2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[ramboacdc]

What about if their disability is intermittant (depression, for example)? Would you be ok with them working on their 'better' days?

that grey area would depend on a lot of things. my depression/anxiety hits me like a brick sometimes and i have to take a day off work (managed 2 this year) 

my father in law however has not even left teh house in 21 years his hit him so bad. on his good days he makes it downstairs to the living room. 

its a wide scale and a vast range that its bese left not measured in my eyes. cant say everyone with depression is this bad or this good. 

[Buce]

Its a bit ambiguous now buce

Seriously though, its the intention that is important. If it is a genuine case of intermittent disability, I would like it to be seen favourably but in reality it probably wouldn't be, such is the fine line of truth. I'm not perfect buce and I don't always play by even my own rules and I sometimes wish I could be a little more forgiving and compassionate.

No, but you're not so bad - for a Tory..

[Strokes]

Although I have no personal experience of being paid in cash (I don't meet my clients face-to-face), I've yet to meet a tradesman who wouldn't jump at the chance. It can't be that hard to hide it from the taxman.

It is when you are VAT registered, all your materials are on account and cash flow is already at breaking point.

I don't think you quite understand how tough it can be as a sole trader or small company. You never have any cash as its always tied up in the ongoing cycle of wanting for payment and paying suppliers. To pull out a few grand of unaccounted cash, to pay for materials on a job, that you will not get your trading discount for. To save a few bob, that you can't pay bills with or put in the bank, is not my idea of a good piece of business. If I was to put up a security light, that the customer already had as an add on for £30 at the end of a job, well that's just beer money and politeness.

No, but you're not so bad - for a Tory..

[1993fox]

Conservative tory and proud here, not happy with how the hippy generation is controlling socio-cultural norms atm.

[Webbo]

I quite often get offered cash by customers(usually angling for a discount), I always say I don't care as it's going through the books anyway. In truth I prefer a cheque, it makes record keeping easier. It's really not worth getting caught even though if you're sensible that's not very likely.

[Harry - LCFC]

Well in reality it is. It's the credit/debt that is buying your unaffordable material benefits, but I wasn't really talking about national debt, I was talking about personal debt. The UK is full of people (especially the young) you are living far outside their means by buying all manner of "wants" with money that they haven't earnt.

 

Economic growth as a result of innovation and trade is the source of the bulk of our wealth. Government borrowing is indeed paying for extra services and yes that can only be temporary but even so, it isn't true that we'd be destitute if the government didn't run a deficit.

 

I think you're right to say that some people are enjoying artificially high standards of living as a result of irresponsible borrowing but again, they could live okay if they spent within their means.

 

It's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of our wealth has come as the result of borrowing of some sort. There's more to wealth creation than that.

 

 

You are believing in a fantasy scenario and hiding your head in the sand if you really believe that.

 

Fantasies like the few years in the Blair and Thatcher governments and the Clinton administration in the US?

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

Fantasies like the few years in the Blair and Thatcher governments and the Clinton administration in the US?

 

And so surprising that we haven't done better considering all the "free" money we got from raping the earth of its fossil fuels.

[Harry - LCFC]

And so surprising that we haven't done better considering all the "free" money we got from raping the earth of its fossil fuels.

 

The reason we haven't done better is because high spending and low taxes is popular with the electorate. Both parties know they can help themselves by promising more (within reason) than their opposition.

[Guest Kopfkino]

In further news..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498033

Quarterly growth has slowed to 0.3%. According to the BBC lunchtime news, that's 5 quarters in a row that the growth rate has fallen. Only the services sector grew at all. Industry, agriculture and construction all shrank..

Looks like the economy needs a Keynesian demand stimulus, public investment and a house-building initiative from a Labour government.

