Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

[RDM]

Indeed the Lib-Dems have announced their plans, quite a novelty really, huh?

They haven't. They have costed the tax changes they are making but have not detailed the vast majority of their cuts. All three parties are trotting out "efficiency savings" without actually giving any details of where. They are all as guilty as each other on this, but oddly the Lib Dems seem to get away with it.

It saddens me a little that objective thought goes out the window so much when it comes to political support. I am going to be voting Conservative but can see that they haven't given any detail on where cuts will occur. Neither have Labour and neither have the Lib Dems. It also seems odd that the general opinion is that David Cameron and Gordon Brown will lie and say anything to get elected yet Nick Clegg is going to be totally honest or that the Conservative and Labour manifestos are lies while the Liberal Democrat manifesto is gospel. You even have new Lib Dem converts going "Oh but look, he said it in an interview so it must be true." on issues that he lied about in the past. It beggars belief sometimes.

 

[robgmun]

well an interesting morning so far already.

GB is wooing Lib-dem and NG having non of it.

GB sees them as they only why that Labour will still retain any sort of power. And NG knows if people associate GB with him that it would a poisoned chalice for lib-dem chances

 

[Grissle]

Is the claim that Lib Dems will take away the trident subs true? It's between lib dems and tories for me, but if they're going to take away our biggest defences then I can't really justify voting for them. It seems like a stupid move.

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't think there would have been that much difference in the approach to handling the actual recession, there may have been detail differences, and it may have been more affordable, but it is all speculation really.

If you go by the stated policies of the Tory frontbench it would have been much worse. Cameron remember travelled to America to heap praise on the expansion of Sub Prime mortgages, bigged up how innovative they were and encouraged our banks to follow their lead. They also argued for reducing regulation on banks, and allowing them to further leverage themselves. When the crisis itself hit they - at best - dithered over all the measures brought in to stabilise the economy including steps such as the bank bailout and quantitative easing. Before oscillating to berating the government for not backing British Businesses when it became politically beneficial to do so. Even within the last month we've seen them flop from being hard on the deficit, hard on the causes of the deficit and calling Labour on their nonsense efficiency savings to promising to stop tax rises and building further efficiency savings on top of Labour's already fanciful offerings. They have precious little economic credibility in my eyes

I think the Tories would have made the crash worse; but that would have been offset by having better finances going in, and spending less public money on keeping things going meaning less deferred pain for the coming years. All of which means this recession would have been different under the Tories but whether that would be better or worse - especially in the longer term - doesn't seem to me to have a clear answer.

And, of course, what opposition parties say is often constrained by their need to oppose; what they would have done in government with the benefit of all that Civil Service information and advice might have been different to what they said they'd do when out of government.

 

[Mr Jack]

Is the claim that Lib Dems will take away the trident subs true? It's between lib dems and tories for me, but if they're going to take away our biggest defences then I can't really justify voting for them. It seems like a stupid move.

The Lib Dems do not intend to pay for a like-for-like replacement for Trident now, but instead investigate options more suited for the modern world later. Given that we're in a massive financial hole right now, don't need to replace Trident for twenty years anyway and have no enemies against which it provides any meaningful defence not spending upwards of £4bn a year on a weapon we'll never, ever use seems to me like an entirely sensible option - one that was, just this morning, backed by a group of military Generals in the Times. If even the military don't think that Trident is worth it, you've got to question whether it's "our biggest defence".

Fact is, nukes aren't a defence, they're a bargaining chip that gets up a seat at the top table of international politics. That's worth having, but we don't need to spend £80bn-100bn on a system specced up to flatten the Soviets to do it.

 

[Mr Jack]

They haven't. They have costed the tax changes they are making but have not detailed the vast majority of their cuts.

They've detailed them far more than Labour or the Conservatives; and unlike the "detailed" offering Labour put forth in the last election their sources are mostly plausible.

There are a few shaky bits in their numbers - the £4bn they intend to raise by reducing tax avoidance, in particular - but they're head and shoulders above both the other parties on this front.

