Who will win the next UK election?

[britishboy]

I think it is mos likely the Conservative party will win after recent economic success and Labour's troubles and I really hope they do.

[Vlerchan]

Whilst Labour popularity is in a slump they still lead in the polls:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18264385

---

Britain's economic success is also just a bubble. You'd better hope it doesn't burst whilst the conservatives are still in power.

[CosmicNoodle]

I hope to god its not the fucking tourys, if it is, ALL working class people are basically fucked, in the ass, by an elephant. Enjoy that lovely image.

I hope labour wins, but then again they are just tourys in working mans uniform.

[britishboy]

Whilst Labour popularity is in a slump they still lead in the polls:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18264385

---

Britain's economic success is also just a bubble. You'd better hope it doesn't burst whilst the conservatives are still in power.

They only lead because most working class people are narrow-sighted people who envy the hard working wealthy and want everything to be handed to them on a plate. When they feel the economic growth that labour simply can't deliver on they'll vote Tory.

Any evidence it's a bubble? Excluding the housing market of course. I also think we're forgetting who was in power whilst we crashed....

[Vlerchan]

They only lead because most working class people are narrow-sighted people who envy the hard working wealthy and want everything to be handed to them on a plate.
Lol.

When they feel the economic growth that labour simply can't deliver on they'll vote Tory.
Economic growth is pointless if working- and lower middle-class people aren't benefiting from it. Like in Britain now.

Any evidence it's a bubble?
Here's an article by Ha-Joon Chang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang):

According to the stock market, the UK economy is in a boom. Not just any old boom, but a historic one. On 28 October 2013, the FTSE 100 index hit 6,734, breaching the level achieved at the height of the economic boom before the 2008 global financial crisis (that was 6,730, recorded in October 2007).

Since then, it has had ups and downs, but on 21 February 2014 the FTSE 100 climbed to a new height of 6,838. At this rate, it may soon surpass the highest ever level reached since the index began in 1984 – that was 6,930, recorded in December 1999, during the heady days of the dotcom bubble.

The current levels of share prices are extraordinary considering the UK economy has not yet recovered the ground lost since the 2008 crash; per capita income in the UK today is still lower than it was in 2007. And let us not forget that share prices back in 2007 were themselves definitely in bubble territory of the first order.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/24/recovery-bubble-crash-uk-us-investors

QE means there's an excessive amount of money sloshing around and this money is being invested in stocks.

Excluding the housing market of course.
I have no idea why you think a housing bubble is unimportant. Please do explain

---

I'm also presuming you accept that reckless financial speculation is powering your unsustainable growth because you offered no counter.

I also think we're forgetting who was in power whilst we crashed....
Irrelevant.

And I've been over this so many times with you since I joined this board that I have no idea how you don't realise that this is irrelevant too.

---

I do agree however that the government should take a more active role in regulating financial activity too.

Financial activities should not operate within a free market.

[CharlieHorse]

after my appearance, everyone would be a fool to not vote for me :P

[Gamma Male]

They only lead because most working class people are narrow-sighted people who envy the hard working wealthy and want everything to be handed to them on a plate.

Remind me again how it was you, a 15 year old, accumulated all of your possessions and money? I'm assuming you must be some kind of genius prodigy teen entrepreneur right?

[britishboy]

Remind me again how it was you, a 15 year old, accumulated all of your possessions and money? I'm assuming you must be some kind of genius prodigy teen entrepreneur right?

My parents naturally... Could you remind yourself you're 14:D

[Gamma Male]

everything to be handed to them on a plate.

My parents naturally.

Hhhmmm.

[britishboy]

Hhhmmm.

I am 15 how else am I supposed to get my money? I am not begging of the tax payer and never will.

[Gamma Male]

I am 15 how else am I supposed to get my money? I am not begging of the tax payer and never will.

My point is that it's incredibly hypocritical of you to complain about the working class being entitled and wanting to gave everything handed to them when you've never had to work for anything in your life.

Moreover, your claims that welfare recipients are leaching off the system are incorrect. The vast majority of people receiving government benefits are either elderly, disabled, or does have a job but simply isn't earning enough to get by.
A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that*more than 90 percentof the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1]*spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.* (See Figure 1.)* This figure has changed little in the past few years.
.* People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.*

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.* Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

I'm also willing to bet you don't actually know any unemployed people because if you did you would know that not very many of them are just sitting around going "Gee, I love being jobless and on welfare and barely getting by. I hope I never get a job and just stay on government assistance forever!". That just isn't what happens.

