The 2015 General Election

[OutByEaster?]

Interesting that there's been quite a bit of talk on the beeb about the end of single party governments and big majorities in the house. I certainly think that's where this election is leading. I think until someone comes around who has policies that the public genuinely feel they can embrace, it'll be like this for a while. I suspect we'll change the way we carry out elections before we change the current status quo on policy though.

[chrisp65]

The sad thing is, some minority parties stopping the worst excesses of the two big ones should be a bit of an ideal consensus politics world.

The last election, planting the Lib Dems in the centre and able to negotiate and veto either the red or the blue team should have been just about ideal for the status quo. Somehow, they've gaffed that and managed to make themselves less popular at the same time as the main two are at their least popular.

 

I'd imagine that one way or the other, after the election, Clegg will have to pay for that.

 

But however it pans out, don't worry about Cameron, Clegg, Milliband or Farage. Something tells me that they'll be able to scrape by financially.

After all, if they do ever need to top up their wealth, they could always take a convenient zero hours contract to fit around their modern lifestyles.

[MakemineVanilla]

The sad thing is, some minority parties stopping the worst excesses of the two big ones should be a bit of an ideal consensus politics world.

The last election, planting the Lib Dems in the centre and able to negotiate and veto either the red or the blue team should have been just about ideal for the status quo. Somehow, they've gaffed that and managed to make themselves less popular at the same time as the main two are at their least popular.

 

I'd imagine that one way or the other, after the election, Clegg will have to pay for that.

 

But however it pans out, don't worry about Cameron, Clegg, Milliband or Farage. Something tells me that they'll be able to scrape by financially.

After all, if they do ever need to top up their wealth, they could always take a convenient zero hours contract to fit around their modern lifestyles.

 

Sadly and outrageously, once someone has gained entry into the political classes, they have to do something really heinous to be disbarred. 

 

Just about any fraudsters or jailbird you care to name, who ran the gauntlet of public disgrace, were quickly rehabilitated and are still earning a living in the media.

 

And, if that isn't bad enough, every ex-leader is instantly given lucrative sinecures to ensure they are rewarded for their services to democracy.

 

They will definitely get their zero-hours contracts but they will entail, book deals, generous honoraria, first-class travel and five star accommodation.

 

Just look at how Neil Kinnock was rewarded. He might have been the first person to go to university from his family but he was almost certainly the first millionaire too. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[mockingbird_franklin]

talking of Lies

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

and  a bit of analysis of the misleading and innacurate presented as fact, strange that a party has no idea where they will make £12 billion in welfare cuts, even over 12 months after proposing them, but can so accurately predict the tax implications of a rival parties manifesto pledges within a blink of an eye,

From the Institute of Fiscal Studies

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7678

Would Labour increase taxes by over £3,000 for every working household? Date: 30 March 2015 Authors: Carl Emmerson , Paul Johnson and Soumaya Keynes Publisher: Institute for Fiscal Studies

The Conservative Party have claimed that under Labour there would be a £3,028 tax rise for every working household. This calculation assumes that Labour would increase taxes on working households by £7.5 billion in 2016–17 and £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards, with the £3,028 being the average tax rise cumulated over all years through to 2019–20.

What time period, which households?

The first point to note is that, on the basis of these figures, you get to an average £3,000 tax increase by (1) cumulating increases over four years – this is the average additional bill in total over four years, it is not an annual additional cost – and (2) dividing the total tax increase only by the number of working households not by the total number of households.

In a world in which taxes were to rise by £15 billion one would usually describe this as leaving households worse off by £560 a year – £15 billion divided by 26.7 million households.

Cumulating numbers like this over several years is, at best, unhelpful. Ignoring the existence of non-working households doesn’t help provide sensible averages either.

Which fiscal targets?

A more fundamental question to ask, though, is whether Labour would need to impose a tax rise amounting to £7.5 billion in 2016–17 and £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards to meet its commitments for reducing the deficit, assuming that the consolidation is split 50/50 between further tax rises and real spending cuts.

The Conservatives argue that this would be needed for Labour to comply with the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility which it voted for earlier this year in the House of Commons.

The Charter sets out two fiscal targets. First, that public sector net debt should be lower as a share of national income in 2016–17 than 2015–16. Second, that there should be a surplus on the structural current budget balance in the third year of the forecast horizon. This second rule means that, after adjusting for the estimated impact of the ups-and-downs of the economic cycle, total revenues should be sufficient to cover all of the government’s current spending: in other words any borrowing should be explained either by temporary weakness in the economy or spending on investment.

Let’s start with the more important, and sensible, of these targets, the target for structural current budget balance.

