Why are Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck?

[Esseesse]

Don said:

Same st, different party.

I am increasingly disillusioned with them all. And yet I will vote for the party I dislike least in an attempt the even worse lot out of power.

But I am in a safe seat and my vote doesn't count.

When you vote for that party that you dislike (less) you are endorsing their ideas and policy that you dislike.

[Mermaid]

Esseesse said:

Why do you say that? If Tony Blair appeared (new, untarnished) as the Labour leader he'd walk it. The Conservatives have a Blair impersonator as leader and he's not walking it.

Like it or not, Blair had/has charisma and was believable. CMD is a toff, Boris however is a different matter.

[2013BRM]

Esseesse said:

Don said:

Same st, different party.

I am increasingly disillusioned with them all. And yet I will vote for the party I dislike least in an attempt the even worse lot out of power.

But I am in a safe seat and my vote doesn't count.

When you vote for that party that you dislike (less) you are endorsing their ideas and policy that you dislike.

and, to their obvious delight, you are perpetuating the 2 party seesaw and making it impossible for a new Party to get anywhere

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

Mr_B said:

Esseesse said:

Mr_B said:

the Labour party are dire with the economy and the Tories have actually done a lot better job than expected

Really? Didn't they say they'd eliminate the deficit during this parliament?

Yes.

So they didn't meet their own expectations then. I presume you think they're underachievers if you expected them to not meet their own expectations?

That their own expectations/lies were hopelessly optimistic does not detract from the fact that they have still done a pretty decent job with the economy, all things considered.

[Mr_B]

Esseesse said:

Mr_B said:

Esseesse said:

Mr_B said:

the Labour party are dire with the economy and the Tories have actually done a lot better job than expected

Really? Didn't they say they'd eliminate the deficit during this parliament?

Yes.

So they didn't meet their own expectations then. I presume you think they're underachievers if you expected them to not meet their own expectations?

Well, given the Labour ideas of the time, their opposition to everything and wanting to emulate France, how the rest of the Euro Zone is performing, I would say they have performed better than expected. I didn't perfect or achieved everything but I have no doubt they have performed far far better than the two Ed's would have.
They really needed another year for it to feel that way for everyone, but even then, I doubt they would get the credit for it and people would still go on believing and voting Labour in the hope of a different result.

[Moonhawk]

Esseesse said:

Really? Didn't they say they'd eliminate the deficit during this parliament?

I don't think so.

They said they would reduce it faster than Labour would - but I doubt they claimed to be able to wipe it out in such a short period of time.

I'm happy top be proven wrong.....but in any case - even if they did claim it and haven't achieved that - it still doesn't mean they have done a bad job. Things are definitely heading in the right direction.

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 17th April 15:32

[Bluebarge]

Because govt spending cuts are immediately apparent whereas the impact of increased govt borrowing takes a while to affect Joe Public. The Tories have announced £9bn of cuts (and then an extra £8bn of spending on the NHS when that clearly wasn't polling well) - people are afraid of cuts in public services.

Jam today vs Jam tomorrow.

[anonymous-user]

skyrover said:

Why are Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck?

Because 90% of the public are financially illiterate.

[Digga]

fblm said:

skyrover said:

Why are Labour and the Conservatives neck and neck?

Because 90% of the public are financially illiterate.

And some of those who do actually understand (even if vaguely) terms such as "debt" and "deficit" still labour under the mistaken belief that Keynsian stimulus (they term it "investment" but we know what they mean is generally anything but) is preferable to austerity.

They do not realise the means by, or the (eventual) swiftness, by which a currency gets dropped. None of the recent South American crises could ever, possibly happen in the UK. Apparently.

[Funk]

Because never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

[Digga]

Funk said:

Because never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Quite so.

[BlackLabel]

fblm said:

Because 90% of the public are financially illiterate.

Sad but probably true. I don't think people realise what actually happens when you just keep on borrowing and spending forever. It's like the masses think that the Tories and Lib Dems just made budget cuts for a laugh and giggle.

Part of me wishes that if Labour and the Nats do get in then they really destroy the economy - perhaps that way the penny will finally drop and they'll be unelectable for the next 50 years.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

Part of me wishes that if Labour and the Nats do get in then they really destroy the economy - perhaps that way the penny will finally drop and they'll be unelectable for the next 50 years.

They should be now after 2008 but instead they managed to pin it entirely on 'bankers'. Innit. The Tories missed the big picture though and played along, they probably welcomed any distraction from the expenses scandal at the time. Oh look over there. Bankers are even nastier than us!