[Gandalf]

I am starting to think it will be a hung parliament. The rise of UKIP is stealing voters from all the main parties meaning I think given how mediocre their politics are, all the main parties will find it hard to get an overall majority.

I won't get into party politics on a forum but the thing is, legalising Gay marriage is the only sensible thing David Cameron has done, I know its been 'austerity measures' but he went about it the wrong way and has made U-turns on multiple occasions. Terrible leadership.

[Harry Smith]

Lol at the tory victory, Cameron couldn't get a majority in 2010 against the worse PM since Callaghan and a recession. Cameron isn't going to do any better than he did in 2010.

The lib dems will lose about 20-30 seats at most, the majority of lib dems will vote labour as it's the closest party meaning that Labour will pick up seats they didn't get in the Blair years.

And BritishBoy, I sigh at your hypocritical posts-don't slag off the working class for sponging whilst you admit that all your wealth has been given to you. Economic success doesn't translate to an election-Major had a good economy in 1997 but everyone voted Blair. People don't vote on economic issues, regardless even the tories admit that the economy hasn't got better for joe bloggs.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/03/ken-clarke-british-people-not-yet-feeling-economic-recovery

It's been 22 years since the Conservatives got a majority

[Danny_boi 16]

I'm not British, but I frankly don't like labour and Ed Miliband. I prefer the liberal democrats; however, I would like David Cameron to remain as PM.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not British, but I frankly don't like labour and Ed Miliband. I prefer the liberal democrats; however, I would like David Cameron to remain as PM.

The liberal democrats? The people who spend 10 years telling us they were on the side of students yet the moment they come into power they betray the people who voted for them.

Ed Miliband has shown that he's ready to be PM

[Danny_boi 16]

The liberal democrats? The people who spend 10 years telling us they were on the side of students yet the moment they come into power they betray the people who voted for them.

Ed Miliband has shown that he's ready to be PMEd Miliband, in my opinion, has no clear road map for the island nation. I think the tories have a better plan for the nation. I think the liberal democrats are more moderate than the other two parties. However, Clegg is weak to be PM. David Cameron has been doing a good job as PM.

[Harry Smith]

Ed Miliband, in my opinion, has no clear road map for the island nation. I think the tories have a better plan for the nation. I think the liberal democrats are more moderate than the other two parties. However, Clegg is weak to be PM. David Cameron has been doing a good job as PM.

No clear road map?

-reducing the power of the banks after the 2008 crash
-capping bankers bonuses
-building 300,000 new homes
-opposing military action in Syria
-criticizing Israel

Cameron's been crap, he's led us to leaving the EU in 2017 and he has actually passed an significant policy since 2013. He's failed in reorganizing the NHS in 2012

[Vlerchan]

I think the tories have a better plan for the nation.
Would you mind explaining why you think it's better?

David Cameron has been doing a good job as PM.
Would you mind outlining how you believe Cameron has done a good job?

---

It's hard to respond to those vague declarations of support, pronounced on even vaguer terms.

[phuckphace]

I'm not British, but I frankly don't like labour and Ed Miliband.

word. he's a slimy traitor who helped along the flood of immigration to the UK and gives phony speeches with a shit-eating grin about how much he adores the working class. dude needs to get kicked out of Labour and the country altogether (more like MiliBANNED amirite?)

I prefer the liberal democrats; however, I would like David Cameron to remain as PM.

I googled just now to make sure I was thinking of the right party, and yep, looks like the LibDems are yet another steaming carton of Keynesian/neoliberal baloney. do not want.

[Vlerchan]

he's a slimy traitor who helped along the flood of immigration to the UK[b] and giving phony speeches with a shit-eating grin about how much he adores the working class.
Oh, the horror.

Migrants coming to the UK since the year 2000 have been less likely to receive benefits or use social housing than people already living in the country, according to a study that argues the [b]new arrivals have made a net contribution of £25bn to public finances.

People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, according to the findings from University College London's migration research unit. Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received.

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

Last week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development published a report which showed that immigration makes a positive contribution to the public finances of many countries, including the UK. Yes, you read that right: migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services (that’s not true of every migrant of course, but collectively they make a net contribution). Without them, we would have to make further cuts to public services or pay higher taxes or both. The Telegraph’s James Kirkup has the details.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10131876/The-truth-about-immigration-its-good-for-Britain.html

It should be noted that the above doesn't include the positive financial impact that immigrants produce by just existing within your local/national economy.

