Scrutable

Everyone in Downing Street put bets on the election date apparently

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgeekd4nzvkt

Good. I was worried we didn't have a scandal this week

Today's polling is all over the place. God knows what's really going on.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:37 pm Is it really a tax on mobility though?

I'd wager most sale and purchase of houses don't involve people moving very far from where they started, let alone changing jobs.

The type of jobs that require relocation generally come with compensation to ease the move.

Yes, it absolutely is a tax on mobility. Any job that isn't remote requires relocation, and most jobs do not come with relocation allowances. An efficient job market requires that any worker can relocate to where the better job prospects are.

In any case, relocation allowances also usually only cover things like moving costs, not house purchase overheads.

lpm wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:22 pm Today's polling is all over the place. God knows what's really going on.

Yep, we're sailing into uncharted waters and the next glimpse of dry land is on 4 July.

IvanV wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:11 pm But, that aside, assuming they did spend it as they did in the past, still the evidence is that such a spending-led growth still wouldn't do much for our productivity, and it is low productivity that is holding us back.

The low productivity problem in the UK economy is much more deep-seated than these issues.

Certainly. As you'll know, historically UK productivity grew with economic growth at about 2 per cent per year. Since 2008 its grown about 5% in total in a decade and a half. People should consider what that means, that there has been almost no improvement in efficiency due to the introduction of technology or improving skills. It looks like the financial crisis put the breaks on the UK economy and instead of trying to fix that the country has spent most of the past decade leaving the EU. That was at best a huge distraction and at worst made the problems worse.

Economists writing to the Guardian have asserted that a big damper on growth has been uncertainty over government policy, with rapid turn arounds suppressing investment.

That would have started around 2010 with austerity*, which drove down government investment and support gradually across economic sectors, then the Brexit vote, followed by years of dithering about what that meant. Then CoVID.

*This is mostly why I left the UK - Labour and then the Tories reorganizing and cutting research funding meant that projects I was working on had no clear future.

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:07 pm Economists writing to the Guardian have asserted that a big damper on growth has been uncertainty over government policy, with rapid turn arounds suppressing investment.

That would have started around 2010 with austerity*, which drove down government investment and support gradually across economic sectors, then the Brexit vote, followed by years of dithering about what that meant. Then CoVID.

*This is mostly why I left the UK - Labour and then the Tories reorganizing and cutting research funding meant that projects I was working on had no clear future.

And that illustrates a problem for stagnating economies.

Education has traditionally been one of the foundations of growth. But investing billions in educating part of the population doesn’t contribute if the brightest of them leave because there are much better opportunities abroad.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:39 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:07 pm Economists writing to the Guardian have asserted that a big damper on growth has been uncertainty over government policy, with rapid turn arounds suppressing investment.

That would have started around 2010 with austerity*, which drove down government investment and support gradually across economic sectors, then the Brexit vote, followed by years of dithering about what that meant. Then CoVID.

*This is mostly why I left the UK - Labour and then the Tories reorganizing and cutting research funding meant that projects I was working on had no clear future.

And that illustrates a problem for stagnating economies.

Education has traditionally been one of the foundations of growth. But investing billions in educating part of the population doesn’t contribute if the brightest of them leave because there are much better opportunities abroad.

It's not helped by academic research being deliberately structured to force early career professionals to move around a lot before settling somewhere - with overseas moves being valuable on CVs.

Trinucleus wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:17 pm Anyone see the Tories' election broadcast tonight? It was a five minute clip of someone making a speech at an event, not even looking at the camera. Quality looked like it was recorded on a phone. Does look like they've given up

I noticed they were still running with the £2,000 tax rise lie.

We're stagnating because there a high pay off investments that collectively we stopped making.

Such as mental health. We've proved beyond doubt what happens when you stop investing in mental health for 14 years. You get inactive workers, i.e. wasted resources.

lpm wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 10:01 pm We're stagnating because there a high pay off investments that collectively we stopped making.

Such as mental health. We've proved beyond doubt what happens when you stop investing in mental health for 14 years. You get inactive workers, i.e. wasted resources.

Yes. Rising NHS waiting lists more generally are another drag - people aren't as productive when they're ill or worried about a health issue. And this applies to family members as well.

