The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[CountArach]

Of course, the super massive assumption there is the uniform swing bit, but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning seats for the Lib Dems.

This article summarises that point quite nicely.

[al Roumi]

As was mentioned in the "Prioritizing government spending" thread, the parties have so far ignored the elephant in the room:

Parties attacked for failing to 'come clean' on cuts

Britain's leading financial thinktank today launched a strong attack on all three main political parties for their failure to come clean about the swingeing public spending cuts they will implement in the next parliament.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said it was "striking how reticent" Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg had been during the campaign on how they planned to tackle the UK's record peacetime budget deficit.

In an eagerly-awaited pre-election health check, the IFS said the public had been left in the dark about a period of sustained austerity in public spending.

"Over the next four years starting next year (2011-12), Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cuts to spending on public services since the late 1970s", said Robert Chote, the IFS director. "While starting this year, the Conservatives would need to deliver cuts to public spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War."

The IFS said after taking into account pledges to ring-fence parts of public spending such as the NHS and overseas aid, the Conservatives would need to axe the budgets of unprotected Whitehall departments by £63.7bn in inflation-adjusted terms by 2014-15. Of these, only 17.7% had so far been specified.

Similarly, Labour had announced measures totalling just 13.3% of what it would need to slash spending by £50.8bn and the Liberal Democrats 25.9% of the £46.5bn they would need to save in order to meet their deficit reduction goals.

"Repairing the public finances will be the defining domestic policy task of the next government", Chote said.

It's a sticky wicket alright!

[Furunculus]

more detail for the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-cuts-election

[Myrddraal]

You can understand why the Lib Dems are so keen on electoral reform. They could win approximately a third of the popular vote, equalling the support of the other two parties, and still the other two parties could quite easily have up to three times as many seats in the commons each.

I'm not exaggerating much either.

EDIT: 2 interesting articles btw, thanks.

I thought I'd highlight this bit because it matches my thoughts quite closely:

It contrasted the plans of the parties today with the record of the Conservatives during the fiscal tightening that followed Britain's recession of the early 1990s. Then the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases was 1:1.

"This may suggest that all the parties are being overambitious in the extent to which they expect spending on public services to take the strain," Chote said. "If so, the next government may rely more on further tax increases and welfare cuts that any of the parties are willing to admit to beforehand."

The IFS also criticised the parties for making "misleading" claims that spending reductions could be met through efficiency savings.

"Presumably the parties would try to spend public money as efficiently as possible whether or not they were trying to cut spending and would implement most if not all of these efficiencies anyway," Chote said.

[Furunculus]

sure, but i like a duopoly, and i like adversarial politics, so it is up to the lib-dems to oust an incumbant, not for me to find ways to let little-nikki play at the party.

[Furunculus]

on the non-differences between the parties on deficit reduction from the IFS:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...te-about-cuts/

[Furunculus]

It may cause economic chaos, but by God is it going to be fun

oh yes, won't it just be sweet!

thank god we have belgium to demonstrate just how wonderful consensual politics can be, won't it be just swell when people realise just how p00py-pants British adversarial politcs really is:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...691546,00.html

and in case anyone was wondering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ectoral_system

oh what bliss!

[InsaneApache]

The party system and hence PR is the problem. Intrinsically undemocratic.

[Beskar]

The party system and hence PR is the problem. Intrinsically undemocratic.

Party list system* is undemocratic compared to our current system, yes.

STV, RON and other measures are intrinsically very democratic though.

[Furunculus]

is that what is being advocated by saint Nick?

[Idaho]

Party list system is the worst option. Worse than FPTP. All the power in the hands of party heads.

I think it's hilarous what a fuss is being made about hung parliaments and coalition governments. Most of the democracies around the world get by with it just fine. Financial markets couldn't really give a toss as they know they will be left alone to make money for themselves.

[Furunculus]

i don't care what the rest of the world does or doesn't do, i like adversarial politics and i like being able to kicked a failed government out, and therefore I like a political system that tends to bring about decisive victories/defeats.

