Danny

That's right, the main parties' economic stances at the last elecrtion were virtually identical, which just made the vitriol they fired at each other ("incompetent Labour" and "evil Tories") look even more petty than usual since people couldn't discern any major differences between them and led to an all-time high of disgust with them. So it's perplexing that they've decided on a re-run for next year. Had Labour won in 2010, if they hadn't gone back on Alistair Darling's plan for "tougher cuts than Thatcher", I doubt either the economy or public services/inequality would be in any particularly different state today, despite all the nonsense jargon about "fairer cuts" and "different priorities".

It's a good job the main opposition party aren't signed up to the exact same disastrous economic policies then! Oh, wait...

Sorry, I got it wrong, the question wasn't whether people wanted 5 years more of cuts, it was whether people felt it was needed. Around 40% said it was needed, compared to 60% saying either no cuts were ever needed, or that they were needed at first but aren't needed now that the economic crisis is over. The proportion among under-30s saying they weren't needed is slightly higher than the average (though not as radically different as I remembered it being). And this is at a time when the political debate is DOMINATED by people presenting it as a fact of life that cuts are needed, so just imagine what it would be like if someone actually had the guts to say something different. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/up...mary-140527.pdf http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/up...Full-tables.pdf

Admittedly I'd never seen that poll before (and I'd question how reliable it is since it uses the terms "deficit reduction" and "growth", both of which are nebulous terms to most people outside of the chatterati), but it runs counter to that Lord Ashcroft poll a while back which asked straight-up whether people wanted 5 more years of cuts and found the majority saying no.

Coldplay still in the top 10! 'Sky Full of Stars' has exceeded my expectations so much.

Ok, then by that definition I want "economically centrist" policies, not the economically right-wing policies currently promoted by Labour.

:lol: That's Tory spin, based entirely on young people saying they didn't support welfare benefits (which is disappointing, but not exactly surprising when most of them will have literally heard no arguments in favour of it in their memories since the left-wing hasn't had the guts to argue it in years). The exact same polling found young people felt MORE strongly than older generations that the NHS needed protecting, that the cuts should be stopped, and that governments had a duty to stop employers being exploitative.

There would be no split vote, because nobody wants the type of policies they want. I really don't think you get how few people want economic conservative policies/socially liberal ones. We're literally talking about a handful of people who are wealthy and want to protect their statuses, but who still want to pontificate about how they're morally superior to the Conservatives at the same time. Outside of Islington and a few other Guardianista hotspots, they'd be getting slaughtered everywhere, and would be more than recouped by people who stopped listening to politics ages ago being relieved that some politicians were finally speaking English, rather than spouting gobbledygook about zero-based reviews and "people-powered services". And comparisons with the 1980s don't work, because it's just fact that the SDP back then were well to the left of the current Labour party, nevermind this hypothetical party of Blairite thinktankists' wet dreams. I'd be perfectly happy with a party as "ideologically pure" as the dangerous Marxists that were the SDP btw.

That's why I hope it happens. It will speed up the tipping point where either the trade unions finally get the hint and set up a new proper left-wing party, or the majority of Labour members will finally have enough and drive out this minority at the top of the party and allow them to join up with Clegg's wing of the Lib Dems (they can set up the Progress Party and scale the dizzy heights of of 5% in the polls). Anything to get this slow-motion car crash out of the way so that, either way, there's finally a left-wing party to vote for which doesn't just think their role is to suck up to "the markets".

Because the main alternative had all of Ed Miliband's flaws, and none of his (very few) strengths. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01217/banana_1217414c.jpg

I give it 3 months before Labour start saying they back the main parts of these proposals, and only picking out one small irrelevant detail of them to oppose to try and make themselves feel like they still have grounds to attack the "evil Tories".

That would be a disastrous approach imo - springing it on people at the last minute before people can digest the details would just make people lean more towards thinking it was a bad idea. And if they didn't explain tax rises at all, again I have to come back to how would it be credible for Labour to argue that the deficit would be eradicated, but taxes and public services would stay the same? In that scenario, the Tories' scare stories about how horrific it would be under Labour would have more credibility, simply because it would be obvious that Labour weren't being truthful about SOMETHING because what they were promising just wouldn't add up. Actually, yes - the year after public disgust at bankers' bonuses peaked in 2012 after the RBS boss or someone awarded themselves a huge fat bonus, bonuses the following year were actually significantly lower. Similarly, look at all the celebrities who have been shamed into paying up after their tax-avoidance schemes being exposed. A lot of these people who we're talking about love their social statuses, and being treated as pariahs by their friends and neighbours WOULD knock some sense into a lot of them. The power of the "lynch mob" is much greater in the long run than any government legislation.