---

I've also been through in the past how immigrants (http://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/74172/dp-67.pdf) have a quantitatively small, termed 'insignificant', impact on wage levels because the labour demand curve looks like this (http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/images/fig-5.jpg) and not this (http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/images/fig-1.jpg) as a result of the increase in local demand that immigrants produce too.

looks like the LibDems are yet another steaming carton of Keynesian/neoliberal baloney.
Just neoliberal. No Keynesian would support austerity, ever.

[phuckphace]

the hidden cost of unskilled immigration is the displacement of the native population with millions of low-IQ foreigners, who resist integration and openly disrespect the customs and culture of their host country. any existing left-wing party then becomes infested with immigrants and shifts its focus from organized labor to immigrant interests and neoliberalism (see: Labour in the UK and Sweden's Social Democrats). in the US the Obama administration is actively working to increase the number of "undocumented" immigrants entering the country from Mexico, because the overwhelming majority of them vote Democrat for the handouts.

cultural and ethnic homogeneity allows for stability and order, which is impossible when a big percentage of your own country is from somewhere else, speaks an unintelligible language and outbreeds the native population 10 to 1. the debate over immigrants & immigrant accessories is part of the reason I hate economists - they point to bigger GDP numbers while ignoring the demographic elephant in the room. but yeah anything for that extra couple of percentage points I guess.

[Vlerchan]

the hidden cost of unskilled immigration is the displacement of the native population ...
There's not enough evidence for or against the theory of immigrants "crowding out" natives" for me to make a proper judgement here. Here's one study though that looks at the 'Age of Mass Migration', a period of American history where immigrantation numbers where much greater than they are today, and reports that:

We suggest that the pattern displayed in Figure 4 is not consistent with an interpretation that the counties below the line exhibited crowding out. The sizes of the bubbles in the diagram (http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/images/fig-4.jpg) indicate the magnitude of each county’s immigration impact index. Where the impact of immigration was the greatest (indicated by large bubbles), we find that both natives and immigrants had poured into the county. In all of the counties below the line, the immigration impact index is quite low (the bubble sizes are small). Only four counties below the line had an impact index greater than the average index of those above the line. These patterns suggest that the reason for the native outflow from the counties below the line was unlikely to have been due to a proportionately heavy foreign-born inflow. We conclude that the crowding-out mechanisms did not operate during the Age of Mass Migration in any general way. Instead, natives and immigrants were both moving to the same high-wage regions. These findings [also] suggest that the immigrant arrivals were not reducing the wages of resident workers in this period.

http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Carter_Sutch/index2.html

I'll also add that this (http://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_facschol) study disputes the evidence (Borjas 2006) that proponents of the theory like to point to. And if this crowding-out effect does exist it does seem however that it's immigrants that are hurting other immigrants and not natives when it does occur:

Various empirical and meta-analytic MIA studies have clearly demonstrated that the fear that generally a large influx of migrants might have a devastating effect on local or regional labour markets of the host country is not confirmed by empirical facts. In most cases, these effects are negligible to marginal. Further evidence suggests that, if there are crowding-out and competition effects on local labour markets, such phenomena take place among distinct classes of migrants rather than between migrant and natives. Income effects of migration tend in general to be significantly positive.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/96-305-1-PB.pdf

Speaking of hidden additions of immigration I'd also consider this one:

These effects are robust when using different empirical specifications and different measures of foreign population. Though it is difficult to disentangle whether this effect is due to the rescheduling of working hours or due to changes in the employment flows, the results from a panel analysis suggest that immigration raises the probability of improving natives’ schedules and that it reduces the natives’ risk of having undesirable schedules. This study is unable to test whether the results suggest an overall improvement for native workers, given the limited information on wages and overall job satisfaction. While this paper is not sufficient to provide an assessment of the welfare effects of increased immigration, it provides a first insight into a neglected margin of investigation.

http://www.izajom.com/content/1/1/7

... with millions of low-IQ foreigners ...
I don't see the relevancy of the IQ of the immigrants entering the country.

... who resist integration and openly disrespect the customs and culture of their host country.

Evidence supports the idea that as areas become more diversity leads to greater levels of innovation in a society:

The standard assumption of this new vision is that higher diversity can lead to more innovation and creativity by increasing the number of ways groups frame problems, thus producing a richer set of alternative solutions and consequently better solutions and innovativeness.

[...]