[tibilicus]

Finally, a Gordon Brown slip up. Well, he did well to avoid one up until this point so not really surprising. Just a shame he didn't slip into one of his alleged anger fits and head-but the women. That would of been gold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8649012.stm

[Furunculus]

Finally, a Gordon Brown slip up. Well, he did well to avoid one up until this point so not really surprising. Just a shame he didn't slip into one of his alleged anger fits and head-but the women. That would of been gold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8649012.stm

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...-gordon-brown/

lulz indeed! :D

[InsaneApache]

It illustrates beautifully that Labour despises the white working class.

She seems like a nice lady. A bit like me mam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8649174.stm

You be the judge.

[Subotan]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

It's not like ordinary citizens are above criticism. I haven't seen what this women said, so I don't know whether it was bigoted or not, but a she didn't seem too upset.

[InsaneApache]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

It's not like ordinary citizens are above criticism. I haven't seen what this women said, so I don't know whether it was bigoted or not, but a she didn't seem too upset.

Spin! Spin! This wasn't spin, it was a remark he made just after leaving the lady when he thought the mike had been turned off.

And yes, she is upset. Very upset. Try watching the video.

[Subotan]

Spin! Spin! This wasn't spin, it was a remark he made just after leaving the lady when he thought the mike had been turned off.

Exactly! We should be welcoming Brown's uttering of his private opinions!

And yes, she is upset. Very upset. Try watching the video.

I can't, I'm in college.

[InsaneApache]

Exactly! We should be welcoming Brown's uttering of his private opinions!

Indeed. The mask hasn't so much slipped as been ripped off. I used to think he was a loony toon, now I think it's much more sinister than that.

[Beskar]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

I agree. People cry about spin and the fact is, they don't want to hear the truth.

If a politician turned around and go "I looked at the economical figures and one thing is for sure, we are well and truly " people will fly off the handle. Then instead of electing that person who is telling the truth and who could possibily lead us out of it, they run into the arms of Mr. Public Relations to solve it who goes "oh it isn't that bad, ho ho ho".

[al Roumi]

Indeed. The mask hasn't so much slipped as been ripped off. I used to think he was a loony toon, now I think it's much more sinister than that.

Nah, he's just incapable of speaking to people who don't agree with him. Blair went the same way towards the end of his PMship. I guess it's the stress 7 pressure, being unable to patiently reason with strongly opposing views.

For a full transcript, including the Radio 2 appology, click here.

If this is what floors labour, I hope it will be enough to tear his leadership of the party down.

[al Roumi]

I agree. People cry about spin and the fact is, they don't want to hear the truth.

If a politician turned around and go "I looked at the economical figures and one thing is for sure, we are well and truly " people will fly off the handle. Then instead of electing that person who is telling the truth and who could possibily lead us out of it, they run into the arms of Mr. Public Relations to solve it who goes "oh it isn't that bad, ho ho ho".

Exactly, in what is increasingly appearing a popularity contest, the parties only have to make themselves look less worse than the alternative. no "politicaly courageous" moves will win elections these days...

[rory_20_uk]

It's one of the Irregular verbs stated in Yes Prime Minister:

He should be fired as the country needs cuts
You should have a salary freeze to help with competition
I deserve a subsidy to help boost the economy

Yes, people know in the theoretical sense something needs to happen... but not to them. Oh, they've already done their bit. In fact, they're already underpaid, being asked to do more and are getting a worse service from the council.

You hear it on the news daily. Cuts! have to happen. Structural deficit. But not health. Or of course Education. Social Services? Key service that. Law and Order? Marks out civilisation. Armed forces? They need more money, not less... Foreign office? and loose are place in the world??!?

So when we get down to it, we have "efficiencies" which if they were easy would have been done years ago - and something like a £40bn shortfall on the talk and the reality.

[Beskar]

I am wondering why will give around 0.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

Edit: Corrected.

[InsaneApache]

It's going to be interesting to see what explaination the parties have when they cut benefits and pensions but keep OSD at it's present level.

Vote for me and I will slash your benefits but on the other hand give squillions to the poor in Africa/Asia/ etc. etc.