A 90 billion pound budget deficit seems rather Keynesian to me, it's not like the government is completely starving demand in the economy albeit the tise in VAT wasn't Keynes friendly. I don't really know what demand stimulus you propose, maybe we should actually increase the size of welfare due to their high marginal propensity to consume? Granted they could go further and cut VAT or just cut VAT on building work, in fact I think they should cut it on building work and home improvements anyway. But still as one of the people that's going to pick up the tab from our growing national debt, I am only in support of very limited Keynesianism, until the world economy picks up again it's pointless throwing money at artificially stimulating demand when we need export led growth.

Labour let investment projects dwindle too much before the crisis and I think that made the recession and recovery harder. I don't really see much from them on that front this time round either, that would be true Keynesianism which I would be an advocate for. In fact I've only seen that they'd cut back on some of the Conservative road improvement plans.

The Labour house-building initiative doesn't exist. I've seen nothing about how Labour are going to get houses built, there is no actual policy to support house building apart from pissing about with the market a bit. Their 200000 homes pledge is no different to the Conservatives pledging to get migration down in 2010. It's a pie in the sky pledge with no substance but it sounds good.

I genuinely am struggling to think of a Labour policy that I actually like and think would be good for us. The probable influence of the SNP makes it even more worrying. The problem is the Conservative campaign has been that shambolic, Ed Miliband as PM is a real possiblity. One can only hope it doesnt last long

[MooseBreath]

And so surprising that we haven't done better considering all the "free" money we got from raping the earth of its fossil fuels.

Yes electricity has barely done anything useful.

[Guest Bilo]

Conservative tory and proud here, not happy with how the hippy generation is controlling socio-cultural norms atm.

 

I thought you were voting UKIP last week to stop Buzzfeed promoting the shagging of dead animals? 

[Alf Bentley]

A 90 billion pound budget deficit seems rather Keynesian to me, it's not like the government is completely starving demand in the economy albeit the tise in VAT wasn't Keynes friendly. I don't really know what demand stimulus you propose, maybe we should actually increase the size of welfare due to their high marginal propensity to consume? Granted they could go further and cut VAT or just cut VAT on building work, in fact I think they should cut it on building work and home improvements anyway. But still as one of the people that's going to pick up the tab from our growing national debt, I am only in support of very limited Keynesianism, until the world economy picks up again it's pointless throwing money at artificially stimulating demand when we need export led growth.

Labour let investment projects dwindle too much before the crisis and I think that made the recession and recovery harder. I don't really see much from them on that front this time round either, that would be true Keynesianism which I would be an advocate for. In fact I've only seen that they'd cut back on some of the Conservative road improvement plans.

The Labour house-building initiative doesn't exist. I've seen nothing about how Labour are going to get houses built, there is no actual policy to support house building apart from pissing about with the market a bit. Their 200000 homes pledge is no different to the Conservatives pledging to get migration down in 2010. It's a pie in the sky pledge with no substance but it sounds good.

I genuinely am struggling to think of a Labour policy that I actually like and think would be good for us. The probable influence of the SNP makes it even more worrying. The problem is the Conservative campaign has been that shambolic, Ed Miliband as PM is a real possiblity. One can only hope it doesnt last long

 

By its very nature, Keynesian public spending is supposed to be limited in time to periods during which private sector spending/investment is sluggish, so if the British and/or global economy make a full recovery into consistent growth, the public spending should indeed be reined in.

 

A budget deficit doesn't necessarily equate to a demand stimulus, though. The Tories have prioritised cutting the deficit by cutting public spending, which reduces demand (though they'd see that as necessary so as to cut the deficit quickly, in theory). The fact that they've been running a deficit isn't due to Keynesian public spending. It's due to low tax receipts because the crash reduced output, growth being sluggish until the last 2 years and a lot of the extra jobs being low paid and therefore yielding little tax. In addition, some spending has had to remain high (NHS due to aging population, welfare benefits due to low pay - and high unemployment until the last 2 years).

