General Election '24

[IvanV]

With the public sector and social care on it's knees, I'm don't think tax cuts are the answer... I want to pay more tax, and get better services.

You show rare insight in comparison to the numerous voters who want to pay less tax and get better services. In many countries. I don't know where they think the money will come from. Someone else, probably. They probably don't care who loses out, so long as they, individually, don't.

I'm reminded of the month of 5 presidents in Argentina, (10 Dec 2001 to 2 Jan 2002). It took the downfall of 4 presidents before the voters were finally willing to accept what they were all telling them, that there would have to be cuts because there was not enough money for the current level of public commitments. That was after they had defaulted 3 times and IMF refused to bail them out again, so they couldn't even borrow money from anyone, and everyone knew the perils of just printing it. Even the fifth one only managed to stay longer than a few days by promising to call new elections in a short time. But by then there had been painful cuts, so the candidates for election had a better tale to tell. Though things have changed since them, and the latest president of Argentina, since 6 months ago - Jávier Milei - was elected on a platform of making large cuts to public expenditure, and is doing just that, though not without some large resistance.

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing. And so they make funding cuts, and leave other people to decide how to spend less money, and take the blame for it. The problem for many spending authorities, especially local authorities, is that they have legal obligations to provide many things. And yet the present government has made deep cuts in their funding, while not relieving them of any of those obligations.

[nekomatic]

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing.

It’s benefits, but not the ones that go to deserving people obviously, just the ones that go to scroungers.

[dyqik]

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing.

It’s benefits, but not the ones that go to deserving people obviously, just the ones that go to scroungers.

And funnily enough, never the ones that go to people who are so rich that they don't need them.

[discovolante]

I remember a few years ago someone on twitter (yeah I know) putting forward a view along those lines. It wasn't so much that they wanted to reduce benefits to stop 'scroungers', more that they viewed the welfare state as a sign of heavy state involvement in people's lives. Which ignores the fact that if you have a welfare system that limits the availability of benefits only to people who meet rigorous criteria, that ends up increasing state involvement in because of the amount of assessment and reassessment that goes on to 'weed out' those who don't deserve them.

I mean i guess that person was just one twitter oddball and most people don't think about it in those terms.

[headshot]

I really, REALLY want a politician or party that proposes tax increases in a way that clearly explains:

a) The difference between the cost of something and the value of something.
b) That paying for something now has a major benefit for the future. (Eg Preventative health screening vs treatment plans, early years education vs ASBO rollouts etc)
c) That the UK economy is nothing like a household budget, and borrowing isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it means pump priming the economy and creating jobs and growth.

I think if we tell people (and follow through on the promise) that their taxes will be spent on things that will save them money in the long term (free healthcare, free childcare, free education - even university, better welfare standards, a good pension, rivers free of actual sh.t and a police force that will actually have the resources to prevent and investigate crime) the electorate might finally start to understand.

As it is, we have the two major parties promising to deliver little and tax less.

[bolo]

With the public sector and social care on it's knees, I'm don't think tax cuts are the answer... I want to pay more tax, and get better services.

Ah, but you aren't a right-wing thinker; trickle-down economics states that tax cuts leads to greater investment in business so the business grows and generates more profit, so the tax increases: a smaller slice of a larger pie. It's complete bollocks, of course, because really successful businesses pay so little tax due to tax evasion avoidance, but it's been a major plank of right-wing tax planning for so long that I'm surprised that countries aren't completely bankrupt. [Looks at USAian debt figures.] Oh.

Not sure why you said USAian. UK national debt is far higher on either a per capita or %GDP basis. Do I recall that you are in Australia? Their numbers are roughly the same as the US.

[IvanV]

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing.

It’s benefits, but not the ones that go to deserving people obviously, just the ones that go to scroungers.

Britain is already the least generous supplier of cash benefits among OECD nations in Europe, and at the same level as the US, (ignoring only a couple of very small countries), and using 2019 data. Using this OECD data source, which shows benefits as a % of gdp (requires using selection boxes at the top to choose cash benefits), 2019 is the latest year they have a consistent dataset, and also not Covid-infected. UK comes out at 8.6%, same as the US. That compares to the OECD average of 11.4%. The only OECD countries in Europe with lower percentages are Ireland and Iceland. In the case of Ireland, that's because of the problem with the distorted total for GDP which considerably overstates true economic activity there. Iceland has high minimum wages and low deprivation, so probably doesn't need to spend much.

So there's not much room to cut cash benefits further in Britain. Making the state smaller, as the right wingers go on about, from this starting point, must involve some kind of reduction in public services. As I already said, we have had that too, of late, as so many government branches have had large cuts since about 2010. This has happened even as taxes have gone up, because so much of our public expenditure now goes on debt service, following the large government borrowings in the financial crisis and Covid. And so our public services are falling apart, due to the unplanned nature of the spending cuts.

[Grumble]

I’m hardly able to restrain my tears this morning at the thought of a young Rishi Sunak unable to watch Sky TV.