 

[Mr Jack]

Sorry but that's just not true. Prior to the global economic crisis, the deficit was under control at less than 3% of GDP, well within EU rules and total government debt well below the EU target of 60 %. Souce.

Except that those figures don't include PFI, which accounted (pre-crisis) for something like 2/3rd again as much debt! Include that, are we were already looking at almost 100% of GDP.

On the deficit itself, the trouble with those figures is that they reflect the height of the financial bubble so compared to sustainable tax revenue, rather than a temporary windfall, we were already in a bad position. Brown honestly believed his "No more boom and bust" line, and - as a result - wantonly ignored his own fiscal Golden Rule and didn't balance the books. We should have been running a surplus pre-crisis; we weren't.

 

[Mr Jack]

They are free market Libertarians, you doofus.

No, they're really not. They're no where near that Naïve.

 

[Dolph]

Indeed the Lib-Dems have announced their plans, quite a novelty really, huh?

Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!​

Well, except they haven't, not even close. They've costed their income tax plans, but they have not announced their deficit reduction plan in any more detail than any of the other parties.

Admittedly, this is because people are stupid and will rebel, but that's the same for all the parties.

 

[Mr Jack]

Well, except they haven't, not even close. They've costed their income tax plans, but they have not announced their deficit reduction plan in any more detail than any of the other parties.

I refer you to page 102 of the Lib Dem manifesto. No other party has offered that much detail.

 

[Naffa]

I've just been mulling over one of David's best u-turns, regarding regulation.

"Everybody knows that we need to deregulate, to set our business men and women free to compete with the giants of India, China and East Asia. But one man stands in the way... Gordon Brown, 'the great regulator and chief'."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7S-rru-c2U



And then, in March 2009 he warned:

"Without proper financial regulation there will be no lasting financial confidence, and without lasting financial confidence there will be no lasting recovery."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/24/david-cameron-city-reform



And then I found this:

There's no such thing as 'big society', senior Tories tell Cameron

Leader urged to scrap key policy idea as anxiety grips party

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/20/david-cameron-big-society-tories

And realised that I think I was, and am probably right about the Tories.

 

[Dolph]

I refer you to page 102 of the Lib Dem manifesto. No other party has offered that much detail.

But it is still nowhere near all their plans, or if it is they are going to really screw this country up further.

The changes in public spending listed on that page amount to a cut of £10bn per annum in the final year, against a current annual deficit of £160bn+.

They have also, rather dishonestly, included new taxes in their 'savings' chart instead of the taxation chart.

So either they aren't going to tackle the deficit, or they haven't published anywhere near all their plans. Which is it?

 

[Mr Jack]

The changes in public spending listed on that page amount to a cut of £10bn per annum in the final year, against a current annual deficit of £160bn+.

Of which roughly £70bn is stuctural deficit, the rest will be dealt with by economic recovery. I believe the Libs target halving that in the next parliament, meaning £35bn.

They have also, rather dishonestly, included new taxes in their 'savings' chart instead of the taxation chart.

Huh? The only tax item I see at all is the Tax Credit reform, hardly a new tax. Which specific items are you thinking of?

So either they aren't going to tackle the deficit, or they haven't published anywhere near all their plans. Which is it?

Firstly, remember these plans come on top of the plans that Labour have already announced, so the remaining gap is smaller - probably £10bn-15bn depending on how much of Labour's deficit reduction is real and how much is pure fantasy. Secondly, Cable has already stated that they've not given the full picture yet. But it's a bit much to expect them to, they're an opposition party, they don't have the full figures or the ranks of civil servants to run the numbers that Governments have.

What they've put together is a altogether more credible plan for cutting the deficit than either Labour or the Conservatives have managed.

 

[Dolph]

Of which roughly £70bn is stuctural deficit, the rest will be dealt with by economic recovery. I believe the Libs target halving that in the next parliament, meaning £35bn.

Well, at least we've confirmed they have no intention of actually balancing the budget or starting to reduce our national debt back down to sane levels.

Huh? The only tax item I see at all is the Tax Credit reform, hardly a new tax. Which specific items are you thinking of?

Under 'helping people fairly', one of the entries is 'introduce a new levy on bank profits'. That's a tax, not a saving.