 

Rather than increase welfare spending, a more productive demand boost would be to increase the minimum wage (as Labour plan to do - to £8 p.h. by 2020). Like the unemployed, the low paid have a high propensity to spend, boosting demand and output. That would also gently push up other wages higher up the scale. Of course, it couldn't be too sharp an increase for fear of making British firms uncompetitive or increasing unemployment, but this doesn't seem like bad timing for such a policy, with inflation low, growth having reappeared but struggling and pay having been stagnant until recently.

 

Labour are clearly planning a lot more investment spending than they're revealing. Both Tories and Labour are trying to tell the electorate what they want to hear. The Tories are shying away from revealing where their cuts are going to fall, so as not to scare people, and from revealing how they're going to fund an extra £8bn for the NHS (a figure plucked from the sky, apparently). But, likewise, Labour are shying away from talking about their extra investment spending to avoid the charge that they're "being profligate again". Labour talk about cutting the deficit on "current spending", which implicitly means that they're planning to increase investment spending....they're just not saying how until after the election! There really is a big difference in the parties' plans. The Tories will cut the deficit much more and hope they don't crash the recovery in growth (though they might backtrack if that starts to happen, as Osborne did a couple of years ago). Labour will spend/invest more and hope that this stimulates growth, creating a virtuous circle, in turn boosting tax revenues to offset their extra spending.

 

In practice, we all know that Labour govts spend more on public services. We can form our own opinions about the wisdom of that, but that is a demand stimulus (through pay, public procurement etc.). Likewise, policies like their apprenticeships scheme, while mainly intended to provide longer-term supply-side benefits (higher skills), will also provide a short-term demand boost (government-backed investment in training etc.).

 

I agree that the Labour housing policy (http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building) looks a bit sketchy. There are policy initiatives in there, but they don't look sufficient to stimulate the construction of 200,000 new homes by 2020, though I'm no expert in this field. I suspect they'd have to do something like provide tax incentives for builders to construct affordable private-sector homes and/or help local councils find funds to build new council houses. Again, they may already be planning this but might be choosing not to mention it for fear of being accused of financial irresponsibility.

 

While not non-existent, the threat of the SNP holding Labour to ransom is mainly Tory propaganda. As Labour would be implementing a lot less austerity than the Tories, any SNP threat to bring down a Labour government over tax-and-spend would be laughable. UK elections are mainly decided in England, where the SNP don't stand candidates, and no other party would win many seats in England at a second election standing to the left of Labour. The SNP would risk losing their own position of strength in Scotland and bringing in another austerity-focused Tory government, for which they'd probably be blamed by left-inclined voters in Scotland. Likewise, with Trident, they have no bargaining power - they could vote against, but the Tories and Lib Dems would presumably vote in favour, unless they were playing party politics with national defence, which wouldn't go down well. The genuine risk with the SNP is that, in a couple of years time, they'll find some pretext justifying another independence referendum. Once the election is over, if Labour are in a position to form a government and need SNP support/abstention, Miliband should just rule out another Scottish referendum for 5 years. There's actually a lot more chance of the SNP finding a pretext for an early referendum if the Tories are in power, pursuing austerity politics - the SNP can then paint them as the dirty, right-wing Sassenachs imposing their will on Scotland. No wonder many people think Sturgeon would welcome a Tory victory, as it would bring independence closer in nationalist eyes.  

[MooseBreath]

I think a lot of people would like to hear about the sensible, beneficial investments labour are going to make. Lots of people's livelihoods can benefit from such spending. Unfortunately, by not naming anything, and indeed cutting back in conservative infrastructure plans, one can only assume they'll revert to type and spend most of any money on welfare and newly invented public sector 'jobs'.

[Guest Kopfkino]

By its very nature, Keynesian public spending is supposed to be limited in time to periods during which private sector spending/investment is sluggish, so if the British and/or global economy make a full recovery into consistent growth, the public spending should indeed be reined in.