[Martin_B]

Not sure why you said USAian. UK national debt is far higher on either a per capita or %GDP basis. Do I recall that you are in Australia? Their numbers are roughly the same as the US.

The website I checked before I posted said that USA & UK were similar on a %GDP basis, but that Australia was far lower. Maybe it was old data. Either way, USA actual debt is far higher than the UK or Oz because of the greater population and larger economy.

[Woodchopper]

I’m hardly able to restrain my tears this morning at the thought of a young Rishi Sunak unable to watch Sky TV.

The striking aspect of that clip isn't so much that he picked Sky TV (which during the 90s when he was a teenager wasn't that common in private houses). But that he waffled through two earlier attempts to ask him what he had done without. If he'd prepared for interviews during the campaign he and his team should have anticipated that kind of question and they should have prepared a better answer.

[jimbob]

I’m hardly able to restrain my tears this morning at the thought of a young Rishi Sunak unable to watch Sky TV.

I think he meant that he was unable to buy Sky TV

[Grumble]

I’m hardly able to restrain my tears this morning at the thought of a young Rishi Sunak unable to watch Sky TV.

The striking aspect of that clip isn't so much that he picked Sky TV (which during the 90s when he was a teenager wasn't that common in private houses). But that he waffled through two earlier attempts to ask him what he had done without. If he'd prepared for interviews during the campaign he and his team should have anticipated that kind of question and they should have prepared a better answer.

Well worth skipping half the D-Day commemorations for this kind of valuable campaign material.

[TopBadger]

With the public sector and social care on it's knees, I'm don't think tax cuts are the answer... I want to pay more tax, and get better services.

You show rare insight in comparison to the numerous voters who want to pay less tax and get better services.

Seems the Green Party agrees - I wonder what % of the national vote they'll pick up this time around for 0-1 seats won.

[Rich Scopie]

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing.

It’s benefits, but not the ones that go to deserving people obviously, just the ones that go to scroungers.

And funnily enough, never the ones that go to people who are so rich that they don't need them.

See: The Royal Family.

[TopBadger]

The Tory clusterf.ck election that keeps on giving:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... nouncement

[lpm]

I love corruption that is so pathetic it only nets him 500 quid.

Get your share of Putin's billions, idiot!

[Sciolus]

The thing about "small state" politicians in this country is that they don't say what the state should provide less of. Probably because they know that there would be an outcry whatever they said it should stop providing.

It’s benefits, but not the ones that go to deserving people obviously, just the ones that go to scroungers.

Britain is already the least generous supplier of cash benefits among OECD nations in Europe, and at the same level as the US, (ignoring only a couple of very small countries), and using 2019 data. Using this OECD data source, which shows benefits as a % of gdp (requires using selection boxes at the top to choose cash benefits), 2019 is the latest year they have a consistent dataset, and also not Covid-infected. UK comes out at 8.6%, same as the US. That compares to the OECD average of 11.4%. The only OECD countries in Europe with lower percentages are Ireland and Iceland. In the case of Ireland, that's because of the problem with the distorted total for GDP which considerably overstates true economic activity there. Iceland has high minimum wages and low deprivation, so probably doesn't need to spend much.

So there's not much room to cut cash benefits further in Britain. Making the state smaller, as the right wingers go on about, from this starting point, must involve some kind of reduction in public services. As I already said, we have had that too, of late, as so many government branches have had large cuts since about 2010. This has happened even as taxes have gone up, because so much of our public expenditure now goes on debt service, following the large government borrowings in the financial crisis and Covid. And so our public services are falling apart, due to the unplanned nature of the spending cuts.

It's worth breaking down what those "benefits" are (from the OECD link; 2019, £M):

Code: Select all

125 423.5 Old age
  1 133.0 Survivors
 29 593.3 Incapacity related
176 731.8 Health
 53 685.1 Family
  3 372.4 Active labour market programmes
  1 764.1 Unemployment
 24 862.8 Housing
 18 386.2 Other social policy areas
434 952.2 Total

So overwhelmingly old and ill people. Dole scroungers are a tiny proportion (<0.5%).

[Sciolus]

I think if we tell people (and follow through on the promise) that their taxes will be spent on things that will save them money in the long term (free healthcare, free childcare, free education - even university, better welfare standards, a good pension, rivers free of actual sh.t and a police force that will actually have the resources to prevent and investigate crime) the electorate might finally start to understand.

Why would any politician want to get a reputation for high taxes, when the benefits of such policies (a) get most of their value after you've been kicked out and (b) are immediately wiped out as soon as someone like Osborne replaces you?

[headshot]

I think if we tell people (and follow through on the promise) that their taxes will be spent on things that will save them money in the long term (free healthcare, free childcare, free education - even university, better welfare standards, a good pension, rivers free of actual sh.t and a police force that will actually have the resources to prevent and investigate crime) the electorate might finally start to understand.

