Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Destination]

Killed the economy recovery they inherited leading to three long years of near stagnant growth; laid the groundwork for privatising the NHS; raised tuition fees; presided over the lowest period of house building since the war; tried (and failed) to balance the books by targeting the poorest and most vulnerable in society through the bedroom tax, the welfare cap, the freeze on benefits, the freeze on in-work benefits, the targeting of increased sanctions against claimants whilst at the same time cutting the highest rate of taxation for the rich and increasing spending on pensioners; led to the longest period of sub-inflationary income increases in recorded history; favoured their voters to the extent that pensioners know earn more on average than workers; most of the omnishambles budget; and on and on and on.

This has been the worst government of recent times. I can think of just four good things they've done: gay marriage, scrapping id cards, stamp duty reform and the capital gains tax increase.

Utter rot to the bolded bot.
I agree with the italics bit. For the most part it is a good idea.
When my NHS pay was frozen, as we simply don't have any money to give me extra, I would be most upset if the benefits for those not working were not frozen also.

 

[Destination]

Widespread youth unemployment, removal of EMA, £9,000 a year tuition fees, against giving 16-18 year olds the vote, removal of housing benefits for the young whilst introducing special savings bonds for the old. I have no idea why young people hate on the Tories.

Is there anything to suggest EMA had a net benefit to the nation?
Bar generating more people who wanted to go to University and obtain a degree which currently doesn't overly increase their chances of getting a job.
The last labour tenure of many years increased the numbers going to university dramatically, and now many many of those are unemployable in their chosen field, as the fields didn't lead to jobs.

SO tell me how EMA helps people? Would an active trade apprenticeship not be beneficial, and I don't mean the UTTER ROT that 'the Eds' are suggesting by gaining two good A levels and waiting until age 18.
Such an utterly retarded policy. If someone can obtain two good A-levels they are quite employable without needing an apprenticeship.
We need to be able to find work and training programs for those at age 16 who are fed up with education be they smart or not. A-levels do not suit everyone, and degree courses certainly do not suit many.

 

[Tunney]

Is there anything to suggest EMA had a net benefit to the nation?
Bar generating more people who wanted to go to University and obtain a degree which currently doesn't overly increase their chances of getting a job.
The last labour tenure of many years increased the numbers going to university dramatically, and now many many of those are unemployable in their chosen field, as the fields didn't lead to jobs.

If you're talking about benefit to the nation then, yes, there is a significant benefit. There's a causal link between percentage of the population with higher education qualifications and GDP. This has been proven both in this country and abroad.

What's the figure for unemployed graduates? Has it increased since 1997? I genuinely don't know.

 

[Mr Jack]

Utter rot to the bolded bot.

The economy has only just reached the levels of growth that it was at when the coalition took over; this is a matter of verifiable fact. Even Osborne's lap dogs the OBR agree that coalition policy has reduced GDP growth in this country.

When my NHS pay was frozen, as we simply don't have any money to give me extra, I would be most upset if the benefits for those not working were not frozen also.

Why? Firstly, much of those benefits go to people who are in work, secondly, they're set at a level based - crudely - on need. If they rise at sub-inflationary levels they no longer meet those needs. Moreover, whereas as wages rise as higher-than-inflation rates during the good times, benefits do not, and whereas wages will - eventually - recover from the slow-down of the economy, benefits will not.

 

[Destination]

Why? Firstly, much of those benefits go to people who are in work, secondly, they're set at a level based - crudely - on need. If they rise at sub-inflationary levels they no longer meet those needs. Moreover, whereas as wages rise as higher-than-inflation rates during the good times, benefits do not, and whereas wages will - eventually - recover from the slow-down of the economy, benefits will not.

Crudely put, their benefits come from my taxes, the government doesn't have any other source of income. So if my wages do not increase, yet my taxes did, due to removal of child benefit on the sliding scale, the why should benefits increase?
I earned no more, I have paid more, why should they get more when I am their source of income?

 

[Destination]

The economy has only just reached the levels of growth that it was at when the coalition took over; this is a matter of verifiable fact. Even Osborne's lap dogs the OBR agree that coalition policy has reduced GDP growth in this country.

Which countries in Europe managed to buck the trend of falling output during this period? Are you seriously suggesting Gordon Brown would have managed this feat (after presiding over the disaster), as he would have been Prime Minister in such a situation?