A budget deficit doesn't necessarily equate to a demand stimulus, though. The Tories have prioritised cutting the deficit by cutting public spending, which reduces demand (though they'd see that as necessary so as to cut the deficit quickly, in theory). The fact that they've been running a deficit isn't due to Keynesian public spending. It's due to low tax receipts because the crash reduced output, growth being sluggish until the last 2 years and a lot of the extra jobs being low paid and therefore yielding little tax. In addition, some spending has had to remain high (NHS due to aging population, welfare benefits due to low pay - and high unemployment until the last 2 years).

Rather than increase welfare spending, a more productive demand boost would be to increase the minimum wage (as Labour plan to do - to £8 p.h. by 2020). Like the unemployed, the low paid have a high propensity to spend, boosting demand and output. That would also gently push up other wages higher up the scale. Of course, it couldn't be too sharp an increase for fear of making British firms uncompetitive or increasing unemployment, but this doesn't seem like bad timing for such a policy, with inflation low, growth having reappeared but struggling and pay having been stagnant until recently.

Labour are clearly planning a lot more investment spending than they're revealing. Both Tories and Labour are trying to tell the electorate what they want to hear. The Tories are shying away from revealing where their cuts are going to fall, so as not to scare people, and from revealing how they're going to fund an extra £8bn for the NHS (a figure plucked from the sky, apparently). But, likewise, Labour are shying away from talking about their extra investment spending to avoid the charge that they're "being profligate again". Labour talk about cutting the deficit on "current spending", which implicitly means that they're planning to increase investment spending....they're just not saying how until after the election! There really is a big difference in the parties' plans. The Tories will cut the deficit much more and hope they don't crash the recovery in growth (though they might backtrack if that starts to happen, as Osborne did a couple of years ago). Labour will spend/invest more and hope that this stimulates growth, creating a virtuous circle, in turn boosting tax revenues to offset their extra spending.

In practice, we all know that Labour govts spend more on public services. We can form our own opinions about the wisdom of that, but that is a demand stimulus (through pay, public procurement etc.). Likewise, policies like their apprenticeships scheme, while mainly intended to provide longer-term supply-side benefits (higher skills), will also provide a short-term demand boost (government-backed investment in training etc.).

I agree that the Labour housing policy (http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/house-building) looks a bit sketchy. There are policy initiatives in there, but they don't look sufficient to stimulate the construction of 200,000 new homes by 2020, though I'm no expert in this field. I suspect they'd have to do something like provide tax incentives for builders to construct affordable private-sector homes and/or help local councils find funds to build new council houses. Again, they may already be planning this but might be choosing not to mention it for fear of being accused of financial irresponsibility.

While not non-existent, the threat of the SNP holding Labour to ransom is mainly Tory propaganda. As Labour would be implementing a lot less austerity than the Tories, any SNP threat to bring down a Labour government over tax-and-spend would be laughable. UK elections are mainly decided in England, where the SNP don't stand candidates, and no other party would win many seats in England at a second election standing to the left of Labour. The SNP would risk losing their own position of strength in Scotland and bringing in another austerity-focused Tory government, for which they'd probably be blamed by left-inclined voters in Scotland. Likewise, with Trident, they have no bargaining power - they could vote against, but the Tories and Lib Dems would presumably vote in favour, unless they were playing party politics with national defence, which wouldn't go down well. The genuine risk with the SNP is that, in a couple of years time, they'll find some pretext justifying another independence referendum. Once the election is over, if Labour are in a position to form a government and need SNP support/abstention, Miliband should just rule out another Scottish referendum for 5 years. There's actually a lot more chance of the SNP finding a pretext for an early referendum if the Tories are in power, pursuing austerity politics - the SNP can then paint them as the dirty, right-wing Sassenachs imposing their will on Scotland. No wonder many people think Sturgeon would welcome a Tory victory, as it would bring independence closer in nationalist eyes.

Well I wish I could issue a full and thorough reply as you did but always being on my phone makes it difficult. I'll give it a go.