People also aren't as productive when they are tired from crowded or slow commutes caused by poor transport and having to live far from jobs due to housing costs.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:19 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:31 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 7:44 am

I agree. And to keep repeating myself. Another problem is that the post-Brexit 2024 UK economy has far worse prospects than it did in 1997. Then Blair and Brown could reasonably expect that in a decade people would on average have incomes 25% higher (and they did). That steady growth gave the Blair and Brown governments a great deal of financial leeway to borrow and invest.

But if the economy continues to stagnate every spending decision will be a trade-off. Increase spending here and they have to decrease it there. This is a completely different context to what British people have been used to for most of the past 200 years or so. This doesn’t mean that there can’t be any spending and investment, both Japan and Italy have excellent railways. But the decisions are much more complicated.

Stagnation isn’t inevitable of course. Growth could start ticking over again.

The best way to end or prevent stagnation is for the government to start spending money again. That grows the economy, increases tax income, and builds businesses, all while delivering benefits to people that increases their productivity.

That's the problem. Japan tried this for decades but its GDP per capita is where it was 30 years ago and government debt is 263% of GDP. Italian GDP per capita is lower in 2022 than what it was fifteen years previously in 2007, and its debt to GDP ratio is 137%. The key aspect of a stagnating economy is that the relationship between spending on investment and growth is broken. The government can spend all it can but it doesn't get payback in sustained economic growth. Growth isn't natural, Brazil for example has huge natural resources and a smart population, but after some fluctuations its 2022 GDP per capita is still where it was at the 2008 crisis.

Which is not to say that spending on investment doesn't deliver growth in the US. But the US has a dynamic economy which Britain might have lost.

The main thing that I struggle with with your point is - and I can't tell if this is my heart talking or my head (what exists of it anyway), so please put me right here - is that we seem to have reached a point where we can't afford not to invest. Spending might not be risk or cost free for reasons you say, and there may be a risk of creating more difficult conditions in future, but I find it hard to see how we won't end up with even worse outcomes if we don't spend a decent amount of cash on at least some of the basics, because things will just crumble even further and there'll be nothing to show for it.

discovolante wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 10:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:19 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:31 am

The best way to end or prevent stagnation is for the government to start spending money again. That grows the economy, increases tax income, and builds businesses, all while delivering benefits to people that increases their productivity.

That's the problem. Japan tried this for decades but its GDP per capita is where it was 30 years ago and government debt is 263% of GDP. Italian GDP per capita is lower in 2022 than what it was fifteen years previously in 2007, and its debt to GDP ratio is 137%. The key aspect of a stagnating economy is that the relationship between spending on investment and growth is broken. The government can spend all it can but it doesn't get payback in sustained economic growth. Growth isn't natural, Brazil for example has huge natural resources and a smart population, but after some fluctuations its 2022 GDP per capita is still where it was at the 2008 crisis.

Which is not to say that spending on investment doesn't deliver growth in the US. But the US has a dynamic economy which Britain might have lost.

The main thing that I struggle with with your point is - and I can't tell if this is my heart talking or my head (what exists of it anyway), so please put me right here - is that we seem to have reached a point where we can't afford not to invest. Spending might not be risk or cost free for reasons you say, and there may be a risk of creating more difficult conditions in future, but I find it hard to see how we won't end up with even worse outcomes if we don't spend a decent amount of cash on at least some of the basics, because things will just crumble even further and there'll be nothing to show for it.

I endorse this view.

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:19 pm That's the problem. Japan tried this for decades but its GDP per capita is where it was 30 years ago and government debt is 263% of GDP. Italian GDP per capita is lower in 2022 than what it was fifteen years previously in 2007, and its debt to GDP ratio is 137%. The key aspect of a stagnating economy is that the relationship between spending on investment and growth is broken. The government can spend all it can but it doesn't get payback in sustained economic growth. Growth isn't natural, Brazil for example has huge natural resources and a smart population, but after some fluctuations its 2022 GDP per capita is still where it was at the 2008 crisis.

During this period, public spending in Japan as % of GDP was consistently lower than in Italy and in many western European countries. So as a % of GDP their public spending would be much like western European "austerity".

And they ended up with poor growth and worse government debt as a % of GDP.

So I don't think Japan provides good evidence that government spending doesn't boost growth.

lpm wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 10:01 pm We're stagnating because there a high pay off investments that collectively we stopped making.

Such as mental health. We've proved beyond doubt what happens when you stop investing in mental health for 14 years. You get inactive workers, i.e. wasted resources.