 

[Mr Jack]

Crudely put, their benefits come from my taxes, the government doesn't have any other source of income. So if my wages do not increase, yet my taxes did, due to removal of child benefit on the sliding scale, the why should benefits increase?
I earned no more, I have paid more, why should they get more when I am their source of income?

Why should the two things be linked? You're only able to earn your income because of the support of society. In civilised countries, we look after those in need by providing the support network of a welfare system. Cuts to benefits hit those least able to take it.

 

[Mr Jack]

Which countries in Europe managed to buck the trend of falling output during this period? Are you seriously suggesting Gordon Brown would have managed this feat (after presiding over the disaster), as he would have been Prime Minister in such a situation?

In the year following the election? France and Germany spring to mind. It's hard to blame the Eurozone mess when countries with higher exposure to it - such as France and Germany - saw vigorous growth while we did not.

I'm not overly fond of the policies that Labour were putting forth at the last election, but they were a bit better than those implemented by Osborne so they would likely have produced a better outcome.

 

[Destination]

Why should the two things be linked? You're only able to earn your income because of the support of society. In civilised countries, we look after those in need by providing the support network of a welfare system. Cuts to benefits hit those least able to take it.

Marvellous concept, but the two are linked, my taxes pay their benefits, there isn't any other source of income, lets cut my pay and everyone else's back to zero, who is funding your benefits then?
How can they not be linked?

 

[Destination]

France 2.0 2.1 0.3 0.3 4.7
Germany 4.1 3.6 0.4 0.1 8.2
United Kingdom 1.9 1.6 0.7 1.7 5.9

Picking and choosing one year in an entire parliament?
Germany's stellar rate seems to have stagnated.
Keep distorting the facts, works well.


We could examine the rest of Europe
Greece -5.4 -8.9 -6.6 -3.3
Ireland -0.3 2.8 -0.3 0.2
Italy 1.7 0.6 -2.3 -1.9
Spain 0.0 -0.6 -2.1 -1.2
Portugal 1.9 -1.8 -3.3 -1.4
Austria 1.9 3.1 0.9 0.2

I still can't fathom how you think Gordon would have managed everything or anything without doubling the deficit we currently have.

 

[Mr Jack]

Marvellous concept, but the two are linked, my taxes pay their benefits, there isn't any other source of income, lets cut my pay and everyone else's back to zero, who is funding your benefits then?
How can they not be linked?

Firstly, you've over-simplified the actual setup to the point of caricature. Secondly, your contribution is, of course, tiny and unlikely to even pay back what you take out over your lifetime. Thirdly, they're not "my" benefits; I claim no benefits at all.

 

[scorza]

France 2.0 2.1 0.3 0.3 4.7
Germany 4.1 3.6 0.4 0.1 8.2
United Kingdom 1.9 1.6 0.7 1.7 5.9

Picking and choosing one year in an entire parliament?
Germany's stellar rate seems to have stagnated.
Keep distorting the facts, works well.


We could examine the rest of Europe
Greece -5.4 -8.9 -6.6 -3.3
Ireland -0.3 2.8 -0.3 0.2
Italy 1.7 0.6 -2.3 -1.9
Spain 0.0 -0.6 -2.1 -1.2
Portugal 1.9 -1.8 -3.3 -1.4
Austria 1.9 3.1 0.9 0.2

I still can't fathom how you think Gordon would have managed everything or anything without doubling the deficit we currently have.

Maybe because Gordon's chancellor, Alistair Darling's plan for recovery had our debt and deficit exactly where it is at the moment, we'd have just missed out on a couple of years of pointless austerity.

 

[Destination]

Firstly, you've over-simplified the actual setup to the point of caricature. Secondly, your contribution is, of course, tiny and unlikely to even pay back what you take out over your lifetime. Thirdly, they're not "my" benefits; I claim no benefits at all.

Let take the contribution levels. What standard of tax donation provides more than the average person takes out in a lifetime?

When I stated 'your benefits' I was referring to your benefits spending plan which seemed to suggest we should be increasing what we are paying out in benefits despite our large deficit.

 

[Mr Jack]

Picking and choosing one year in an entire parliament?