I'd love for a few true Keynesian policies of investment in infrastructure to stimulate some demand in the economy, particularly in areas where it is needed. It helps create business opportunity, employ more people and is an investment in the future which should see some return. Labour didn't have enough of this going on because they were too busy pissing money away to an inefficient public sector and people on welfare. Running a deficit the size that they did during to boom years was criminal especially the way they used borrowed money. If they had invested in infrastructure then they maybe could have dampened down some of the impacts of the recession and the ongoing infrastructure projects would have helped make us more immune to the problems in the eurozone. The Conservatives did cut too hard and too quick but they finally realised this after 2012 and have steadied the ship since. The money hasn't been there for any Keynesian policies because the deficit started too high.

I do not agree that raising the minimum wage would be the way forward here. I think it would have to be quicker than £8 an hour by 2020 to have a real impact and then that would be dangerous. It's just my opinion mind. The recovery is already led by public consumption and just adding to that isn't useful. For a start I think the wage increase would be used by a lot of people to service the debts they already have. Adding more cost onto small business will stifle their investment and confidence which won't help growth. This is a key time to be supporting small business and entrepeneurs, entrepeneurs drive growth in productivity and that's ultimately what we need. Spooking them discourages investment which is what we ultimately need for long term sustainable growth in the economy. Small firms also provide a route into employment for disadvantaged people, say those that have little skills. So instead of risking small firm confidence and potentially increasing unemployment, we need to do support them so we can continue to get unemployment down and people off welfare.

In fact I'd say any demand-side policy from the government is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and if they're going to do anything they should support small business and encourage productivity gains. People might just have to accept that the recovery isn't going to be instant bit instead it will be long and arduous. Unfortunately that doesn't win votes and the public are unwilling to accept the truths or aren't knowledgeable enough to realise them.

Unfortunately everything is too short termist at the moment, we need to accept that there will be tough times before the good times return and simply piling on the debt for future generations to pick up the tab isn't the answer nor is allowing business investment to drop. Maybe increasing the minimum wage at the rate Labour want to will work and then that will massively help business investment but I personally don't think it would, I hope to be proved wrong. We desperately need the world economy to pick up, the fact that exports of financial services decreased in the last quarter shows that the world economy is still suffering and we won't make stable progress until Europe and the rest do too.

Labour could quite easily back current infrastructure plans like the northern powerhouse or crossrail teo or even the road improvements but they haven't. Granted at this time they're not going to give the Conservatives any policy backing cos that would be foolish but they could have quite easily said it themselves or written it into their manifesto with tweaks and without appearing to back the Conservatives. Nobody could really accuse them of imprudence with just a couple of pledges when the Conservatives have made similar pledges and infrastructure projects should deliver a return. In fact promising to delay some of the road improvements in the south in my opinion already shows them singing to the scottish tune.

The SNP aren't overly interested in this election really. They're more bothered about next year's Holyrood election where they'll be hoping for a complete landslide, at which point they can return to Westminster and say they have a mandate for another referendum. The fear then is they exert their influence by demanding all sorts for Scotland to prevent a referendum or to get them to stay again. Having spoken to a couple of Scottish friends, they genuinely do see little difference between Labour and the Conservatives. At my Oxford interview, I was talking to the Prof about it and he believes that Labour's betrayal of their traditional roots actually makes them more hated in some sections. So whilst the SNP would rather not vote down a Labour government, I don't think it would be all that damaging to them in the end. In fact they'd probably have enough support for independence for them to not really care.

Anyway, I guess it's going to be an interesting time for me to be studying Economics and Politics at uni over the next few years, a lot of new and interesting things could happen across the world. Examples being the future of the Eurozone and the EU with many countries having upcoming general elections, the future of our parliament/union, the impending electoral reform debate, the US election next year etc etc

[Guest]

Having started a thread concerning private housing rent increases it seems to me that more of you should be worried about the state of Public/Private housing and the lack of jobs in non-London areas.

 

I can't believe that you are arguing about some silly small "economic" differencies when it appears half the population live in Victorian hovels. 