Why would any politician want to get a reputation for high taxes, when the benefits of such policies (a) get most of their value after you've been kicked out and (b) are immediately wiped out as soon as someone like Osborne replaces you?

Well, it would also be nice to have politicians who would place more importance on the good of the country and its people, rather than focusing on short term political gain.

[Woodchopper]

I enjoyed Johnny Mercer’s campaign update video: https://x.com/johnnymerceruk/status/180 ... 1zY-PW4R9w

[TopBadger]

I enjoyed Johnny Mercer’s campaign update video: https://x.com/johnnymerceruk/status/180 ... 1zY-PW4R9w

"I bore myself"

Probably the only true thing you'll hear from a Tory this campaign...

[TopBadger]

Didn't watch the televised thing last night but caught a clip of Starmer giving a weaselly answer to comments he made several years ago about Corbyn would make a great prime minister where his answer was "I was certain we would lose it" (the election). I.e. he didn't mean it.

I didn't understand why his answer wasn't along the lines of you're supposed to support your own team even when you disagree with them, and JC would have been great for the country in comparison to Boris, before reeling off all the crap Boris bought with him. Because that's the choice the country had at the time, BJ vs JC.

Great to see the clip of Beth sticking it to Rish! though about if he wins will he even be PM a year from now.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Been a funny old week in polling. There's good news, fuzzy news and bad news.

The bad news: Labour's polling has dropped, by about two points since the start of the campaign. If I switch my tracker to a 7-day average, They've dropped now to 42.6% support. Polls over the last three days show 41.1% support. That's a decent chunk.

The fuzzy news: Reform's polling has increased. No "crossover" polls yet this week, but they're polling at around 12-17%, which is 4-5 points higher than the start of the campaign. That's mostly coming from the Conservative vote and Don't Knows.

The good news: The Tory vote has dropped. They peaked a week into the campaign and have decreased since then. They're now on 22% support (7-day average). That means that the Labour lead, even though Labour's support has dropped, remains above 20 points (20.7% in fact).

The bonus excellent news: The Lib Dems are seeing a rise in support. Overall their polling is up by half a point since the start of the campaign. The "Ed Davey Fun-Packed Tour!" seems to be having a positive impact. Assuming it's linked to Labour's drop in support, at least to an extent, it may indicate previously Labour-leaning voters deciding to vote tactically. The doom scenario for the Tories is still happening - to be destroyed, they needed a bad campaign (tick), Labour not to f.ck up (tick), Farage to return to lead Reform (tick) and the Lib Dems to get more popular. If that latter one happens, the Tories could become the third party. Fingers crossed!

[Woodchopper]

Thanks for the update.

The fuzzy news: Reform's polling has increased. No "crossover" polls yet this week, but they're polling at around 12-17%, which is 4-5 points higher than the start of the campaign. That's mostly coming from the Conservative vote and Don't Knows.

I think that some of the difference in Reform polling is whether or not people are prompted about whether they'll vote for Reform.

The bonus excellent news: The Lib Dems are seeing a rise in support. Overall their polling is up by half a point since the start of the campaign. The "Ed Davey Fun-Packed Tour!" seems to be having a positive impact. Assuming it's linked to Labour's drop in support, at least to an extent, it may indicate previously Labour-leaning voters deciding to vote tactically.

Lib Dems getting more support during a campaign is, as far as I remember, quite normal and has been explained by them getting a lot more media attention than usual. So voters are reminded that they exist. (Which is also why they tend to overperform in by elections).

Message from both points is that we shouldn't over estimate the average person's interest in the election.

[lpm]

Been a funny old week in polling. There's good news, fuzzy news and bad news.

The bad news: Labour's polling has dropped, by about two points since the start of the campaign. If I switch my tracker to a 7-day average, They've dropped now to 42.6% support. Polls over the last three days show 41.1% support. That's a decent chunk.

The fuzzy news: Reform's polling has increased. No "crossover" polls yet this week, but they're polling at around 12-17%, which is 4-5 points higher than the start of the campaign. That's mostly coming from the Conservative vote and Don't Knows.

The good news: The Tory vote has dropped. They peaked a week into the campaign and have decreased since then. They're now on 22% support (7-day average). That means that the Labour lead, even though Labour's support has dropped, remains above 20 points (20.7% in fact).

The bonus excellent news: The Lib Dems are seeing a rise in support. Overall their polling is up by half a point since the start of the campaign. The "Ed Davey Fun-Packed Tour!" seems to be having a positive impact. Assuming it's linked to Labour's drop in support, at least to an extent, it may indicate previously Labour-leaning voters deciding to vote tactically. The doom scenario for the Tories is still happening - to be destroyed, they needed a bad campaign (tick), Labour not to f.ck up (tick), Farage to return to lead Reform (tick) and the Lib Dems to get more popular. If that latter one happens, the Tories could become the third party. Fingers crossed!

Huh, so you're no longer going with a "five point election period recovery for the Tories, five point loss for Labour from the 4 July trend point, plus tactical voting" then? You don't think the Tory campaign is going well?