Reply to: Come the general election, I currently intend to vote..

[Doggy Styles]

I see it that the poll was flawed (my fault) in that I should have split others up into Independants, Green etc. which (and I'm truly speculating here) that people have voted for as the they intend to vote but not for any of the other 3. The AndyW vote (again pure speculation) would either signify a spoiled vote or an intention not to vote.

I hear what you are saying, but I prefer your options to anything I might find on a ballot paper.

Is andyW old enough to be Prime Minister?

[Mich the Tester]

I see it that the poll was flawed (my fault) in that people were allowed to vote Labour bla bla bla

ftfy

[chef]

The final results of the poll show:

1. Tories 54%
2. Others 19%
3. Andyw option 10%
4. Labour 10%
5. Lib Dems 7%

Three questions:

1. If this were the popular vote at the election, how would it reflect in the numbers in the Commons?
2. Would 'Others' form Her Majesty's Official Opposition?
3. How many seats would the Andyw option get and would it be worth Others wooing him to join an opposition alliance?

I see it that the poll was flawed (my fault) in that I should have split others up into Independants, Green etc. which (and I'm truly speculating here) that people have voted for as the they intend to vote but not for any of the other 3. The AndyW vote (again pure speculation) would either signify a spoiled vote or an intention not to vote.

[Doggy Styles]

The final results of the poll show:

1. Tories 54%
2. Others 19%
3. Andyw option 10%
4. Labour 10%
5. Lib Dems 7%

Three questions:

1. If this were the popular vote at the election, how would it reflect in the numbers in the Commons?
2. Would 'Others' form Her Majesty's Official Opposition?
3. How many seats would the Andyw option get and would it be worth Others wooing him to join an opposition alliance?

[Gonzo]

who on earth said they were the best?

Jim Callaghan - devalued the pound in 1967 in what was then a fixed exchange rate mechanism. He didn't want to do it, he took three years trying to avoid doing it, but when he did the economy was able to prosper again after the mistakes of the previous Conservative government.

Denis Healey - started to introduce restraint in government spending. He didn't want to do it, it was forced on him by the IMF as a condition of the 1977 loan but he started to bring down government spending.

Norman Lamont - took the UK out of the ERM allowing the pound to devalue. Again, this was forced upon him but this allowed the economy to grow again after the last nightmare of a recession.



You can't keep on devaluing your currency to get you out of the tulip although the current lot are attempting it with their QE.

[Gonzo]

I am sorry to disagree with, but the last Tories came to power to save Britain from bankcruptcy and in so doing created an economy in which you personally have done incredibly well. Then in 1997 labour took over a perfectly healthy economy and is again about to leave in tatters. it may be that Tories took us through boom and bust cycles but these are nothing compared with the total disasters that they have left in their wake over the last 40 years.

Now I agree (many don't) that the reforms to the economy during the 1980s were absolutely necessary to form the foundation of the prosperity that has been enjoyed over the following twenty years, it was good-fortune that meant we had a Prime Minister who had the balls () to be as unpopular as she was while the country went through it.

If she hadn't won the Falklands War in 1982 she would have been out of office in 1983.

I don't think it is a given that you will automatically get that attitude with a Conservative government if you look over the longer term and if you do look over the longer term their economic record is not so good.

[DodgyAgent]

POSTSCRIPT

It is really quite amusing that the best Chancellors for the economy over the past fifty years turn out to have been Jim Callaghan, Denis Healey and Norman Lamont.

Their hands were all forced though.

who on earth said they were the best?

[DodgyAgent]

I agree whole-heartedly with that.
Sadly this is too simplistic, the Tories have a long a track-record of screwing up the economy with inflationary booms.



The 1964-1970 Labour government got the country out of that mess, eventually, using the tried-and-trusted devaluation technique.

Anthony Barber (Conservative) stoked up an inflationary boom in 1972-1973, granted there were external factors at play and neither party comes out of the 1970s showered in glory, but ...

Nigel Lawson (Conservative) stoked up an inflationary boom in 1988-1990 which again took a currency devaluation to sort out (leaving the ERM).