The measure of diversity in the 12 European countries has a statistically significant effect on the patents applications. A unit increase of the diversity index increases patents applications by 2.2%. The study also controls for time and country effects to capture the variation in political processes in various countries, and to deal with complex econometric issues.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/96-305-1-PB.pdf

I have no idea what you consider wrong with non-conformity by the way. I'm fine with it.

cultural and ethnic homogeneity allows for stability and order, which is impossible when a big percentage of your own country is from somewhere else, speaks an unintelligible language and outbreeds the native population 10 to 1.
Not only do I not agree with the premise here (read: 'balkinization' is overhyped), but I feel that you're severely underestimating the degree of assimilation that immigrants undergo in most cases.

but yeah anything for that extra couple of percentage points I guess.
As long as we can agree that dubious cries of 'Balkinization!' etc., which I don't believe, is the only argument that those against immigration have to fall back on.

[AlexanderTheGreat]

I think it is mos likely the Conservative party will win after recent economic success and Labour's troubles and I really hope they do.

I'm fucking terrified of UKIP. If they get in we are fucked. Like fucked 100% in the arse.

[xChrisVx]

Although I expect the Conservatives to win, I also see UKIP doing quite well in English constituencies, certainly if the recent European Election results are anything to go by.

[Harry Smith]

Although I expect the Conservatives to win, I also see UKIP doing quite well in English constituencies, certainly if the recent European Election results are anything to go by.

why do you think the conservatives will win?

[Vlerchan]

I also see UKIP doing quite well in English constituencies, certainly if the recent European Election results are anything to go by.
They're not.

UKip was a protest vote in the European Election, I doubt most of their voters are willing to place the national economy in their hands however.

[xChrisVx]

why do you think the conservatives will win?

1) They're Euro-sceptic

2) People don't trust Ed Milliband as PM and Labour have reneged on everything they stand for

3) If Scotland goes independent, Labour will lose a whole bunch of seats (40 if nothing changes), whereas the Tories will lose only one.

4) People will never vote for Liberal Democrats after this coalition while Nick Clegg is their leader.


Just my take on it

[Harry Smith]

1) They're Euro-sceptic

2) People don't trust Ed Milliband as PM and Labour have reneged on everything they stand for

3) If Scotland goes independent, Labour will lose a whole bunch of seats (40 if nothing changes), whereas the Tories will lose only one.

4) People will never vote for Liberal Democrats after this coalition while Nick Clegg is their leader.


Just my take on it

1)All anti-Eu votes will go to UKIP, not Dave.

2)Everything they stand for?

3) That's wrong, the seats won in the 2015 election will be kept for 18 more months, meaning even if the scots vote to leave then labour will still get the seats since Independence won't kick in until 2017.

4) Most liberal votes will vote for Miliband http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/ed-milibands-army-lib-dem-switchers/28057

[xChrisVx]

1)All anti-Eu votes will go to UKIP, not Dave.

2)Everything they stand for?

3) That's wrong, the seats won in the 2015 election will be kept for 18 more months, meaning even if the scots vote to leave then labour will still get the seats since Independence won't kick in until 2017.

4) Most liberal votes will vote for Miliband http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/ed-milibands-army-lib-dem-switchers/28057

1) I'm not so sure... The promise of an in/out EU referendum may well tempt euro-sceptics over to the conservatives. Also, their rhetoric about restoring the sovereignty of Parliament may sound attractive to some.

2) We are still stuck in this time of New Labour. I always thought that Labour were meant to represent the interests of the working class. That being true, why is Ed Balls going to continue with austerity at the same levels as the conservatives?

3) In the event of a Yes vote, Scotland aims to be independent by March 2016, so Labour will have 9 months of 40 extra seats (or however many they win in 2015). This could make a difference in 2016 if Scotland pulls it off.

[Harry Smith]

1) I'm not so sure... The promise of an in/out EU referendum may well tempt euro-sceptics over to the conservatives. Also, their rhetoric about restoring the sovereignty of Parliament may sound attractive to some.

2) We are still stuck in this time of New Labour. I always thought that Labour were meant to represent the interests of the working class. That being true, why is Ed Balls going to continue with austerity at the same levels as the conservatives?

3) In the event of a Yes vote, Scotland aims to be independent by March 2016, so Labour will have 9 months of 40 extra seats (or however many they win in 2015). This could make a difference in 2016 if Scotland pulls it off.