[Footballwipe]

I cannot believe we're eight days away from the election and the biggest deal in the media right now is the fact that the Labour leader met a television personality for an interview?

 

I mean really? Anyone would think he went there to plan his economic and social policy with him.

 

Anyway, besides the anger, annoyance and frustration with the last eight weeks worth of campaigning; slanging matches and total baloney from both sides, I really can't wait for the results to come in on Thursday night/Friday morning. Going to be so interesting to see that exit poll.

[Jon the Hat]

I am considering taking the Friday off so I can stay up!  Only I know we wont really know what happens until days afterwards.

[Guest]

I cannot believe we're eight days away from the election and the biggest deal in the media right now is the fact that the Labour leader met a television personality for an interview?

 

I mean really? Anyone would think he went there to plan his economic and social policy with him.

 

Anyway, besides the anger, annoyance and frustration with the last eight weeks worth of campaigning; slanging matches and total baloney from both sides, I really can't wait for the results to come in on Thursday night/Friday morning. Going to be so interesting to see that exit poll.

 

It's been amazing.

 

Closest predicted election in years and the campaigning has been poor from all sides.

 

Politics is in a poor state in the UK

 

Same in France in reality with all the protest votes going to the French Nationals party. They've never been so popular and the right and the left (which are more distanced than in the UK) are just uninviting. Voting is also on a downward trend though still behind the Brits (as usual).

[Voll Blau]

I am considering taking the Friday off so I can stay up!  Only I know we wont really know what happens until days afterwards.

 

I'm in Croatia but really fancy staying up, assuming we get BBC News on the hotel TV.

 

Think I may end up flying home alone if I do though.

[Rincewind]

I'll look at the results the next day if I put the telly on. I am sure I will see a wide range of unbiased opinions on here though. Then everything will be back to normal with the usual suspects controlling our lives and running the country whoever gets in.

[Jon the Hat]

I'll look at the results the next day if I put the telly on. I am sure I will see a wide range of unbiased opinions on here though. Then everything will be back to normal with the usual suspects controlling our lives and running the country whoever gets in.

 

Is your life controlled Ken?  How so?

[Mike the Metal Ed]

It's been amazing.

 

Closest predicted election in years and the campaigning has been poor from all sides.

 

Politics is in a poor state in the UK

 

Same in France in reality with all the protest votes going to the French Nationals party. They've never been so popular and the right and the left (which are more distanced than in the UK) are just uninviting. Voting is also on a downward trend though still behind the Brits (as usual).

 

I'm beginning to think that nobody actually wants to win this election so they don't run the risk of running a minority government, being woefully ill-equipped and losing power to the opposition after six months. I've never known such a nonchalant campaign.

[leicsmac]

I'm beginning to think that nobody actually wants to win this election so they don't run the risk of running a minority government, being woefully ill-equipped and losing power to the opposition after six months. I've never known such a nonchalant campaign.

 

I'd buy this too.

 

The whole thing is happening the day after I fly back to the UK, so I might actually spend most of my day with my feet up in front of the TV watching this to help get over the jet lag.

[Alf Bentley]

Well I wish I could issue a full and thorough reply as you did but always being on my phone makes it difficult. I'll give it a go.

I'd love for a few true Keynesian policies of investment in infrastructure to stimulate some demand in the economy, particularly in areas where it is needed. It helps create business opportunity, employ more people and is an investment in the future which should see some return. Labour didn't have enough of this going on because they were too busy pissing money away to an inefficient public sector and people on welfare. Running a deficit the size that they did during to boom years was criminal especially the way they used borrowed money. If they had invested in infrastructure then they maybe could have dampened down some of the impacts of the recession and the ongoing infrastructure projects would have helped make us more immune to the problems in the eurozone. The Conservatives did cut too hard and too quick but they finally realised this after 2012 and have steadied the ship since. The money hasn't been there for any Keynesian policies because the deficit started too high.

