Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why positive poll ratings on economic competence might not
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why positive poll ratings on economic competence might not be enough for the Tories
In the run up to the May elections the George Osborne biographer and FT columnist wrote the following which goes right to the heart of the Tory challenge on economic policy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Indeed, persistent smearing leaves a stain.
"Finally we have another academic election prediction site, joining Steve Fisher’s projection here and Rob Ford, Will Jennings et al’s projection here. The latest addition is from Nick Vivyan, Chris Hanretty & Ben Lauderdale at ElectionForecast.co.uk. As I write Steve is predicting a Conservative lead of 4 points at the next election, producing a hung Parliament with the Conservatives the largest party; Rob and colleagues are predicting a 0.7% Labour lead at the next election; Nick, Ben and Chris are predicting a 1.2% Conservative lead, producing a hung Parliament with Labour the largest party."
"The Tories are heartless bastards, but they know how to run an economy"
The one thing we should remember, in recent times no opposition has ever won a general election whilst trailing on both the economy and leadership ratings
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/12/11/is-it-all-about-leader-ratings-and-the-economic-lead/
There has to be a reason why, in the face of an epically out-of-his-depth Ed, a Labour party bereft of a coherent set of policies and a recovering economy, the Tories are not already home and dry with regards to the outcome of the next election.
Obviously, as they always do, the Tories will blame the BBC, the Guardian, public sector workers, scroungers, charities, lying Labour, perfidious LDs, the EU, irrational UKIPers, stupid voters and a whole heap of others for this. But maybe one day they will have a look at themselves. When they do they could start with how they have reacted to the growth of food banks over recent years.
14/08/2014 18:02
The best, angriest local newspaper letter you will read today: pic.twitter.com/0qE7IwI6f7
Download the official Twitter app here
It is a problem - and there is a flaw with the obvious solution - ditching Cameron - he polls better than his party.....
anyway next election could be very close in terms of seats. If the tories stay in power somehow by getting more seats than labour it will be a remarkable achievement given the legacy they inherited
But what about me? Or any other individual? The vast majority of us have seen declining living standards for years. In addition if you work in the public sector you are still worried about your job as much more serious cuts are planned. There is not a lot to be cheerful about so there is little inclination to give the government much credit.
What Ed has done is skilful but dishonest. He is saying, "well if we are doing so much better and you are no better off where are the gains going? They must all be going to those rich bastards that support the tories."
It is good politics but the truth is that this country was living so far beyond its means in the last government that the situation can improve considerably with no one at all benefitting as we simply close the gap between the fantasy and the reality.
Are you starting to change your mind?
Same mould.
'When they do they could start with how they have reacted to the growth of food banks over recent years.'
Labour crashes the economy and then pretend to be outraged when the use of food banks,which started to grow when they were still in office, increases.
Strange article after we have seen crossover now on a number of polls.
Have been betting on the Tories to win the popular vote/Lab to win the most seats options for a while.
The Tories are 'heartless' because they care about the macroeconomics. Genuine fear of going all Argentina/Venezuela/Greece/UKinthe1970s matters more to them than the hardships of those at the bottom of the heap. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Labour are 'nice' because they like to shower the poor and the state with taxpayers' money - until it runs out - and genuinely don't care if they bankrupt us in doing so because it's the 'nasty' Tories who will get the blame when they are elected to sort out the mess. All must have prizes.
In a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul democracy, Paul can outvote Peter. And so we have a damaging electoral cycle of 'nice profligacy' and 'nasty discipline'. Usually the Tory phase builds enough financial capacity to weather the Labour phase. This time it's a bit different. The scale of the Labour hole in 2010 was not repairable in one parliament (or two). So we run the terrifying prospect of entering a 'nice' phase with a still much too large deficit and debt.
Buy gold. Or vote sensibly.
I said at the time Osborne cutting the 50% rate was political suicide as it completely destroyed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28798246
The Right's appeal to the voters must always be on the basis of being competent, and hard-headed.
Next week's however could prove interesting should the recent trend to the Blues continue.
This sounded phonetically unlikely to me. This site suggests it is a Glasgow corruption of "bureau" as in Employment Bureau: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/91897/im-on-the-brew
I do vaguely recall from my youth that one of the endless iterations of the DWP was the Employment Bureau so this sounds possible but the phrase was as well known and used on the east coast as in Glasgow.