1)It won't, Cameron promised something similar in 2009. UKIP voters absolutely hate him as leader-look at the 2014 elections. Cameron campaigned solely on the issue of a referendum and he still came third. The tories are going to lose a lot of voters to UKIP because the tories are the party of the establishment and people see through the referendum as Cameron's way of playing the british public. UKIP voters see Cameron as part of the establishment, and someone who is still behind the EU

2) New labour? Miliband has purged all the blairites from the shadow cabinet, he voted against Syrian air strikes, he's wanting to take on the banks and business. The fact that people like Mandleson and Blair are criticizing Miliband shows that he's moved to the left of new labour. 10 years ago Ed Balls was on the left of the labour party-now he's on the right.

Miliband ditching austerity will not win him any votes with the working class, and I'm of the opinion that he should ditch Ed Balls and make Douglas Alexander shadow Chancellor. It's ironic because earlier someone on here said that labour crashed the economy and couldn't be trusted, and now they're being told to be spend more money. Balls keeping to the 2015-2016 spending plans is what Brown did in 1997, Labour need to show the public that they can be trusted to balance the books.

Going after the working class vote won't get labour elected in 2015-going after the liberal votes will

3) key word is aimed, it's clear that the negotiations will take much longer than planned. I wouldn't hold my breathe for independence though, the TV debates showed that the people in Scotland don't want Independence

[Vlerchan]

Miliband ditching austerity will not win him any votes with the working class.
It would if he bothered to educate people on how bad austerity economics actually are:

It doesn't help your economy to force it to contract and that's why there's a clear correlation (http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/martin-wolf-exchange/files/2012/04/eurozone-structural1.jpg) between European countries pursuing austerity and the same European countries not seeing growth and austerity, as opposed to pushing for stimulus, is one of the major factors behind this (http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/10/econ-growth-eu-us-500x331.png) happening. There's a reason why a vast majority of American economists supported the US stimulus (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5bfARfqluG9VYrP) during the recession and that's because it's a tested means of exiting the recession. Milliband should be pointing this out, and also pointing out how current UK growth levels are the result of speculative bubbles (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/24/recovery-bubble-crash-uk-us-investors) instead of being another neoliberal mouth-piece, which he undoubtedly is - and this may or may not be leading to his parties declining popularity. (http://leftfootforward.org/2014/04/labour-is-not-losing-support-because-left-wing-policies/)

Here's Stiglitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) and co. on it in what is a great piece on reshaping the Eurozone going into the future:

[P. 6:] Years of devastating austerity policies did not limit or shorten the downturn; they made it deeper and longer than it would otherwise have been. How do we know this? Simple: we can compare the rapid stabilization that happened in the United States, where austerity did not take hold quickly, with the prolonged recession of the eurozone and the deep depression in the crisis countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, and many European governments together imposed mistaken policies based on flawed beliefs and simple-minded ideas. These policies stabilised European banks and little else. They made conditions in the crisis countries worse. We note the the research department of the IMF now largely supports this conclusion.

http://www.metapress.com/content/7677173377j21562/fulltext.pdf

Labour need to show the public that they can be trusted to balance the books.
You're going to have to explain why this is so important.

Going after the working class vote won't get labour elected in 2015-going after the liberal votes will.
I'd much rather that the party represent the people who they were founded to represent, personally.

[Harry Smith]

It would if he bothered to educate people on how bad austerity economics actually are:

It doesn't help your economy to force it to contract and that's why there's a clear correlation (http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/martin-wolf-exchange/files/2012/04/eurozone-structural1.jpg) between European countries pursuing austerity and the same European countries not seeing growth and austerity, as opposed to pushing for stimulus, is one of the major factors behind this (http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/10/econ-growth-eu-us-500x331.png) happening. There's a reason why a vast majority of American economists supported the US stimulus (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5bfARfqluG9VYrP) during the recession and that's because it's a tested means of exiting the recession. Milliband should be pointing this out, and also pointing out how current UK growth levels are the result of speculative bubbles (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/24/recovery-bubble-crash-uk-us-investors) instead of being another neoliberal mouth-piece, which he undoubtedly is - and this may or may not be leading to his parties declining popularity. (http://leftfootforward.org/2014/04/labour-is-not-losing-support-because-left-wing-policies/)

Here's Stiglitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) and co. on it in what is a great piece on reshaping the Eurozone going into the future:

[P. 6:] Years of devastating austerity policies did not limit or shorten the downturn; they made it deeper and longer than it would otherwise have been. How do we know this? Simple: we can compare the rapid stabilization that happened in the United States, where austerity did not take hold quickly, with the prolonged recession of the eurozone and the deep depression in the crisis countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, and many European governments together imposed mistaken policies based on flawed beliefs and simple-minded ideas. These policies stabilised European banks and little else. They made conditions in the crisis countries worse. We note the the research department of the IMF now largely supports this conclusion.

http://www.metapress.com/content/7677173377j21562/fulltext.pdf


You're going to have to explain why this is so important.