Firstly, remember these plans come on top of the plans that Labour have already announced, so the remaining gap is smaller - probably £10bn-15bn depending on how much of Labour's deficit reduction is real and how much is pure fantasy. Secondly, Cable has already stated that they've not given the full picture yet. But it's a bit much to expect them to, they're an opposition party, they don't have the full figures or the ranks of civil servants to run the numbers that Governments have.

I agree entirely, that's why the published figures by the lib dems should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, as should any claims that their spending cuts are different from those of the tories in whether they will cause job losses (which was Stockhausen's claim earlier)

What they've put together is a altogether more credible plan for cutting the deficit than either Labour or the Conservatives have managed.

The IFS largely disagree, much as they do with the suggestion that the poor will be largely better off under the lib dems new tax proposals.

 

[Dolph]

Sorry but that's just not true. Prior to the global economic crisis, the deficit was under control at less than 3% of GDP, well within EU rules and total government debt well below the EU target of 60 %. Souce.

Make no mistake, the global banking crisis has really screwed this country up.

The scale of the change is the problem, and it started long before the banking crisis. No sane economist adovcates deficit spending in a boom, just as no sane person runs their life on credit cards constantly.

We went from a 3-4% budget surplus to a 3% deficit in two years, despite revenues rising massively (in real terms, the increase was more like 10-12% overspending, and doesn't include PFI or unfunded pension liabilities). That deficit then continued to increase, which meant that when the boom taxation ended, and the spending has already been committed (because most of the deficit spending was used to fund day to day expenses, not investments) the size of the deficit exploded, and the national debt has doubled in 3 years or so.

Government spending in a recession always goes into deficit, but spending money we didn't have during the good times is what really crippled us... as it has every labour government.

We could have been in a much better position than we were if we'd had a fiscally responsible government.

 

[stockhausen]

... Under 'helping people fairly', one of the entries is 'introduce a new levy on bank profits'. ...

Damned good idea frankly, seemingly shared by the IMF:

Banks and other financial institutions face paying two new taxes to fund future bail-outs, the BBC has learned.

Business editor Robert Peston (he of the god-awful voice and disturbing mannerisms) said the global proposals by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were "more radical" than most had anticipated.

All institutions would pay a bank levy - initially at a flat-rate - and also face a further tax on profits and pay.

The measures are designed to make banks pay for the costs of future financial and economic rescue packages. (BBC online)

Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!​

 

[Dolph]

Damned good idea frankly, seemingly shared by the IMF:

I never commented on whether it was a good idea or not, just it's massively dishonest placement within the squeaky clean and perfect lib dem manifesto.

I'm still waiting for why lib dem efficiency savings are somehow different from conservative ones... Especially given that the lib dems have no intention to tackle the structural flaw that means it's better for public services to take money from frontline to attract a greater budget, whereas the Tories do.

 

[Naffa]

The scale of the change is the problem, and it started long before the banking crisis. No sane economist adovcates deficit spending in a boom, just as no sane person runs their life on credit cards constantly.

We went from a 3-4% budget surplus to a 3% deficit in two years, despite revenues rising massively (in real terms, the increase was more like 10-12% overspending, and doesn't include PFI or unfunded pension liabilities). That deficit then continued to increase, which meant that when the boom taxation ended, and the spending has already been committed (because most of the deficit spending was used to fund day to day expenses, not investments) the size of the deficit exploded, and the national debt has doubled in 3 years or so.

Government spending in a recession always goes into deficit, but spending money we didn't have during the good times is what really crippled us... as it has every labour government.

We could have been in a much better position than we were if we'd had a fiscally responsible government.

Would you be able to cite that for me please? I would find such reading massively educational and interesting. Thank you.

 

[keyser87]

well its a choice between crap crap and probably crap. So probably crap gets my vote.

Libdems

 

[laffs83]

Problem is, your "voter power" is so low because of the exact attitude you've displayed there. The more people who turn up and vote in your constituency then the more "power" they will have.

True, and I will be voting, but it is still disheartening to know that realistically it will have no effect, whichever way i vote.