The Financial Times has predicted that there will be a "grand coalition" between the Tories and Labour after the election.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb55f168-807f-11...y?segid=0100320

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

A lot of projections of polls have given this as the only two-party combination which would be able to form a majority. If the whips accepted that there would be a lot of rebellious MPs, then it might be able to muddle through somehow.

Just another thought on the "grand coalition" theory. If the current Scottish polls are accurate, that could make the SNP the official opposition :lol:

I literally cannot imagine a bigger waste of time than conceptualising a grand coalition. Short of World War III or the rise of actual fascism in the UK (more BNP than UKIP), it's never happening again.

I literally cannot imagine a bigger waste of time than conceptualising a grand coalition. Short of World War III or the rise of actual fascism in the UK (more BNP than UKIP), it's never happening again.

 

Why?

 

Even the consensus on Politicalbetting, dominated by most of the world's only internet-literate Tories, is that there are few discernible differences between the Tories and Labour's platforms (though they see it as Labour "accepting the inevitability" of endless austerity), and that there would be no policy obstacles to a coalition apart from egos.

Edited January 1, 201510 yr by Danny

In which case they're morons. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the membership as well as the leadership.

Again, I wonder what would count as a discernable difference if roughly £50bn worth of spending isn't a discernable difference. Or, for that matter, whether any new money went on tax cuts or increasing spending.

 

Even these supposed non-differences don't take into account that politics isn't just about political positioning. The unions would all immediately disaffiliate (is an attempt to curtail union rights and make all strike ballots almost impossible to win not a policy obstacle?), half (or more) of the members would leave, the move almost certainly wouldn't pass a ballot of the MPs or the members. It just isn't possible short of a national emergency on a par with World War or fascist takeover.

Again, I wonder what would count as a discernable difference if roughly £50bn worth of spending isn't a discernable difference. Or, for that matter, whether any new money went on tax cuts or increasing spending.

 

Even these supposed non-differences don't take into account that politics isn't just about political positioning. The unions would all immediately disaffiliate (is an attempt to curtail union rights and make all strike ballots almost impossible to win not a policy obstacle?), half (or more) of the members would leave, the move almost certainly wouldn't pass a ballot of the MPs or the members. It just isn't possible short of a national emergency on a par with World War or fascist takeover.

 

Then why do the public, the Tories themselves and increasingly even the braindead Westminster commentariat not see this supposed huge gulf between the two parties?

 

(Genuine question, what is this £50bn figure based on?)

Edited January 1, 201510 yr by Danny

Again, I wonder what would count as a discernable difference if roughly £50bn worth of spending isn't a discernable difference. Or, for that matter, whether any new money went on tax cuts or increasing spending.

 

Even these supposed non-differences don't take into account that politics isn't just about political positioning. The unions would all immediately disaffiliate (is an attempt to curtail union rights and make all strike ballots almost impossible to win not a policy obstacle?), half (or more) of the members would leave, the move almost certainly wouldn't pass a ballot of the MPs or the members. It just isn't possible short of a national emergency on a par with World War or fascist takeover.

Does there have to be a ballot of MPs and/or members? Cameron has promised a vote for Tory MPs (although I don't think the party constitution has been changed so it could just go the same way as so many of his other "promises") but does Labour have the same provision?

Then why do the public, the Tories themselves and increasingly even the braindead Westminster commentariat not see this supposed huge gulf between the two parties?

 

(Genuine question, what is this £50bn figure based on?)

We're using a few commentators on PoliticalBetting who identify as Tories to say the Tories think Labour are identical to them?

 

In any case, a public that on average pays about two minutes of attention to politics each day saying they think politicians are 'all the same', a. probably aren't the best arbiters of whether the parties have identical policies, and b. probably don't mean the parties have identical policies when they say politicians are 'all the same'.

 

Correction - £40bn. A plan for a £23bn spending surplus under the Tories by 2020 (Balls just pledges to balance the budget by the end of the parliament), plus £17bn worth of tax cuts which Labour are opposing.

