, and the recovery has been slower and in particular slow to generate revenue. Most of the other problems are due to the same crisis (though I’ve not heard the one about teachers; I find it hard to believe that suddenly 20% are unqualified).

I agree with you on housing; not enough is being done to build new homes, which would reduce prices, reduce rents, and so reduce hardship due to housing benefit issues. This is not a short term problem though, we haven’t been building enough homes for decades, and there‘s blame to go around on this one. At least this government is trying to do something, but not enough and some wrong things (“Help to Buy” e.g.).

[gravy]

AND the number 1 aim of the "long term economic plan" being to reduce the deficit having FAILED.

Er, they have reduced the deficit, from its peak in 2009/10. Not as quickly as predicted then but the economic crisis turned out much worse than expected, and the recovery has been slower and in particular slow to generate revenue. Most of the other problems are due to the same crisis (though I’ve not heard the one about teachers; I find it hard to believe that suddenly 20% are unqualified).

Osborne's 2010 plan, his 2014l projections and the path Darling proposed; a level of debt and defecit that Osborne was pretty scathing about.

And to be clear the 2014 projections are nonsense

I know the defecit has been reduced but seeing that as a victory is like pretending you got a gold medal after coming last in a race "I said I run and I did run!", yeah you did. Just badly and nowhere near as fast as you claimed you would.

[pogo]

Osborne's 2010 plan, his 2014l projections and the path Darling proposed; a level of debt and defecit that Osborne was pretty scathing about.

Yes, Osborne’s projections in 2010 were wrong. So were everyone’s.

But as you contrast the outcome with Darling’s proposals, are you suggesting we should have followed them? That would have meant lower borrowing which would have required even steeper cuts, and so even greater austerity. I doubt you are advocating that. So what exactly should the government have done differently?

[merman]

Osborne's 2010 plan, his 2014l projections and the path Darling proposed; a level of debt and defecit that Osborne was pretty scathing about.

Yes, Osborne’s projections in 2010 were wrong. So were everyone’s.

But as you contrast the outcome with Darling’s proposals, are you suggesting we should have followed them? That would have meant lower borrowing which would have required even steeper cuts, and so even greater austerity. I doubt you are advocating that. So what exactly should the government have done differently?

Stopped privatising everything in sight and selling off assets.

Invested in infrastructure rather than cutting.

Actually clamped down on tax evasion rather than making repeated statements they were doing so.

Means tested perks for pensioners.

Invested in the NHS rather than cutting funding in real terms, and not bought in the internal market that has cost between £4-10 billion depending on estimates.

Reduced subsidies to privatised industries (rail franchises, nuclear power, electricity companies).

Not brought in the bedroom tax, which has forced thousands of families into rent arrears and has NOT reduced the overall bill.

Not caused a housing price bubble with Help To Buy, which has only benefitted private landlords.

Not introduced Universal Credit which is wasting billions before it starts.

[merman]

Oh, and the number one error was forcing councils to make severe cuts while central Government continues to borrow and waste.

[gravy]

Osborne's 2010 plan, his 2014l projections and the path Darling proposed; a level of debt and defecit that Osborne was pretty scathing about.

Yes, Osborne’s projections in 2010 were wrong. So were everyone’s.

But as you contrast the outcome with Darling’s proposals, are you suggesting we should have followed them? That would have meant lower borrowing which would have required even steeper cuts, and so even greater austerity. I doubt you are advocating that. So what exactly should the government have done differently?

Same old tune eh?

I'm saying the disaster Darling was targetting (according to the Cons at the last election) is actually better than George's current day reality.

You're saying give him a banana because it's gone on the right direction at the wrong pace. I'm saying no banana.

[pogo]

I'm saying the disaster Darling was targetting (according to the Cons at the last election) is actually better than George's current day reality.

You're saying give him a banana because it's gone on the right direction at the wrong pace. I'm saying no banana.

I’m saying everyone was wrong in their predictions in 2010. Yes, the Tories got it very wrong but so did Labour. So it makes no sense to compare Labour’s (in retrospect) implausible targets with what was actually achieved.

I do think economic policy has been largely correct since, and that’s what you should judge the government on. But if not what policy should have been followed?

[gravy]

Yeah I know. And you're also harping on about his 2010 predictions when his 2014 rebase is already wrong.

We've been through this before, you know my position.

The new point here is where George has landed is worst that where Darling wanted to go, somewhere Osborne was really negative about back in 2010.

[pogo]

I would not pay too much attention to what was said last year. This year is much more important because of the election. We should be able to compare and contrast the parties’ actual programmes once their manifestos are out.

It’s been remarkable how little real campaigning we’ve seen so far. Normally at this point parties have been campaigning for months. With the government choosing the date of the election, typically a year before they have to, they are in a much more advanced stat of preparedness just in case. But now we still don’t have anything like a complete programme from any of them.

Interesting to head Miliband sensibly saying they won’t go into government with the SNP. The Tories certainly won’t. No other party is likely to have more than a handful of seats. So it’s either going to be a Labour win, a Tory win, or a properly hung parliament.

[VNVObit]

Interesting to head Miliband sensibly saying they won’t go into government with the SNP. The Tories certainly won’t. No other party is likely to have more than a handful of seats. So it’s either going to be a Labour win, a Tory win, or a properly hung parliament.

Milliband is responding to an attack ad as for the Tories, well they'll do anything to hang on to power (probably hope UKIP have enough seats). Wouldn't be too surprised if the budget doesn't have targeted giveaways to their core votes with carrots of more if they continue in power without being dependent on smaller parties.