I do not agree that raising the minimum wage would be the way forward here. I think it would have to be quicker than £8 an hour by 2020 to have a real impact and then that would be dangerous. It's just my opinion mind. The recovery is already led by public consumption and just adding to that isn't useful. For a start I think the wage increase would be used by a lot of people to service the debts they already have. Adding more cost onto small business will stifle their investment and confidence which won't help growth. This is a key time to be supporting small business and entrepeneurs, entrepeneurs drive growth in productivity and that's ultimately what we need. Spooking them discourages investment which is what we ultimately need for long term sustainable growth in the economy. Small firms also provide a route into employment for disadvantaged people, say those that have little skills. So instead of risking small firm confidence and potentially increasing unemployment, we need to do support them so we can continue to get unemployment down and people off welfare.

In fact I'd say any demand-side policy from the government is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and if they're going to do anything they should support small business and encourage productivity gains. People might just have to accept that the recovery isn't going to be instant bit instead it will be long and arduous. Unfortunately that doesn't win votes and the public are unwilling to accept the truths or aren't knowledgeable enough to realise them.

Unfortunately everything is too short termist at the moment, we need to accept that there will be tough times before the good times return and simply piling on the debt for future generations to pick up the tab isn't the answer nor is allowing business investment to drop. Maybe increasing the minimum wage at the rate Labour want to will work and then that will massively help business investment but I personally don't think it would, I hope to be proved wrong. We desperately need the world economy to pick up, the fact that exports of financial services decreased in the last quarter shows that the world economy is still suffering and we won't make stable progress until Europe and the rest do too.

Labour could quite easily back current infrastructure plans like the northern powerhouse or crossrail teo or even the road improvements but they haven't. Granted at this time they're not going to give the Conservatives any policy backing cos that would be foolish but they could have quite easily said it themselves or written it into their manifesto with tweaks and without appearing to back the Conservatives. Nobody could really accuse them of imprudence with just a couple of pledges when the Conservatives have made similar pledges and infrastructure projects should deliver a return. In fact promising to delay some of the road improvements in the south in my opinion already shows them singing to the scottish tune.

The SNP aren't overly interested in this election really. They're more bothered about next year's Holyrood election where they'll be hoping for a complete landslide, at which point they can return to Westminster and say they have a mandate for another referendum. The fear then is they exert their influence by demanding all sorts for Scotland to prevent a referendum or to get them to stay again. Having spoken to a couple of Scottish friends, they genuinely do see little difference between Labour and the Conservatives. At my Oxford interview, I was talking to the Prof about it and he believes that Labour's betrayal of their traditional roots actually makes them more hated in some sections. So whilst the SNP would rather not vote down a Labour government, I don't think it would be all that damaging to them in the end. In fact they'd probably have enough support for independence for them to not really care.

Anyway, I guess it's going to be an interesting time for me to be studying Economics and Politics at uni over the next few years, a lot of new and interesting things could happen across the world. Examples being the future of the Eurozone and the EU with many countries having upcoming general elections, the future of our parliament/union, the impending electoral reform debate, the US election next year etc etc

 

Do you know which Uni you're going to yet? I'm sure you'll do well and have an exciting time, anyway. You've clearly thought through a lot of your ideas and are prepared to think for yourself. These are indeed interesting times to be studying politics and economics - a lot of difficult issues and situations pending. Considering we're supposedly in opposing camps, I agree with a lot of what you've said above.

 

A few responses:

- Labour in office did spend a lot on building/improving infrastructure like schools and hospitals (albeit often funded by PFI, for which they're rightly criticised), as opposed to transport infrastructure, where their record was less impressive (whatever happened to "integrated transport"?). Removing some of their welfare spending (e.g. tax credits, housing benefit) could cause massive damage to low-paid workers and their families.