I'd much rather that the party represent the people who they were founded to represent, personally.

Labour aren't trusted with the economy, that's what all the polls show. Not that Britishboy should be used as sample of Britain but many people still associate labour with the big spending, pro bank party under Blair. They only tend to win elections when they appear to be more right wing fiscally.

That's part of the bigger problem-I feel Miliband and many labour members want the party to be more left wing (scrap trident, living wage etc) but the party won't get elected. The issue is that in order to introduce more progressive policies they need to run on a more moderate platform

Immigration is one issue where labour struggle to represent their base, they don't want to piss off the ethnic minority vote by appearing anti-immigrant however most white working class people (in the north) are opposed to it. What stance should labour take?

The problem is also the British electorate

[Vlerchan]

Labour aren't trusted with the economy, that's what all the polls show.
I don't believe that following demonstrably awful economic polices is going to help in that regard.

They only tend to win elections when they appear to be more right wing fiscally.
I take it you didn't read my link (http://leftfootforward.org/2014/04/labour-is-not-losing-support-because-left-wing-policies/) that had in it this image (http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2014/04/Labour-supportj-300x200.jpg) then because it seems to indicate opposite.

I'll also stress again that Labour are making no attempt to produce an alternative vision and discredit the current one, which probably isn't helping.

That's part of the bigger problem-I feel Miliband and many labour members want the party to be more left wing (scrap trident, living wage etc) but the party won't get elected. The issue is that in order to introduce more progressive policies they need to run on a more moderate platform
I don't believe any of this.

Immigration is one issue where labour struggle to represent their base, they don't want to piss off the ethnic minority vote by appearing anti-immigrant however most white working class people (in the north) are opposed to it. What stance should labour take?
Labour should be pro-immigration, and to back that position up present the mountains of evidence supporting that position which I produced earlier in the thread.

The problem is also the British electorate
No, it's very much labour.

[Harry Smith]

Labour should be pro-immigration, and to back that position up present the mountains of evidence supporting that position which I produced earlier in the thread.

I'm sure you're not gullible enough to believe this. The lib dems ran their 2014 euro elections on this platform ( a pro EU/immigration one) and they lost both of the TV debates, this is partly due to the toxic nature of the brand but the problem with immigration is that people feel isolated form the political elite on the issue.

If you tell the average man on the street that a report by UCL showed it benefited britain they wouldn't care at all, I know this through first hand experience of canvassing. There's a reason that UKIP are doing so well in the North. People don't want a 25 year old PPE graduate from oxbridge telling them immigration is great when they feel it's not; as you've seen from this site even having a mountain of evidence won't convince everyone that your argument is correct.

Not every voter is going to spend days looking through academic papers about immigration when the vast majority have already made up their mind. I agree labour need to remain pro-immigration but it's a good example of where they're losing working class support because of their position.

I agree about Austerity, hence why labour need to dump Ed Balls

I don't believe any of this.

Every time Labour have ran on a more left platform they've lost-1983, 1992. Excluding WW2 we don't tend to elect radical governments.

Look at the make up of the NEC (labour's governing council) it's much more left wing than the leadership with about 80% of members supporting the scrapping of Trident and living wage

[Vlerchan]

I'm sure you're not gullible enough to believe this.
I would hope that politicians could phrase it better than "look at these academic papers".

It would be more like "look how lucrative letting Polish people into the country actually is", on repeat.

Every time Labour have ran on a more left platform they've lost-1983, 1992. Excluding WW2 we don't tend to elect radical governments.
Again, the link and graph I produced seemed to show a clear correlation between Labour pushing left-wing positions and their popularity being boosted in the short-term. It also doesn't really matter how people voted 20 and 30 years ago but let's take a look at 1992 anyway:

Labour taxes. Labour's proposals for taxation and national insurance contributions - outlined in John Smith's 'alternative Budget' - were relentlessly attacked by the Conservatives. Faced with the prospect of a cut in their disposable income, the argument runs, voters had second thoughts about the wisdom of letting Labour in.