The latest forecasts for the structural overall deficit and the structural current budget deficit are shown in the figure below. The OBR’s forecast is that total public spending, less spending on debt interest, would be cut by £30.5 billion by 2017–18 and that this would be sufficient to deliver a current budget surplus of £16.3 billion. However, because some items of public spending – such as spending on public service pensions – is expected to rise the size of the discretionary cut to spending required to bring about this surplus is actually closer to £35 billion.

So on the face of it Labour might need a fiscal tightening of just over £18 billion by 2017–18 (the £35 billion implied by the Budget less the £16.3 billion of overachievement against the fiscal target that Labour would not actually need). Obviously, such a tightening – if half is to come from tax rises – would imply a net tax rise of around £9 billion in 2017–18 (and not the £15 billion the Conservatives suggest).

However, the target set out in the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility relates to the third year of the forecast horizon. While this is currently 2017–18, by the time of any post-election “emergency” Budget this would relate to 2018–19 (because the current financial year would be 2015–16 not 2014–15).

In that year, the Budget forecast is for a surplus on the structural current budget of £33.7 billion, brought about by a total real cut to departmental spending between 2015–16 and 2018–19 of almost £40 billion. In other words the total amount of consolidation needed beyond the cuts in 2015–16 (that Labour has signed up to) would be just £6 billion. Achieving this 50/50 through tax rises and spending cuts would imply a £3 billion tax rise from 2018–19 onwards (and not the £15 billion from 2017–18 onwards that the Conservative numbers suggest).

Latest OBR forecasts for structural borrowing

Debt target

The OBR’s latest forecasts suggest that public sector net debt will fall from 80.2% of national income in 2015–16 to 79.8% of national income in 2016–17. This assumes that there are no new net tax rises or welfare cuts but that departmental spending is cut in real terms by £18.8 billion in 2016–17. This takeaway could be reduced to just over £9 billion and debt would still be forecast to fall slightly as a share of national income. If done 50/50 through tax rises and spending cuts this would imply a £5 billion tax rise in 2016–17 (not the £7.5 billion the Conservatives suggest).

But as we have argued before this target for debt to be falling in a particular year has little to commend it.

In conclusion

It is also not entirely clear – at least to us – when Labour would want to achieve current budget balance. Their oft-stated goal is to eliminate the current budget deficit by, at the latest, the end of the parliament. If that’s all they want to achieve they may need no tax increases or real terms spending cuts – beyond those planned for 2015–16 – at all. But that is later than implied by their having signed up to the Charter for Budget Responsibility. If they take that commitment seriously then they at least need to aim to get to current budget balance by 2018–19. If that’s what they want then they will require about £6 billion of spending cuts or tax increases.

There is real uncertainty about what path the Labour party want to follow for the public finances. The Conservatives have been clearer about what they want to achieve, but they have not been clear about how they would achieve it. They would require substantially bigger spending cuts or tax increases than Labour.

There is little value in bandying around numbers which suggest either party would increases taxes by an average of £3,000 for each working household. We don’t know what they will do after the election. But neither of the two main parties has said anything to suggest that is what they are planning.

[bickster]

Ed doing all he can to lose the election , zero hours gaffs ,lies and hypocrisy this time

Cameron's doing the same, you'll come round to that opinion in time too

But Ed's zero hours thing isn't a gaff. It being reported in the press (you know, the Tory Press) as such because that plays the story to the Tories. Those at the other end of the voting spectrum, the ones on the BAD zero hours contracts will lap it up. Its spin pure and simple, Millipede actually said "exploitative" zero hours contracts, he got his get out clause in at the start.

Its the typical he says this, they say that when in reality their positions are very much the same

[Risso]

talking of Lies

 

 

That's brilliant.  Do a two line bar graph and simply say "the truth".  Superb bit of analysis, that.  Very detailed.

[tonyh29]

Ed doing all he can to lose the election , zero hours gaffs ,lies and hypocrisy this time

Cameron's doing the same, you'll come round to that opinion in time too

But Ed's zero hours thing isn't a gaff. It being reported in the press (you know, the Tory Press) as such because that plays the story to the Tories. Those at the other end of the voting spectrum, the ones on the BAD zero hours contracts will lap it up. Its spin pure and simple, Millipede actually said "exploitative" zero hours contracts, he got his get out clause in at the start.

Its the typical he says this, they say that when in reality their positions are very much the same

We've done this before ... You can't slate the Tory press then use the guardian as your shining beacon( not here specifically but inngermersl )

I was using fact finder on the web or whatever it's called ..... And the OBS ... Both of whom dispute Eds claims indeed one of them even advised him not to use the figures he quoted as they weren't credible

[Seat68]

My kid is 26 and only this year has she managed to get a job that is full time and not zero hours. With that she can now try and get a mortgage. 

[snowychap]

I'd imagine that one way or the other, after the election, Clegg will have to pay for that.