- Increasing the minimum wage (as opposed to welfare spending), if handled carefully, comes with the benefit of not exacerbating, and potentially even improving the deficit - as employers (or potentially, customers) pay the extra cost. There are obvious dangers in that, but 2015 looks a lot more auspicious time to do that than, say, 2010-13, when the economy was struggling, and both inflation and unemployment were both high. A moderate stimulus to consumption could also encourage private-sector investment in the expectation of higher sales.

- Completely agree re. focusing on small businesses. Labour claims that it will do this and has a reasonably detailed policy programme in this area: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/111066961689/labours-plan-to-back-britains-small-businessesHow successful that programme would be is open to debate, obviously.

- Falling productivity is indeed a major problem. Supply-side policies like higher-quality apprenticeships & better vocational education might help, but only in the medium-term. In the absence of significant improvements in export markets (which look unlikely), I suppose one option is fiscal measures to promote the competitiveness of British firms (e.g. tax incentives for investment, regional development policies to support firms working together).

- I hope Labour would take up Osborne's "Northern Powerhouse" concept (one of his few good ideas). They clearly have a policy to promote regional development (http://press.labour.org.uk/post/109867958254/labour-sets-out-plans-for-biggest-devolution-of), but it might need to be more targeted/staggered. The Manchester-Leeds axis is likely to be able to forge ahead much better than any "Eastern Powerhouse". Being cynical, they'd be less likely to see Crossrail 2 as a priority, as it would mainly benefit Tory-voting constituencies in Surrey and Herts (yet another argument for electoral reform, so that every part of the country matters to every party).

- I wonder how soon the Scottish electorate would accept another referendum? Not for at least 2-3 years, I suspect, particularly if there's a Labour-led government that is not implementing austerity politics (an early referendum is much likelier under a Tory-dominated Westminster govt). Couldn't Miliband potentially defuse the problem by announcing that there would be no referendum for 5 years, but that if the Scottish parliament voted for one after that, they could do so?

- I'm sure your Oxford Prof is right that a lot of Scots view Labour as sell-outs. That's ironic as they voted for Blair/Brown in their masses, yet Miliband is to the left of them. You have to read between the lines to realise that, though, as our electoral system means that all parties have to focus their campaigns on "swing voters in marginal seats" (mainly in England), offering deficit reduction, tax cuts AND good public services, so it's not obvious that the 2 main parties are actually further apart in their policies than at any time since at least 1992.

 

Good luck with your studies, anyway. I can be a sentimental old bugger at times, but it actually excites me to think of someone like you heading off to uni. You're obviously someone who will benefit from it greatly. I dropped out of uni first time round (though benefited from that experience in unexpected ways), then went back aged 30-34 and remember it as one of the most stimulating times of my life, both the studies and the fun outside that. Work hard and play hard...and preferably don't become a Tory MP afterwards (though you've already got more about you than some of the current boneheads). 

[Guest MattP]

I'll look at the results the next day if I put the telly on. I am sure I will see a wide range of unbiased opinions on here though. Then everything will be back to normal with the usual suspects controlling our lives and running the country whoever gets in.

 

How are you being controlled Ken? Is David Cameron or Ed Miliband going to tell you that you can't have a drink or go to the pub tonight? We live in one of the most free societies on the planet and we must make sure that doesn't change.

 

 

I'm beginning to think that nobody actually wants to win this election so they don't run the risk of running a minority government, being woefully ill-equipped and losing power to the opposition after six months. I've never known such a nonchalant campaign.

 

I said this on here about a month ago, although my reasoning was that whoever is in government for the next five years will have to cut so drastically due to our debt and deficit it will lead to them not seeing power for another 20-25 years after that if ever.

 

I'd buy this too.

 

The whole thing is happening the day after I fly back to the UK, so I might actually spend most of my day with my feet up in front of the TV watching this to help get over the jet lag.

 

You are bloody bonkers mate! leave the country for a time when a government that tries to reward hard workers is in power and then get back the day after we could end up with the most destructuve one we've ever had

 

 

P.S Enjoying the economics here between Alf and KingGTF, good posts the pair of you, even more so for that amount of effort on a mobile.