Labour loves power and enjoys it and make a big trough for itself and its friends - does not matter to what happens to those outside the trough or those who are not its friends - they can always blame the doctor who has to prescribe nasty medicine to keep the patient alive. Of course Labour and their friends have insulated themselves from any effects or consequences that result from their policies - so they are all right, Ed, Ed, Jack, Tony etc.
Evidence that Labour voters found by polling will turn up at the GE when they haven't been seen since 2005 ?
We may have issues that need solving concerning productivity, housing and short-termism in management, but SeanT is right, I would rather be here than in Europe.
Construction is also uprated to stagnation from contraction, that will probably be pushed upwards in the final estimate.
The Tories will rely on a combination of:
- Labour = last financial crash
- the job's not finished
- look at France
- growing take home pay
- the pension reforms
- a vote on the EU
- Ed as prospective PM
My feel is that Labour will need some powerful scare stories to get the vote out and expect them to target women and public sector workers.
It's a massive mistake for the Right to allow the impression to be created that they don't care about those left behind, and that anyone in material difficulties has only their own failings to blame for that.
I don't know how you frame a "Tory knows best" sort of paternalism in an age of pandering to consumer choice, but that sense of the successful having a duty to care for the unsuccessful is at the core of a right-wing ideology that can win a majority. There has to be a genuine sense of philanthropy to replace redistribution, or it will be seen simply as a fig-leaf.
I believe the Tory instinct is towards financial responsibility. But they need to get elected to deliver it. Catch-22.
Some were working on flood defences, some in the passport office,some were working in the homecare for the elderly, etc. Some of these people have been paid off and then rehired at lower wages and conditions, while some have pocketed redundancy then been rehired to do the same job, but as private workers.
In the vast majority of cases though, most on here won't notice any difference because they don't need the services those workers supplied.
Other peoples experiences may vary.
Personally I think IDS has caused a lot of damage to the Tory image. Not because he has implemented important changes to the benefits system, but because of the way he has appeared to have done it with zeal. There have been numerous examples of benefits being withdrawn which has led to the death of some people. e.g the ex soldier who starved to death after benefits were withdrawn. If you have a minister who does not care a sh1t about people because they are on a mission, it does not come across very well to fair minded people.
David Cameron not being concerned by the image of the UK having food banks. This would bother most people.
How anybody could conclude this is a far-right government is beyond me.
"At its heart, the referendum choice is between the disruptive risk of change with the Nationalists, versus further devolved change as part of the UK. And at times of turmoil, tumult or disruption there’s one group that is always left paying the bill and it’s those that can least afford it.
No-one disputes that Independence is disruptive change – for Nationalists it’s the very nature of disruptive change of leaving the UK that makes it so appealing. But for working people, the idea of upheaval is less attractive – and that message is coming through loud and clear.
We just need to look at our recent history. There have been three disruptive shocks in my lifetime.
The oil shock of the 70s, which saw prices quadruple, the industrial shock of the 1980s, and the third was the financial shock in 2008 brought about by the global crisis – which of course had it not been for the broader shoulders of the UK, could have wiped out the banks that share Scotland’s name.
Oil: as we saw earlier this year, a collapse in oil revenues would have meant a £4.4 billion cut in the funding for public services in one year
Industrial: we have seen Scotland’s big employers, from Shipyards to Standard Life, raise the prospect of Scotland losing thousands of jobs.
And Financial: the SNP’s lack of a credible currency plan – so brilliantly exposed by Alistair Darling last week – raising the prospect of a fresh period of financial upheaval.
However there are two big differences between independence and the past shocks. First, that this is a Scottish decision with international impacts rather than an international event with Scottish consequences. It would probably be the first ’100% Made in Scotland’ disruptive change of my life.
And second, major difference is that a vote to leave the UK on September 18th is irreversible. Other shocks were prolonged but not permanent.
And those at risk are the people I call the copers. Those who cope but are only ever one wage packet away from hardship; those who if their fridge or cooker broke down wouldn’t know where to get the money for a new one.