If Ashcroft's polling is accurate then we may not have to wait beyond election night.

Were there ever a reason for Tories in Sheffield to vote Labour then the chance to boot Clegg out has got to be high up on the list.

[bickster]

Ed doing all he can to lose the election , zero hours gaffs ,lies and hypocrisy this time

Cameron's doing the same, you'll come round to that opinion in time too

But Ed's zero hours thing isn't a gaff. It being reported in the press (you know, the Tory Press) as such because that plays the story to the Tories. Those at the other end of the voting spectrum, the ones on the BAD zero hours contracts will lap it up. Its spin pure and simple, Millipede actually said "exploitative" zero hours contracts, he got his get out clause in at the start.

Its the typical he says this, they say that when in reality their positions are very much the same

We've done this before ... You can't slate the Tory press then use the guardian as your shining beacon( not here specifically but inngermersl )

I was using fact finder on the web or whatever it's called ..... And the OBS ... Both of whom dispute Eds claims indeed one of them even advised him not to use the figures he quoted as they weren't credible

The story really isn't about "facts" its about … as usual … spinning to their own voters. The facts don't really matter, the dispute of facts just keeps the story going. I never even mentioned the left wing press because its not relevant, the right wing press is doing the job required.

[Eames]

I'm probably alone in this but I can't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for Clegg.

 

If Ashcroft's polling s accurate then we may not have to wait beyond election night.
Were there ever a reason for Tories in Sheffield to vote Labour then the chance to boot Clegg out has got to be high up on the list.

 

 

He follows Lib Dem Party policy and produces a populist  manifesto that he had no idea if he could deliver or not, like every other Lib Dem leader since the dawn of time.  

 

Easily outperforms the others on the TV leaders debates to much popular acclaim and then finds himself holding the balance of power in a hung parliament before getting royally shafted by his coalition partners.

 

Poor chap never stood a chance.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Eames

[Seat68]

Does anyone feel a tiny bit sorry for clegg?

[snowychap]

talking of Lies

 

 

That's brilliant.  Do a two line bar graph and simply say "the truth".  Superb bit of analysis, that.  Very detailed.

If the claim is just a very simple one why would the analysis have to be any more detailed?

As to the claim, has Cameron actually made the claim that it is 2% of new jobs created (other than perhaps, in error)? The only thing I've seen claimed by the Tories, in general, is that 2% of the workforce overall are on zero hours contracts. I may be wrong and have missed the former.

On the face of it, it looks like it's actually a comparison between apples and oranges.

If it were apples and apples then it'd be fine and I don't see why, in order for it to be valid, those apples can't be served as is rather than be required to be made in to some sort of Apple noodle tart with toasted almonds and ginger crème fraîche.

[Condimentalist]

Does anyone feel a tiny bit sorry for clegg?

 

Yep, I do, absolutely. 

 

The public don't understand coalition government and have jumped on a Tory-led media bandwagon which seeks to discredit him and his party to their own ends. The Lib Dems did the right thing joining the government and now they'll be punished for it.

[snowychap]

Does anyone feel a tiny bit sorry for clegg?

Nope. Nothing here.

[chrisp65]

It's interesting that Cameron made his VAT promise and Clegg made his tuition fees promise.

 

Both promises were broken, somehow the Cameron one has gone away but Clegg just never recovered from his. He's been bizarrely singled out as a politician who's word cannot be trusted. Which when you think about it. Isn't logical.

 

He will be replaced after the election, it's just a question of who they still have in Westminster that they can use as a replacement. We could potentially end up with Beaker as Deputy PM. Presuming it isn't Sturgeon of course.

[mjmooney]

It's interesting that Cameron made his VAT promise and Clegg made his tuition fees promise.

Both promises were broken, somehow the Cameron one has gone away but Clegg just never recovered from his. He's been bizarrely singled out as a politician who's word cannot be trusted. Which when you think about it. Isn't logical.

He will be replaced after the election, it's just a question of who they still have in Westminster that they can use as a replacement. We could potentially end up with Beaker as Deputy PM. Presuming it isn't Sturgeon of course.

It's because everybody knows the Tories routinely lie, but the tuition fees thing was potentially a game changer - it motivated a huge number of young people to vote, often for the first time. All we hear about the younger generation now is that they are cynical about politics and probably won't bother voting - that's a massive turnaround.

If Clegg had allied with Labour, and pushed through the fees policy, he would have gained a generation of supporters, and turned the LibDems into a major party with a chance of one day winning outright power. The coalition with the Tories was political suicide.

Edited April 2, 2015 by mjmooney

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Tonight's debate is going to be an absolute shambles.

[bickster]

Tonight's debate is going to be an absolute festival of comedy.

Fixed