But our surveys find little evidence to back this argument. It arose because the polls showed a small Labour lead throughout a campaign in which taxation was one of the dominant issues and yet the Tories won.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

It seemingly wasn't taxes. It actually seems like Labour being 'moderate' this time around:

The economy, far from being irrelevant, probably cost the Conservatives around two percentage points. We found, too, that Labour's Policy Review probably gained the party an extra percentage point. Labour's more moderate image, indirectly created by the review, may have gained it another two points.

[...]

And it seems that a number of trends are in Labour's favour. The electorate had moved ideologically towards Labour between 1987 and 1992 - on some issues, it was more left-of- centre than it was when Labour last won in October 1974. More people favour spending money to get rid of poverty, more want to put extra money into the NHS, fewer favour privatisation. Further, we found that substantial numbers of voters who had thought that Labour was extreme in 1987 considered it moderate in 1992 and that this gave the party extra votes. And neither taxation nor the Tory press are the albatross around Labour's neck that many think them to be.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

It seems there's numerous factors but Labour's economic policies, 'radical' by todays standards, aren't one.

---

I'll also stress a third time that Labour are making no attempt to create a new vision and discredit the current one, which is important.

Excluding WW2 we don't tend to elect radical governments.
It's a sad day when we begin labelling left-Keynesianism 'radical'.

[Harry Smith]

I would hope that politicians could phrase it better than "look at these academic papers".

It would be more like "look how lucrative letting Polish people into the country actually is", on repeat.


Again, the link and graph I produced seemed to show a clear correlation between Labour pushing left-wing positions and their popularity being boosted in the short-term. It also doesn't really matter how people voted 20 and 30 years ago but let's take a look at 1992 anyway:

Labour taxes. Labour's proposals for taxation and national insurance contributions - outlined in John Smith's 'alternative Budget' - were relentlessly attacked by the Conservatives. Faced with the prospect of a cut in their disposable income, the argument runs, voters had second thoughts about the wisdom of letting Labour in.

But our surveys find little evidence to back this argument. It arose because the polls showed a small Labour lead throughout a campaign in which taxation was one of the dominant issues and yet the Tories won.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

It seemingly wasn't taxes. It actually seems like Labour being 'moderate' this time around:

The economy, far from being irrelevant, probably cost the Conservatives around two percentage points. We found, too, that Labour's Policy Review probably gained the party an extra percentage point. Labour's more moderate image, indirectly created by the review, may have gained it another two points.

[...]

And it seems that a number of trends are in Labour's favour. The electorate had moved ideologically towards Labour between 1987 and 1992 - on some issues, it was more left-of- centre than it was when Labour last won in October 1974. More people favour spending money to get rid of poverty, more want to put extra money into the NHS, fewer favour privatisation. Further, we found that substantial numbers of voters who had thought that Labour was extreme in 1987 considered it moderate in 1992 and that this gave the party extra votes. And neither taxation nor the Tory press are the albatross around Labour's neck that many think them to be.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

It seems there's numerous factors but Labour's economic policies, 'radical' by todays standards, aren't one.

---

I'll also stress a third time that Labour are making no attempt to create a new vision and discredit the current one, which is important.


It's a sad day when we begin labelling left-Keynesianism 'radical'.

The recent European elections show that no-matter how much politicians stress that polish labour is benefiting the UK, because as I said above people on the doorstep simply ignore it, and then claim that immigration is affecting other areas such as Schooling or hospitals.

I don't actually believe it is bad, I'm just using it as an example how how labour keeping in touch with the 'working class' often goes against the policies and ideas of the party. Plus working class is extremely vague, especially in the context of elections thanks to class de-alignment and party de-alignment

The 1992 election shows that that it's easy for the tories to spin labour as being the tax and spend party, and if labour came out against Austerity and offered something else it would likely cost them the 2015 election, meaning another 5 years of tory government.

Miliband's showed that he's willing to go further than Brown or Blair were.
-introducing a mansion tax
-taxing bankers bonus
-allowing state companies to bid for the railways
-freezing fuel bills

[Vlerchan]

The recent European elections show that no-matter how much politicians stress that polish labour is benefiting the UK, because as I said above people on the doorstep simply ignore it, and then claim that immigration is affecting other areas such as Schooling or hospitals.
The LibDems, who were the only internationalist and pro-immigration party of the Euro elections in the UK, made very little effort to stress the importance of immigration. Let's look at a major speech (http://www.libdemvoice.org/in-full-nick-cleggs-immigration-speech-successful-immigration-systems-have-to-be-managed-41969.html) in the run up to the Euro elections where he doesn't once outline the benefits that immigration brings to Britain - rather, and this was really all the LibDems did throughout their campaign, he pushes the idea that "it won't be that bad" and "they deserve a chance": I don't expect the electorate to respond to this, and I have no idea why he thought the electorate would either.