They won’t enjoy the corporation tax cuts Alex Salmond will give to the rich – they’ll endure the spending cuts to public service. As the SNP come under relentless pressure for a Plan B on the economy working class voters are still waiting to hear a Plan A on how they won’t have to foot the independence bill.
The SNP must think these voters’ heads button up the back. But working Scots are pretty straightforward. They ask hard questions. They expect straight answers. They are entitled to know just how much more they would they have to pay to fund the SNP’s dreams. A year ago many of those working class voters were willing to give the SNP the benefit of the doubt. But their patience has run out. And for the SNP so is time."
http://labourlist.org/2014/08/the-scottish-referendum-more-than-a-month-to-go-and-anything-can-happen/
Con ........ 301 (-2 seats)
Lab ......... 292 (unchanged)
LibDem .... 28 (+2 seats)
Others ...... 29 (unchanged)
Total ...... 650
http://electionsetc.com/2014/08/15/forecast-update-15-august-2014/
Their actions in Government have totally destroyed that, from food banks to flogging our NHS to Tory supporters, brutal benefit cuts to the most vulnerable whilst cutting tax for millionaires.
If Osborne hadn't flatlined a growing economy, borrowed more than Labour did in 13 years, and created a dangerously unbalanced bubble economy to get him through the election, people might have give them enough credit on the economy to overcome all that.
Bending over backwards to please the bankers who caused our economic mess in the first place hasn't helped the Tories either.
Where's @BenM when you need him?
Charles bet him £10 last year at evens that UK GDP would be greater than 2%
I offered BenM 3/2 to try and entice him into another bet, but no joy :-(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/hr-news/9266687/Public-sector-workers-more-likely-to-take-sickies.html
I expected the tories to fall below 300 after the ICM on Monday but they have had better figures later in the week.
Nevertheless, as Fisher says:
"It’s moved a touch away from the Conservatives and towards Labour this week, essentially because of the Tories’ failure to make up ground in the polls as expected by our model."
The clock is ticking for the tories and there is little sign of progress in recent times.
Our recession was deeper because it mainly hit the financial sector, which is the majority of our "economy".
Our "recovery" at face value is due to the same sector, but still leaves us vulnerable to instability in other markets.
This type of "recovery" tends to benefit only certain sections of the population, while disadvantaging the rest.
This is not a major problem, unless events elsewhere cause another dip, because those at the bottom cannot pay for the same mistakes again as they have not recovered from the last one.
George promised a new economy, but has fallen back on the old "Thatcherite/Blair/Brown" economics.
The internals for the Lib Dems are utterly dire.
Not only are they upweighted (Not much this time mind) but 53% 10/10 to vote on an already dire base is really really bad.
Food banks began (and increased) under Labour. Under the Coalition the trend has simply continued.
Flogging 'our NHS', hmm? What's changed since Labour? Under Labour, I got seen by a very nice private hospital because the NHS couldn't attend to me in sufficient time. I can assure you I wasn't complaining about evil baby-eating Tories buying the NHS.
Brutal benefit cuts? The benefit cap of £26,000 exceeds (after taxes) the average wage, and is well in excess of my income, I can assure you. Why should people earning less than the cap pay taxes which fund a greater income for someone who earns nothing?
Tax cuts for millionaires: you've confused income with wealth.
The flat-lining economy is arguably in the best shape in Europe, although the deficit remains a serious problem. Your borrowing 'argument' neglects the fact that Labour inherited a golden economic legacy and left the Coalition with a crippling deficit. Labour also argued against cuts which were 'too far and too fast'. It's hypocritical and nonsensical to argue against getting the deficit down so fast and then complain it's too large and the debt is increasing too swiftly.
In short, you are ascending the mountain of wrongness armed with the trusty pickaxe of nonsense.
Or, to rephrase in video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUttbZcv7WI
"Under the Coalition the trend has simply continued."
You missed out "exponentially" from the end of that sentence.
This means that Fisher's forecast rules out some Labour shares that they've achieved in the opinion polls within the last month or so - the forecast gives only a 2.5% probability of the Labour share exceeding 38%.
I wouldn't say that I think such a share for Labour is at all likely, but only a 1-in-40 chance? The uncertainty bands on this forecast are certainly narrowing.