The first year. The point being that the argument that the collapse in UK growth can be attributed to the euromess cannot hold water when countries within the Eurozone more exposed to that mess did not experience the same collapse in growth that we did. Osborne engineered that one all by himself.

I still can't fathom how you think Gordon would have managed everything or anything without doubling the deficit we currently have.

The deficit is not an acute issue for this country; the lack of growth and the resulting collapse in wage growth is. I have no doubt there would have been a higher deficit in the short term under Labour's plans; but the resulting higher growth would have allowed that deficit to be dealt with more effectively in the medium term. By this time it would likely be much of a wash. The most notable thing about Osborne's failed austerity experiment is the extent to which it has failed even on his own terms: the deficit has fallen by just 40%* when he promised to entirely eliminate it.


* - or, for Dolph and his inability to cope with absolute and relative numbers, that's 50% GDP-relative

 

[Destination]

Interesting. Do you think the current labour crop, will in 5 years manage this super growth that you suggest was possible?
Or will that all be watered with maybe, and the economic climate might change, and the world isn't in the wonderful position it was 5 years ago?
I am truly interested if you think Ed Balls as a chancellor can start paying off our actual fiscal debt within the course of the next parliament after reducing the deficit to zero?

 

[Mr Jack]

Interesting. Do you think the current labour crop, will in 5 years manage this super growth that you suggest was possible?

We'll never get the growth back that the chancellor squandered during this parliament. Osborne's plans for the next parliament are likely to produce another recession even if the economic waters ahead are clear - and we're about due for another global recession, actually...

I am truly interested if you think Ed Balls as a chancellor can start paying off our actual fiscal debt within the course of the next parliament after reducing the deficit to zero?

Nope. He's not aiming to, and it's not sensible to. Again, the deficit and the debt aren't the major problems facing our country.

What we should be doing is aiming for higher inflation and higher growth and letting those deal with our debt problem; unfortunately Labour are offering little more than austerity-lite. Although they're thankfully a good £40bn or so more sensible than the Tories.

 

[Tefal]

The most notable thing about Osborne's failed austerity experiment

Alistair Darling's plan for recovery had our debt and deficit exactly where it is at the moment,

So Osbourne does it its a failure, but darling achieving the exact same result would have been a success?

interesting.

 

[RDM]

In the year following the election? France and Germany spring to mind. It's hard to blame the Eurozone mess when countries with higher exposure to it - such as France and Germany - saw vigorous growth while we did not.

That's a bit of an oversimplification isn't it? The UK was, in some ways, even more exposed to the Eurozone mess due to heavy reliance on the banking sector. Germany was also in a somewhat better position prior to the crash than we were so weathered it better as it could afford the spending needed. However that investment seems have delayed problems rather than solved them as their economy is struggling (relatively).

I'm not overly fond of the policies that Labour were putting forth at the last election, but they were a bit better than those implemented by Osborne so they would likely have produced a better outcome.

I am not sure things would have been as rosey as you think. Worst case we could have had just as much stagnation but with an even higher deficit and higher borrowing rates. I had a reasonable amount of respect for Darling but don't think he would have been a strong enough chancellor to stop any damaging meddling from Brown.

 

[scorza]

So Osbourne does it its a failure, but darling achieving the exact same result would have been a success?

interesting.

I depends what you say you're going to do doesn't it? George Osborne said that he'd eliminate the deficit by the end of this parliament i.e. now and that Alastair Darling's plan wasn't enough and would result in Britain ending up like Greece. Well he hasn't eliminated the deficit so that's a failure to achieve his plan, and we aren't like Greece. How this guy still has any economic credibility is beyond comprehension.

 

[Mr Jack]

So Osbourne does it its a failure, but darling achieving the exact same result would have been a success?

Darling wasn't planning on reducing the debt in the same manner as Osborne; he wasn't planning on getting the deficit down in the timescale. Osborne did modify his plan in the face of events to end up with numbers on that front close to Darling's original approach but there's every reason to believe that Darling would have modified his approach too. However, even if we accept your hypothetical, the differences in approach would matter even if Darling had stuck with his approach: Darling planned on giving the economy space to secure the recovery, that first year of growth-friendly policy in which Osborne instead tanked the recovery may have made a big difference. Darling also planned on less cuts and more taxes, which would also have been more growth friendly.

Darling's plan wasn't great either, mind.