Does there have to be a ballot of MPs and/or members? Cameron has promised a vote for Tory MPs (although I don't think the party constitution has been changed so it could just go the same way as so many of his other "promises") but does Labour have the same provision?

I don't think there's a formal mechanism in the Labour Party Rulebook for coalition, but I can't see any circumstance under which the MPs wouldn't be balloted for a coalition.

We're using a few commentators on PoliticalBetting who identify as Tories to say the Tories think Labour are identical to them?

 

In any case, a public that on average pays about two minutes of attention to politics each day saying they think politicians are 'all the same', a. probably aren't the best arbiters of whether the parties have identical policies, and b. probably don't mean the parties have identical policies when they say politicians are 'all the same'.

 

Correction - £40bn. A plan for a £23bn spending surplus under the Tories by 2020 (Balls just pledges to balance the budget by the end of the parliament), plus £17bn worth of tax cuts which Labour are opposing.

 

If Labour plan to cut less than the Tories, why are they voting for George Osborne's "fiscal responsibility" nonsense tying them explicitly to the Tories' deficit reduction targets and timetable?

 

I'm confused now, because I genuinely thought Labour's argument was that they would have the same total volume of cuts as the Conservatives, but just that they'd somehow be "fairer" or cuts in different areas?

Would Ed Miliband really be attacking the Tories for cutting public spending to 30s levels if he planned on doing the exact same? And so far as I know the target just commits to balancing the budget by 2020, which Balls had committed to doing anyway.

Would Ed Miliband really be attacking the Tories for cutting public spending to 30s levels if he planned on doing the exact same? And so far as I know the target just commits to balancing the budget by 2020, which Balls had committed to doing anyway.

 

But you just said that George Osborne was going beyond that and wanting to run some huge surplus, rather than just balancing the budget....how can Labour be voting for Tory deficit plans yet not committing themselves to them simultaneously? :huh:

I don't know the exact details off-hand, but I think the law only ties to the principle of a balanced budget by that date, rather than Osborne's spending plans in full.

As I've understood the public announcements for the last 6 years, I say tomato and you say tomato, Termayto, tomarto.

 

The only differences have been on timing for cuts, they still be cuts. If Labour are getting a bit more creative in their election approach to this, I look forward to seeing where the cuts are proposed to be to achieve the same end. If Labour don't intend to ever get rid of the deficit I look forward to them announcing that before the election.

 

As a local government employee whoever gets in power it's not looking good for us, we're already massively struggling in many areas (some are cushioned some are not) so the next round of cuts should really start to piss off the public as they start to notice things disappearing even more than day centres. People relying on day centres dont usually vote cos they aren't in any position to, of course.

 

Bah humbug, happy new Year... :teresa:

I don't know the exact details off-hand, but I think the law only ties to the principle of a balanced budget by that date, rather than Osborne's spending plans in full.

 

Labour have spent today furiously denying that they will spend more / cut less than the Conservatives....

Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 1h 1 hour ago

Labour must change the subject. As long as we're debating who'll take tough (fiscal) decisions the Tories are gaining

 

Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 15m 15 minutes ago

Each time Labour confirm they'll cut the SNP&Greens gain voters. @GeorgeEaton gets the Tories' #SplitTheLeft strategy http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...set-labour-cuts …

Labour have spent today furiously denying that they will spend more / cut less than the Conservatives....

They've spent today furiously denying they have £21bn of unfunded spending promised. That's a bit of a difference from 'we won't spend more'.

I'm going to ignore Danny's obvious trolling and say that Ed was pretty decent today. He's always solid on Q&As.

David Cameron has said he won't take part in the televised debates if the Greens aren't invited. I'm sure he's taken this position out of respect for his political opponents and recognising that they are going to be a major party coming up to the next election, and definitely not because traditional Tory voters are unlikely to be swayed over to the Greens in the debates, unlike traditionally Labour and Lib Dem voters.