Plus working class is extremely vague, especially in the context of elections thanks to class de-alignment and party de-alignment
I would consider the "Precariat, or precarious proletariat", "Emergent service workers", "Traditional working class", and most of the "New affluent workers"[1] (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22007058)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey) to be working-class: social democratic policies would benefit these people - it's Labour who are at fault if they don't realise it.

The 1992 election shows that that it's easy for the tories to spin labour as being the tax and spend party.
Please read what I actually wrote previously and re-think this sentence.

... and if labour came out against Austerity and offered something else it would likely cost them the 2015 election, meaning another 5 years of tory government.
Even if we pretend this is true, and I really don't believe it is - see: all the previous points I made, I don't see what's to celebrate in having a(nother) group of 'benevolent' Tories in power, because that would effectively be what we are getting. I'd rather try for a progressive agenda and go bust - repeat: don't believe that will happen - than vote in a group of closeted-neoliberals so the British 'Left' can feel good about themselves.

[Harry Smith]

The LibDems, who were the only internationalist and pro-immigration party of the Euro elections in the UK, made very little effort to stress the importance of immigration. Let's look at a major speech (http://www.libdemvoice.org/in-full-nick-cleggs-immigration-speech-successful-immigration-systems-have-to-be-managed-41969.html) in the run up to the Euro elections where he doesn't once outline the benefits that immigration brings to Britain - rather, and this was really all the LibDems did throughout their campaign, he pushes the idea that "it won't be that bad" and "they deserve a chance": I don't expect the electorate to respond to this, and I have no idea why he thought the electorate would either.


The speech you quoted was from the 5th of August 2014, and hence was after the Euro elections. That speech wasn't related to the campaign and merely showed that he's trying to move away from what he campaigned on 3 months ago

[Vlerchan]

The speech you quoted was from the 5th of August 2014, and hence was after the Euro elections. That speech wasn't related to the campaign and merely showed that he's trying to move away from what he campaigned on 3 months ago
You're actually right, I skimmed through it for the most part and thought it was just reprinted on the 5th of August - I didn't actually notice it was a statement of the parties backing-down from being progressive until I read the 'Europe' section properly. Point still stands though, LibDems didn't emphasis the benefits of immigration - all immigration: the benefits of the high-skilled ones were trumpeted - in their Euro campaign enough.

---

It should also be noted that in this now-environment of anti-immigration-all-around Labour don't stand to lose much by being nationalists.

[phuckphace]

what would be hilarious (and actually somewhat likely, Darwin willing) is if Labour saw the light and went full BNP-style NatSoc and got like 65% of the vote. 5/5 would move to. rule Britannia.

[Calyx]

I'd prefer it if Labour won but I don't think Ed is a good enough leader to get an outright majority. My guess would be that there will be no overall majority and the lib dems will either be the deciding factor again (if either party wants to form a coalition with them) or there will be a hung parliament (which probably wouldn't work, but then another general election could be called and so on).

[britishboy]

Although I expect the Conservatives to win, I also see UKIP doing quite well in English constituencies, certainly if the recent European Election results are anything to go by.
I also expect the Conservatives but I am doubtful of UKIP they will get a few seats however I believe most will stay a Conservative or switch to them.
I'm fucking terrified of UKIP. If they get in we are fucked. Like fucked 100% in the arse.

Same, I actually uses to support UKIP but once the party leader said he would sacrifice economic growth to tighten immigration I immediately saw the light.

[Vlerchan]

Same, I actually uses to support UKIP but once the party leader said he would sacrifice economic growth to tighten immigration I immediately saw the light.
Did you also know that income inequality hampers growth?

The key result from the joint analysis is that income distribution survives as one of the most robust and important factors associated with growth duration. As Figure 3 demonstrates, a 10-percentile decrease in inequality—the sort of improvement that a number of countries have experienced during their spells—increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent. Remarkably, inequality retains a similar statistical and economic significance in the joint analysis despite the inclusion of many more possible determinants. This suggests that inequality seems to matter in itself and is not just proxying for other factors. Inequality also preserves its significance more systematically across different samples and definitions of growth spells than the other variables. Inequality is thus a more robust predictor of growth duration than many variables widely understood to be central to growth.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf

Does that mean you'll support more taxation and redistribution efforts?

---

It should be stressed that this is an IMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund) report.