Another one would be the north of england and other city regions. My bugbear. We've created an economy where London does all the (economic) hard work and the next largest cities nowhere near as much. If we can get Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds singing a lot stronger then that'd be a great area for growth.

lpm wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:22 pm Today's polling is all over the place. God knows what's really going on.

I'm ignoring People Polling. It is a silly place.

The three MRPs released yesterday broadly reflect the spread of voting intention modelling, with individual seat projections on top. More in Common have for a long while had the assumptions that most favour the Conservatives, and their seat projections reflect that. YouGov recently shifted to a model which penalises the Tories less and Labour more, whilst Savanta is just f.cking hilarious. We won't know which is true until 5th July.

Otherwise, the other three polls yesterday - Survation, Verian, NorStat - are all in line with the average.

The key factor to note for me is the new regularity of the Lib Dems polling around 12-13%. Still a couple of weeks to go, but if that number increases further the Tories will lose more seats.

lpm wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:59 pm

TimW wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:37 pm Round here: Fareham and Waterlooville / Suella

Braverman is one of those seats forecast to have a tactical voting failure.

Top seats where CON wins thanks to LAB/LD/GRN screwing each other are:

Code: Select all

Constituency	CON	LAB	LD	GRN	REF
					
North Cotswolds	24	24	23	15	13
Honiton & Sidmouth	27	24	23	5	20
North Devon	27	23	24	15	11
Tewkesbury	28	24	24	14	9
Harpenden & Berkhamsted	28	28	21	6	15
Runnymede & Weybridge	29	28	27	6	9
Melksham & Devizes	29	21	22	17	12
Eastleigh	29	24	28	6	12
Sevenoaks	30	22	21	5	21
Tunbridge Wells	30	24	29	0	15
South Cotswolds	30	21	29	7	12
Spelthorne	30	30	23	5	10
Stratford-on-Avon	30	21	29	10	9
Hamble Valley	31	27	22	6	14
Mid Buckinghamshire	31	31	23	4	10
Christchurch	32	26	21	7	14
East Hampshire	32	22	22	5	17
Fareham & Waterlooville	33	24	26	4	11
North East Hampshire	34	24	25	5	11
Maidenhead	36	27	30	6	 -   
Mid Dorset & North Poole	37	23	33	6	 -   
East Grinstead & Uckfield	39	33	20	7	 -   

Most of the Gosling family live in North Devon. Apparently the Labour candidate has been selected by head office, isn't local and has been told to help out the campaign in Exeter. I guess that would be their way of saying that the Lib Dems should get the tactical vote.

bob sterman wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:44 am

Woodchopper wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:19 pm That's the problem. Japan tried this for decades but its GDP per capita is where it was 30 years ago and government debt is 263% of GDP. Italian GDP per capita is lower in 2022 than what it was fifteen years previously in 2007, and its debt to GDP ratio is 137%. The key aspect of a stagnating economy is that the relationship between spending on investment and growth is broken. The government can spend all it can but it doesn't get payback in sustained economic growth. Growth isn't natural, Brazil for example has huge natural resources and a smart population, but after some fluctuations its 2022 GDP per capita is still where it was at the 2008 crisis.

During this period, public spending in Japan as % of GDP was consistently lower than in Italy and in many western European countries. So as a % of GDP their public spending would be much like western European "austerity".

And they ended up with poor growth and worse government debt as a % of GDP.

So I don't think Japan provides good evidence that government spending doesn't boost growth.

Just to avoid errors, there's two very different definitions around, one which puts JP spending at around 22% eg World Bank and one which puts it at around 44% eg IMF. In my previous post, where I linked to a graph of public spending for the UK, it was using the latter definition, which I think is the one we would understand, and is more useful.

So if you move down the page on the IMF one, you will find a graph over an extended period comparing countries. And yes, its true, Japan's public expenditure is in general lower than most of W Europe, but it has now arrived at a level not very different from UK.

But public expenditure in Japan did increase markedly in the 1990s, to try and get out of the funk they arrived in at that point, and it didn't work. And, although there have been periods like the 2010s in Britain where it tended to fall for several years, in the longer term these have been outweighed upward movements, and is now markedly higher than at the start of the millenium. So I think Japan does illustrate a situation where an economy has been in stagnation despite marked increases in public expenditure.

