why is labour crashing in the polls this week

[beorhthelm]

...When it imploded Labour actually responded well, but the Tories gave a good impression of a rabbit caught in the headlights and had no coherent response.

acutally, if you remember, the Tories backed the Labour policy initially. but then someone decided they needed to be different. which goes back to the inconsistancy theme. and who is to say the Labour policy was "right" the best can be said is it wasnt wrong, but then they simply followed the advice of the BoE and other economists - which i believe was the only course of action and would have been made by any party in power (as was applied across all major nations too).

 

[cheshunt seagull]

acutally, if you remember, the Tories backed the Labour policy initially. but then someone decided they needed to be different. which goes back to the inconsistancy theme. and who is to say the Labour policy was "right" the best can be said is it wasnt wrong, but then they simply followed the advice of the BoE and other economists - which i believe was the only course of action and would have been made by any party in power (as was applied across all major nations too).

I think my point is that Labour acted decisively and quickly and the actions averted, what was presented at least, as the imminent meltdown of the banking system. It makes total sense to seek and act on the advice of eminent economists. They also played a leading role in building an international consensus. It would be hard to portay this as anything other than a success. The Conservatives may have displayed similar speed and leadership but the lack of a consistent position does raise questions about whether this would have been the case. Many may feel nervous about their capacity to deal with a similar situation if they are in power.

 

[k2bluesky]

Labour always take the easy option which means borrow, borrow, borrow or tax, tax tax, - money buys the way out of everything but life isn't that easy and with no money left perhaps the great British public have at last decided tough choices need to be made and know Brown is too scared to make them, always putting his own popularity and the party before the country's future.

 

[User removed 4]

These are two extracts from the blog of Tom Bradby, the ITV political editor, they make interesting reading.

Interviewing Gordon.
07 Apr 2010

It’s a subject little discussed that interviewing Gordon is unlike interviewing any other politician.

Most encounters with party leaders or MPs form a distinct pattern. We come in. We sit down. We chat pleasantly. We do an interview, which is probing, highbrow or a bit brutal, as circumstances demand. Then we exchange more pleasantries as we shoot a few ‘wide’ shots. And we go away.

End of story.

Simple, huh?

Tony Blair was like this. David Cameron is. So are Alastair Darling, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and just about every other front rank politician I can think of.

Not Gordon. He’s not a bad man. I’m not saying that. In fact, on the contrary, I often feel what I see behind the grumpy manner and those hooded eyes is a deep well of humanity.

But interviewing him is emotionally complicated.He doesn’t seem to understand that we are here to ask difficult questions and test his arguments by establishing contrary positions. He nearly always tells us we are wrong, both on and off camera, and that we have not done our research. He often gets angry, sometimes sulks and from time to time looks brutally hurt.

I really don’t know what to make of it. It’s not politics as we know it.

Posted by bradbyt
An argument he will struggle to win.
07 Apr 2010

I thought Gordon Brown looked pretty nervous at PMQs today. He stumbled. He stuttered. He didn’t make a lot of sense.

It’s another example of how things seem to be turning around. A few weeks ago, it was David Cameron who was performing below par and the Prime Minister who appeared to be getting stronger.

Perhaps it will swing back the other way again in the debates. The Prime Minister certainly needs it to. Indeed, these look now like his last shot at redemption.

Gordon Brown’s argument today was that the Tories plan cuts this year to spend (by blocking a tax rise) next and therein lies the deception.

But Labour has already promised eleven billion pounds worth of efficiency savings (such as reducing staff sickness in the NHS) and there seems no logic whatever in delaying these until 2011 and beyond. And in any event, these business leaders are some of the most intelligent people in the land. They don’t believe stripping out public ‘waste’ would damage the recovery, but they are certain the rise in National Insurance will. To use a word like ‘deceived’ in any context here is foolish and will not do Labour any good.

Now, it’s more than possible that the Tories’ efficiency savings turn out to be as mythical as the ones the Treasury has promised (the IFS has its doubts). But this is an argument that Gordon Brown is simply not winning. If he continues to make it a central plank of his pitch for re-election, the next three weeks could turn into something of a car crash.

Posted by bradbyt

 

[Simster]

Labour always take the easy option which means borrow, borrow, borrow or tax, tax tax, - money buys the way out of everything but life isn't that easy and with no money left perhaps the great British public have at last decided tough choices need to be made and know Brown is too scared to make them, always putting his own popularity and the party before the country's future.

How is "tax, tax, tax" an easy option? And how is that going to make him popular?

Tax is a fact of life, my friend. The question is, how best to do it fairly. I dispair at Labour and Conservative for not threatening to put up income tax, because it only means that we can expect VAT rises instead.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think my point is that Labour acted decisively and quickly and the actions averted,

what im say is, they didnt know what to do either, asked the BoE "what the f*** do we do" and followed their advice. some might say if they had followed other advice in the years before it wouldnt have got there in the first place. the international consensus was again created by central banks and the politicians followed because they had no choice. if it went wrong, guess who gets the blame?

meanwhile, despite many statments about improving lending in the UK, the situation has remained unchanged, Labour have not actually done anything more than apply the prescription from the economists. they haven't gone further, for instance insisting upon lending criteria or rates to business and property buyers alone. i wont speculate what another government *might* have done (because that infuriates me), but the fact is Labour has been led all the way through this situation. Currently the Banks and BoE dictate the policy, the liquidity has been pumped in but it sits on balance sheets rather than being used to fund loans to the country.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

If you do not put up NI, then more people will be employed and the Government receives more in income tax. Simple economics.

The conservatives have said they will not increase VAT - labour have NOT said they will not increase VAT. Labour say they will not increase income tax - but have said they will freeze personal allowances - with inflation, this is an increase in income tax. Usual labour twisted spin!

 

[drew]

How is "tax, tax, tax" an easy option? And how is that going to make him popular?

Tax is a fact of life, my friend. The question is, how best to do it fairly. I dispair at Labour and Conservative for not threatening to put up income tax, because it only means that we can expect VAT rises instead.

I agree, if you don't have tax you don't have any public services, ranging from the NHS right through to the armed forces.

As for this national insurance increase, hasn't it been suggested that this will hit M & S by about £10m. Their pre tax profit in 2009, at the peak of the recession, was £600m. Prior to that in 2008 it was over £1b and is likely to rise to those sort of figures again. The business leaders of the largest corporations are, I believe being disengenuous.

 

[sten_super]

If you do not put up NI, then more people will be employed and the Government receives more in income tax. Simple economics.

It's not quite that simple though, is it? Which is greater, the increased revenue from the NI increase, or the fall in income tax receipts which occur due to a fall in employment which results from the NI increase? If it's the former, then the NI increase can be argued to be the better thing to do.

The conservatives have said they will not increase VAT - labour have NOT said they will not increase VAT. Labour say they will not increase income tax - but have said they will freeze personal allowances - with inflation, this is an increase in income tax. Usual labour twisted spin!

The conservatives have made no promises about VAT; quite rightly, as they will HAVE to increase this assuming that they don't want to touch income tax.

I find the whole thing very depressing. They are now all saying that there will have to be cuts, which is nice to hear as I'd much rather some realism. However they are all mired in negative campaigning which really pisses me off. I'd much rather hear exactly where these cuts are going to be, and what the implications are for us.

Another pet hate of mine is this term 'efficiency savings'. The implication is that this is not going to have any impact on jobs, but obviously if there are two people doing one persons job, that is an obvious efficiency saving, but results in job cuts. It's disingenuous at best.