If they actually go down this path expect a huge surge in BNP voting patterns.

The politicos truly do live on another planet. Idiots.

[rory_20_uk]

I am wondering why will give around 2.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". 2% GDP was considered "Harsh Treatment" for Reperations by the Germans after World War 1. All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

We should give nothing as a hand out any more. Things have changed over the last 50 years. There are now such things as bond markets that can be tapped by both countries and companies. Rather than create synthetic economies reliant on money to be thrown at them (or in many cases, just to be stolen) if the ability to get money was directly linked to the perceived likelihood of getting it back this would help clean up governments much faster than our current limp wristed whinging.

The UK has had in the recent past to go gap in hand to the IMF - and let's sit back and watch Europe do so. If countries want money, go to the IMF with a plan, no expect an open chequebook from countries who are also broke.

[al Roumi]

I am wondering why will give around 2.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". 2% GDP was considered "Harsh Treatment" for Reperations by the Germans after World War 1. All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

Hactually, the parties have commited to working up to a spend of 0.7% of GNI on "foreign aid". Last year, about 0.5% (£5.7b) of GNI was actually spent on ODA (Overseas Development Aid). The 0.7% target was pledged by a range of Western countries in 1970 -see here for more details.

ODA is seen a valuable tool for foreign policy, even in labour's "ethical foreign policy" terms (post Iraq, I feel this is a very bad joke).

All 3 main parties have so far stated that they will uphold the 0.7% target but it is highly likely that the manner in which, and on what, the funds are spent and where will differ accross the parties. The Tories even have plans to use the armed forces for some of it... which they may discover to be rather a tricky thing to manage vis-a-vis humanitarian impartiality...

The UK under labour has been of the most progressive countries when it comes to aid.

[caravel]

It illustrates beautifully that Labour despises the white working class.

As do the two other major parties.

[Beskar]

Hactually, the parties have commited to working up to a spend of 0.7% of GNI on "foreign aid". Last year, about 0.5% (£5.7b) of GNI was actually spent on ODA (Overseas Development Aid). The 0.7% target was pledged by a range of Western countries in 1970 -see here for more details.

ODA is seen a valuable tool for foreign policy, even in labour's "ethical foreign policy" terms (post Iraq, I feel this is a very bad joke).

All 3 main parties have so far stated that they will uphold the 0.7% target but it is highly likely that the manner in which, and on what, the funds are spent and where will differ accross the parties. The Tories even have plans to use the armed forces for some of it... which they may discover to be rather a tricky thing to manage vis-a-vis humanitarian impartiality...

The UK under labour has been of the most progressive countries when it comes to aid.

Trying to find the source now, which is annoying me. It had the list of parties and policies side-by-side. Saying things like Libdems would consider the Euro, Tories will never go to the Euro, etc.

Ok, I found it, I made a mistake, it is indeed 0.7%.
"Increase foreign aid to 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013"

source

[al Roumi]

It's going to be interesting to see what explaination the parties have when they cut benefits and pensions but keep OSD at it's present level.

Vote for me and I will slash your benefits but on the other hand give squillions to the poor in Africa/Asia/ etc. etc.

If they actually go down this path expect a huge surge in BNP voting patterns.

The politicos truly do live on another planet. Idiots.

We should give nothing as a hand out any more. Things have changed over the last 50 years. There are now such things as bond markets that can be tapped by both countries and companies. Rather than create synthetic economies reliant on money to be thrown at them (or in many cases, just to be stolen) if the ability to get money was directly linked to the perceived likelihood of getting it back this would help clean up governments much faster than our current limp wristed whinging.

The UK has had in the recent past to go gap in hand to the IMF - and let's sit back and watch Europe do so. If countries want money, go to the IMF with a plan, no expect an open chequebook from countries who are also broke.

I don't want to appear like a development stooge here but DFID's website has some background on why they do what they do...

The UNDP website also lists more on each MDG and progress to meeting them.

Edit: Btw, I think its about 1/6th of the world's population that lives on less than $1.25 a day, that's 1 billion people...