Election Round-Up
I'm going to start a catch-up entry on all things related to the Election and try to get it to a point where it's postable withing the next day or two.
To start with, as I've remarked before, I'm a bit of an election junky, so I'll be up late on the night in question following all the declarations and analysis and probably shouting a lot at the politicians being interviewed. I've taken the day off the following day, so I'll be able to sit through it to the bitter end.
I can't remember the last time I felt so ambivalent about an election though. I'm pretty much at the end of my tether with the leadership of the Labour Party, though still feel it should spiritually be my home, even though it doesn't act like a socialist enough organisation for my taste. The Conservatives under Michael Howard fill me with a dread the like of which I can't recall ever feeling even in the darkest days of Thatcher, though fortunately I don't see any prospect of them sweeping to power. The Liberal Democrats keep saying a lot of stuff that I agree with, but sadly don't stand a chance of forming the official opposition, so they'll just continue to nibble at the heels of the big two for the foreseeable. I suppose my ideal is that Labour get in but with a majority sufficiently reasonable that the other parties can keep them honest; returning to my previously stated position that strong opposition is essential for good government.
Of the 'Fringe' parties, I'm entertained by the UKIP and their suggestion that their tax cuts and higher spending should be covered by an immediate increase in Government borrowing of £30billion. Because that sounds like a good sound fiscal policy. Veritas I simply can't take seriously for very many reasons, but their numbers fail to add up even more spectacularly, because they want more people in prison for longer, more police officers, more money spent on immigration control, and a significant reduction in money into the country from taxes. And they don't even sugest that we put the entire economy in hock to do it. I also love that in their website's summary of their position of on Law and Order they jump straight from Travellers on illegal pitches to Paedophiles - nice sense of perspective there.
The Greens always strike me as very worthy, and of course it's important to support environmental policies, but every time I take a serious look into their policies, there's a feeling of naïvte there that makes me incapable of taking them seriously.
More as I get the chance.
April 25th, 2005 - 15:50
May I respectfully disagree with the public borrowing.
Figures are a little bit hazy all these years later, but I would argue very strongly that one of the key economic successes of G Brown was to pay back much of the National Debt РI think, in part, using windfall tax and the 3G windfall. This more or less eliminated the need to spend about £30 bn pa just servicing the National Debt, freeing that up for actual spending and being one of many contributory factors to low interest rates.
Borrowing for investment makes sense, for current expenditure makes little sense.
Just my 2p
April 25th, 2005 - 16:15
theoretically, I don’t need to listen anymore, to the media overload.
Having a postal vote..I did so this morning.
I’m done.just waiting for the results.
April 25th, 2005 - 16:50
the government borrowing thing (assuming you go with the brown doctrine) is fine so long as it all balances out across a single economic cycle (i.e. reduce borrowing when receipts are good, increase when they are shitty, and overall get it to balance out). The unfortunate thing is that it is not looking as though we are going to have quite such a good upside in the cycle this time around, and there is also the lack of ways to rip the private sector off with over-inflated licensing costs (particularly as there is no longer a bubble to feed to the demand for such things as there was during the 3G license auction …
‘s what i heard anyway …
April 26th, 2005 - 08:22
Of course you may respectfully disagree with me anytime Gert
And of course I know that there are significant benefits to running public borrowing in an appropriate manner – my point really is that from the perspective of selling a manifesto to the person in the street (of which I am certainly one), promoting the idea of a large increase in public borrowing doesn’t *look* very sensible.
And on another front I don’t see the point in reducing revenue into the exchequer through tax cuts and at the same time promoting increasing expenditure on public services which will necessitate that borrowing. Why not make at least a token gesture towards balancing the lost revenue with a wider range of tax bands which would bring more revenue in from higher earners?
April 26th, 2005 - 11:15
I agree, the sooner tax is restructured to be clearer and fairer the better. I like the idea of a higher upper rate, but I also think that the 40% bracket either needs to be reduced, or at least the threshold upped as it seems to be hitting a bunch of people it doesn’t seem appropriate for
April 26th, 2005 - 14:04
http://www.spinon.co.uk/content/londoncalling