I do agree it's moving in the right direction (even in Daily Mail comments sections, amidst the sea of anti-EU/immigrant/BBC bile, you often get people complaining about rich people and how they feel they're "above" paying taxes), but it's still not at the forefront of people's minds, imo because the average person rarely hears the argument being made by people in the public eye.

No, you can't do anything about it in power. I'm not talking about some legislation, because it's impossible to legalise away tax avoidance in this world of tax havens. I'm talking about piling social pressure on them and getting normal people to feel outraged about it to try and force these people to pay up. If anything it's more possible to do that when you're not in power, in the way UKIP have done so effectively in whipping up public outrage at immigrants and the Daily Mail and co have done for benefit-claimants.

What's "beforehand"? Before the election? This is what I don't understand about the people who keep parrotting how Labour needs to be "credible". They genuinely seem to be arguing that Labour should slash the deficit, yet that public services will not decline and taxes will not go up. On what planet is that credible and realistic?

Of course, most of the deficit would be eradicated if rich people just paid the taxes they owe even with tax rates as they already are. But they're only going to be shamed into paying their fair share once public anger is whipped up against them, and (although I'm sure you'll disagree), Labour are completely failing in their responsibility to stand up and point the finger of blame at them and instead are allowing the void to be filled by right-wingers' arguments that the problems have all been caused by benefit-claimants, immigrants, public-sector workers, etc.

I agree with most of these, but imo there's a cat's chance in hell of most of these things happening while Ed Balls is in position. Just look at his reaction to Harriet Harman daring to suggest people on middle incomes should pay more taxes.

So you don't want yet more huge spending cuts? I always thought you did, but maybe I misunderstood! What taxes would you raise?

I have a serious question, no sarcasm intended. Why don't you join the Lib Dems? Based on your postings on this board, under Clegg they seem to have a platform which is identical to everything you want -- a belief that the "public finances" and satisfying "the markets" are the most important things, and wanting to make huge cuts only with a sadder expression on your face than George Osborne; some social-liberal stances on peripheral issues like Europe or immigration which allows you to feel more "respectable" than the dastardly Tories. I genuinely can't see anything you would disagree with them on? Correct me if I'm wrong.

LMAO. Incoherence on the level of "it's right to pose with a copy of the Sun, and it's right to be diisgusted at someone who poses with the Sun" and "cuts are right, but cuts if they're being carried out by the Tories are wrong". One day, the past 20 years' worth of Labour politicians (and assorted thinktankists) will make a fascinating study for psychologists for the phenomenon of "narcissism of minor differences".

Until the next time they start getting media attention and start annoying the hell out of everyone again with their convoluted, thinktank-developed-but-nonsensical-in-the-real-world policies (the latest example being on the railways).

The funny thing is, his obsession with "rigorous academic standards" or whatever was completely at odds with "free schools". In theory, I actually thought free schools were quite a good idea if it meant more specialist schools for things like drama, technology, sports etc. for kids who weren't very good at traditional "academic" subjects (though I have no idea if in practice there were many free schools actually like that, since obviously most of the ones in the news were crackpot religious schools). But then at the same time as he was promoting free schools, he was saying all this bullshit about how kids needed to be forced to do all the old-fashioned "traditional" subjects even if they weren't good at them or had any interest in them. It never made any sense. I don't think he was "evil" (to be honest, there's quite a few government ministers who I dislike a lot more than him), but he's typical of most politicians these days, in that he arrogantly assumes he knows better about a profession than people who have a whole career of experience in that profession and a knowledge of what works and what doesn't.

Education is a perfect example of how the political world and the real world are parallel universes. I'm constantly reading that Labour need to support the free schools and academies nonsense to be "credible" and so they're too terrified to do anything apart from propose pathetic little tweaks, yet in the real world those "reforms" are massively unpopular - among parents as well as teachers.

What I find the funniest is that those right-wingers who go on rants about strikes are generally ALSO the type of people who complain that all public-sector workers are just a drain on "the taxpayer" and don't actually do anything worthwhile. If public-sector workers are so pointless and don't contribute anything to the economy/country, then it wouldn't actually MATTER if they went on strike would it?

I do agree with most of that article, but, it seems like it was written quite a few years ago? It seems like he's changed since then, as he now writes articles such as "Tax and spend? We won't be doing that anymore".