From 8/1 to 10/3
Semantics.
from your link:-
"The economic reach of the banking sector is certainly greater than in any other sector, meaning that the risk inherent in its assets depends to a greater extent on business and household debts. It is therefore fair to argue, as Mr Kirby does, that when the banking system fails as it did in 2007, the impact is such that it can be seen to be the ‘dominant’ economic concern."
What remains to be seen is whether, when it actually comes to the choice between good government and the two Eds, voters really will choose the latter, as the opinion polls currently suggest they might. It would certainly be a perverse choice, given the fact that the UK is now doing so well and is finally getting round to repairing much of the damage done to education, the welfare system, and above all the economy by the last Labour government. What would make it even more perverse is Labour's total and deliberate refusal to come up with anything resembling a coherent policy platform; even if that does get Ed into No 10, it won't help him actually govern.
Of course voters may be perverse. We shall see in 2015.
That said, if you want to be picky, it's quite possible the Irish economy will (slightly) outgrow us this year. You could also point out that Germany has lower unemployment than the UK.
But all things considered, the UK economy is doing pretty well (thank you).
I would like to refer everyone to the GDP forecasts I posted in January of this year, where I was bullish on Ireland, the UK and Spain (all of whom are beating forecasts handily) and bearish on France and Germany (both of which have seen forecasts lowered).
My mea culpa is China, where I predicted the slowdown would continue. It hasn't and seems to be reversing.
All sectors of our economy are currently growing. Construction, manufacturing and services. Those who are already in work have seen little benefit from the growth. Those looking for work have done much, much better. Kind of the reverse of the conventional wisdom really.
As with your use of the word 'exponentially', you use language lazily.
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28800141
And this ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11036043/Top-of-the-world-UK-economy-winning-global-growth-race.html
The nastiest, most cynical trick to play in politics is to give someone something, knowing it is unsustainable. And then blame the other lot when economic reality is forced to intervene.
It's the only political weapon Labour have had to deploy this Parliament. Meanwhile this Government has pressed on with fixing that which was broken by Labour. And of getting work for the workers. Yet again, we see that Labour - who always leave office with unemployment higher than they inherited - have to be bailed out.
On the growing use of food banks under this Govt. - it's just a damning indictment of how inept Labour was unable to get food to the hungriest. You think as a Tory I am somehow embarrassed at the rise of food banks? Hardly. I just wish it could better incorporate distribution of food that was at its sell by date - food which is otherwise thrown away.
And if you want to see a party of the usual nasty b*stards in it for themselves and their rich mates, I suggest you look no further than the Blair Government.
Hypocrisy oozes out of every word of your post.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2012/oct/08/george-osborne-tory-conference-video
For instance TATA Steel at Port Talbot employs about 3,000 people. How many of the towns population of about 37,000 would be affected by its closure - probably 50%?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583954/Food-banks-Britons-LEAST-hungry-developed-world-Number-families-say-eat-falls-past-five-years.html
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges
Con Seats, Con Votes Win £80 @ Ladbrokes, Lose £100 @ Hills (£100 @ Bwin)
Net Loss £20
Lab Seats, Lab Votes Lose £16.67 @ Ladbrokes, Hills - a bit less using Bwin.
Con Seats, Lab Votes Win £163.33 (Or £164.62 using Bwin)
Lab Votes, Con Seats is vanishingly unlikely to happen, or if you want to be thorough you can cover your £200 stake by backing Con Seats, Lab votes @ 66-1 with Ladbrokes for £3.03
That takes the potential max loss to £23.03 and the Con Seats, Lab votes to £160.29 which represents odds of 6.96-1. And you have 8.13-1 should Labour "win"
You can tweak it slightly so that you get ~ 7.5-1 about both outcomes though I can't remember the maths to do this.
At any rate this is a damn sight better than taking the 10-3 on Con votes, Lab Seats being offered by Ladbrokes right now !!!!
@TheScreamingEagles *Message, cough*
Well, that's two million extra voters who will be putting their X next to the Tory candidate.
Con maj. nailed on!
How will we make up the budget?
I agree with you that the coalition were unfortunate to come into power after 13 years of Labour economic delinquency and with "no money left".
But you don't. Because you can't think straight.