Local polling still has Labour beating the LD's here which is a surprise. Am I being silly in thinking historically Tory voters won't vote Labour - given that Billionaire fella just flipped from blue to red? Will LD supporters see the same charts and tactically vote for Labour?

I just want Kemi Badenoch to lose her seat...

From memory, 2019 tory voters are splitting roughly 45-50% Conservative, 20% Reform, 12% Labour, 9% Lib Dem, 5% Greens. Something like that anyway.

discovolante wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 10:58 pm The main thing that I struggle with with your point is - and I can't tell if this is my heart talking or my head (what exists of it anyway), so please put me right here - is that we seem to have reached a point where we can't afford not to invest. Spending might not be risk or cost free for reasons you say, and there may be a risk of creating more difficult conditions in future, but I find it hard to see how we won't end up with even worse outcomes if we don't spend a decent amount of cash on at least some of the basics, because things will just crumble even further and there'll be nothing to show for it.

Indeed. Britain is, in a sense, in a fortunate position relative to our continental neighbours, many of whose public sectors are also feeling starved, that we are at a rather lower level of public spending and a rather lower level of taxation than them. We have greater potential to find some more money to spend it on these important matters.

But in many cases fixing these things will require long term programmes. We can't have increased health service capacity, by whatever funding means is used, whether public or private, as Jeremy Hunt himself has written, without the trained personnel. And that has a long lead time first in expanding the capacity to train and then in training. Infrastructure maintenance backlogs, like the schools that are falling down due to 15 years of only putting in about 1/4 of the money needed, will take a very long time of increased expenditure to address. And the construction sector needs to expand its capacity to deliver that. And the construction sector is badly bitten by previous increases and reductions in the level of expenditure on construction, and might be rather reluctant to increase its capacity until it feels a sense of stability.

And this will need more money from somewhere. The British voter tends to get very upset by increased taxation, perhaps because they are urged on by the right wing press. The (few remaining) Tories will go, look we told you so, when taxes go up. But, at the same time, if Labour don't deliver some kind of visible chaos reduction within 2 or 3 years, the voters will be very upset with them.

Whisper it quietly, but the rot *may* have stopped, for both the Tories and Labour. Possible signs of an inflection point in the voting intention for the four main national parties.
Labour's 20-point average lead over the Tories has held up, they've both lost support but at the same rate. Two weeks to go, but we may have seen about as much change in the polling as we're going to. Still time though for one party or more to f.ck things up.

Some scenario modelling from electoral calculus in terms of seats:

Current weighted polling average: LAB 474, CON 71, LIB 55, SNP 21, PC 4, Ref 3 - Lab majority 298
Plus 25% tactical voting Lab/Lib/Green: LAB 474, CON 67, LIB 60, SNP 20, PC 4, Ref 3 - Lab majority 298
Best polling for the Tories in the last week (More in Common, 17th): LAB 427, CON 126, LIB 46, SNP 21, PC 4, Ref 3 - Lab majority 204
Worst polling for the Tories in the last week (Deltapoll, 17th): LAB 533, CON 19, LIB 50, SNP 21, PC 3, Ref 4 - Lab majority 416
Plus 25% tactical voting Lab/Lib/Green: LAB 528, CON 19, LIB 56, SNP 20, PC 3, Ref 4 - Lab majority 406
Tories recover 10% Labour swing from average (+5% Con, -5% Lab): LAB 367, CON 195, LIB 37, SNP 21, PC 4, Ref 3 - Lab majority 84
Tories recover 10% Reform swing from average (+5% Con, -5% Ref): LAB 416, CON 148, LIB 37, SNP 21, PC 4, Ref 2 - Lab majority 182
Both the above (+10% Con, -5% Lab, -5% Ref): LAB 324, CON 251, LIB 26, SNP 21, PC 2, Ref 3 - Lab two short of a majority
Plus 25% tactical voting Lab/Lib/Green: LAB 326, CON 247, LIB 29, SNP 20, PC 2, Ref 3 - Lab majority 2

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722014r42xo
Conservatives are now testing the hypothesis that "No campaign director could possibly be better than Tony Lee"

Gfamily wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:28 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722014r42xo
Conservatives are now testing the hypothesis that "No campaign director could possibly be better than Tony Lee"

It’s almost as if they learned absolutely nothing from Partygate

"This post has been deleted."