The current Labour government started quite well, establishing its' economic credibility by making the BofE independent (unfortunately the inflation measure targeted does not include asset prices which has caused an inflationary boom in another way), sticking to Conservative spending plans and establishing the "Golden Rule".

Sadly we now know that that golden rule was a sham that Gordon only got away with it because the economy was booming and "prudence" was a lie.

So don't I think that the "Tories = good with money, Labour = bad with money" assertion holds true. It's all luck rather than judgement.

I won't be voting though because its not really any of my business any longer.

I am sorry to disagree with, but the last Tories came to power to save Britain from bankcruptcy and in so doing created an economy in which you personally have done incredibly well. Then in 1997 labour took over a perfectly healthy economy and is again about to leave in tatters. it may be that Tories took us through boom and bust cycles but these are nothing compared with the total disasters that they have left in their wake over the last 40 years.

[Waldorf]

Don't take a conservative win as in the bag, the liberals can take some votes, but also UKIP, they can drain tory votes and let labour hold on to seats they should lose.

I suppose the other side maybe balanced by BNP votes taking votes from labour - it will be an interesting night.

[Gonzo]

POSTSCRIPT

It is really quite amusing that the best Chancellors for the economy over the past fifty years turn out to have been Jim Callaghan, Denis Healey and Norman Lamont.

Their hands were all forced though.

[Gonzo]

Because ideologically Tory governments are naturally laissez faire. They do not believe in the state controlling our lives and nor are they motivated by envy.

I agree whole-heartedly with that.

Historically the Tories are better than at managing money.

Sadly this is too simplistic, the Tories have a long a track-record of screwing up the economy with inflationary booms.

"Good luck, old cock," Reginald Maudling chirruped as he left 11 Downing Street for the last time, in October 1964. "Sorry to leave it in such a mess." The old cock in question was Jim Callaghan, and Maudling wasn't apologising about the wallpaper. A year and a half earlier, fearful for the Tories' prospects at the next election, Maudling had cut taxes by £260m and made what became known as his "dash for growth". Alas, far from bringing an end to the postwar cycle of stop-go economics, Maudling succeeded only in speeding it up. The average Brit chose to spend his new-found wealth on foreign imports. Forget the dash for growth - this was cash for sloth, and the balance of payments deficit was reddening by the hour. Not so Maudling's face. Four months before his feared election loss came to pass, he told his Labour shadow that there was no need to panic. None the less, he counselled Callaghan, if you should become the next chancellor, you might like to think about organising a loan from the European central banks. * Christopher Bray's review of "White Heat: a history of Britain in the Swinging Sixties" by Dominic Sandbrook in the New Statesman

The 1964-1970 Labour government got the country out of that mess, eventually, using the tried-and-trusted devaluation technique.

Anthony Barber (Conservative) stoked up an inflationary boom in 1972-1973, granted there were external factors at play and neither party comes out of the 1970s showered in glory, but ...

Nigel Lawson (Conservative) stoked up an inflationary boom in 1988-1990 which again took a currency devaluation to sort out (leaving the ERM).

The current Labour government started quite well, establishing its' economic credibility by making the BofE independent (unfortunately the inflation measure targeted does not include asset prices which has caused an inflationary boom in another way), sticking to Conservative spending plans and establishing the "Golden Rule".

Sadly we now know that that golden rule was a sham that Gordon only got away with it because the economy was booming and "prudence" was a lie.

So don't I think that the "Tories = good with money, Labour = bad with money" assertion holds true. It's all luck rather than judgement.

I won't be voting though because its not really any of my business any longer.

[RichardCranium]

Screaming Lord Sutch would have made such a good Prime Minister.

WHS.

[Gonzo]

So vote Monster Raving Loony for a protest.

Screaming Lord Sutch would have made such a good Prime Minister.

[d000hg]

No - your local MP doesn't set tax policy or declare wars on people. Look at the national issues

So I should vote for someone who I think will be bad not just for me personally but the entire town where I live? You're living in some kind of idealistic dreamland.

[swamp]

Labour have reached 4 votes now. I'm really cross. What do people round here think this is? A democracy?!