Anyway can hardly blame the electorate for not understanding macro-economics, not when MP's, of all colours, are utterly, utterly clueless fvckwits;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gd6-zfeeaM&fe...

fking morons. Every one of them in that video should be fired.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 17th April 16:15

[mcbook]

I am still undecided on who to vote for. Rhetoric would say that the Conservatives will give you a better economy and labour will provide better public services but keep growing debt.

I think the levels of debt we have today are an outrage and such mismanagement is hard to forgive (Labour btw).

However, the Conservatives' boats about the economy and their success with reducing in the deficit don't hit as hard as they should.

Take a look at an analysis of their incapacity benefit reforms here; http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/welfare-savings-and-incapa...

They do seem to have done very well on the jobs front though. Maybe changes to benefits rules (sanctions) has helped with this but maybe we're just riding the wave of an improved economy... just like we rode the wave into the recession.

I actually want world-class public services and a thriving, unburdened economy with reducing levels of debt. I wouldn't be afraid of a little more personal taxation to achieve this.

[anonymous-user]

mcbook said:

I actually want world-class public services and a thriving, unburdened economy with reducing levels of debt. I wouldn't be afraid of a little more personal taxation to achieve this.

You can't have world class public services and reduced levels of debt without a booming economy and you don't unburden the economy by burdening it with higher taxes. The fact is we spent far too much previously and enjoyed a standard of living higher than we could afford. Payback time.

[rover 623gsi]

jonah35 said:

A lot of labour voters would vote labour even if their leader was a mouse. Many don't follow politics and just vote for who their parents told them to.

A bit like supporting a football club. It's often a lifelong thing.

A lot of Conservative voters would vote Conservative even if their leader was a mouse. Many don't follow politics and just vote for who their parents told them to.

A bit like supporting a football club. It's often a lifelong thing.

[turbobloke]

rover 623gsi said:

jonah35 said:

A lot of labour voters would vote labour even if their leader was a mouse. Many don't follow politics and just vote for who their parents told them to.

A bit like supporting a football club. It's often a lifelong thing.

A lot of Conservative voters would vote Conservative even if their leader was a mouse. Many don't follow politics and just vote for who their parents told them to.

A bit like supporting a football club. It's often a lifelong thing.

Except it's not like that, not to the same degree or anything like it.

Some say UKIP still maintains a bigger base from former Tories than former Labourites, and above all the Conservatives have a track record of success over the past 3 or 4 decades in terms of fixing Labour's constant economic screw-ups and getting the country back on track.

It follows that Labour's track record is carp as they've left the country in a mess twice in a row. The reason people still vote for them is ignorance or tribalism or ideological blinkers or similar.

[Thorodin]

Most of the electorate just don't understand either politics or government, let alone world affairs. Or that they are not the same thing. A similar cross-section are addicted to mind-numbing banal TV and have no grasp of anything but their genitals. So they fall for the three card trick of a popularity contest that has about as much relevance as the latest death in Corrie. It's amazing that the country is still (relatively) civilised. It suits the political operators because they know the differences between the factions are in reality minimal and the public are fools. Put up a serious competent contender and watch him burn.

[mcbook]

fblm said:

You can't have world class public services and reduced levels of debt without a booming economy and you don't unburden the economy by burdening it with higher taxes. The fact is we spent far too much previously and enjoyed a standard of living higher than we could afford. Payback time.

I agree that it's payback time. However, I do not agree that a thriving economy is linked to low taxes. Personal taxes anyway.

We've had the basic rate come down from 25% to 20% over the last 15 years or so. The sad fact is that 25% might be the fair rate to achieve the quality of services desired by the nation. However, it now seems like political suicide to even mention increasing the basic rate of tax.

[turbobloke]

mcbook said:

...The sad fact is that 25% might be the fair rate to achieve the quality of services desired by the nation...

Are there that many people paying tax at no more than the basic rate who are net contributors?

The top 1% or 10% pay shedloads of tax, business and other taxes are still high not least VAT since the last hike and fuel duty plus energy taxes could be a lot lower, UK property taxes are the highest in the developed or semi-developed world.

There's been no survey on what the nation wants (?) but from the current election voting intentions (if the polls are accurate) it would appear to be the case that a lot of people want the moon and stars and for other people to pay. Those people paying most happen to be those who are likely to make little or no use of many public services in comparison to other groups.