…I wonder, did they think to ask those polled “Do you know what the G20 meeting is all about” with a choice of 5: “not at all; not much; a bit; a fair bit; completely”?

It’s a bit like polling the passengers of plane that’s falling out the sky on whether they think the second-order state space model inside the autopilot chip has been augmented satisfactorially…

Same with expenses… asked whether they are prepared to pay top quids to get the most talented people from all walks of life, they’re going to get a contrasting response from asking whether they think the trough’s wide enough for the besuited snouts of the current crop, when 56% would rather have lower monthly rent or mortgage bill; and 69% are feeling a bit skinter than they were anticipating they would this time last year.

“The same applies to MPs… but not by that much. 34% think their own MP is abusing the system, with 38% thinking their own MP does not. 28% didn’t know.”

…which correlates more or less with those who voted for; against; and abstained in your average constituency, doesn’t it?

Surely the only meaningful conclusions you can draw from this poll are that Most people don’t really understand what the G20 is all about; and because they don’t understand it, it doesn’t affect how they’ll vote; and most people are unhappy about their own finances, and don’t take kindly to the perceived preference for blinkered self-catering projected by some MPs.

The fact is he screwed up. He (and I would have done the same) rode the runaway train thinking he would be able to stop it when he wanted to…..well he couldn’t

This was not a man in charge who was let down by liars and bad advisors, this was a man who took arogance to a new level and who sees power as the end game.

At the end of the day Gordon Brown was the biggest “Free Market Capitalist of them all” and now he is the worlds most powerful petulant school boy behind mugabe

Unfortunately, he believed people who either lied or didn’t understand risk. (so did everyone else)

The last quote is absolutely correct!

Oh really, is that so? :-

“I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers” (Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, 17 June 2004)

“Last year we set out radical proposals for changing the way we regulate: minimising the administrative burdens of regulation;and ensuring that the realities of regulation, as you experience them on the ground, are transformed — by moving away from the
old blanket approach, of 100 per cent form-filling and 100 per cent inspection that is inefficient and wasteful of your time, to a new approach based on risk… And I believe, too, we should consider how we can continue to extend our risk-based approach, applying the concept of risk not just to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all… And we will
take the fight on deregulation to Europe.” ( Gordon Brown Speech to the CBI, 5 June 2006)

“And I want to work with you so that over time we apply the concept of risk not just to the enforcement of regulation, butalso to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all.” ( Gordon Brown Speech to the CBI, 15 May 2007)

and for good measure:-

“The FSA’s risk-based regulatory approach is praised around the world and regularly cited as a key strength for the UK…Some observers have urged us to go further and proposed disclosure in hedge fund portfolio positions to regulators in some sort of
register. Like Callum McCarthy, I strongly believe this would be counterproductive. ( Ed Balls Speech to the FSA regulation conference, 23 April 2007)

“If the City is doing well, we are all doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper”
(Ed Balls Guardian, 3 November 2006)

1) No.

I don’t see an overwhelming link between the recession per se and voting intention. “The devil you know” can work to a certain extent, but it’s a small part of it, in my view.

I reckon Brown went down in the polls as a direct result of saying he’d hold an election, and then backed out, plus the 10p tax fiasco, and the fact that he’s a miserable “media performer” (or at least could do with listening to a decent coach)

He didn’t go down in the polls because people expected a recovery, only to recover some ground as a result of plummetting confidence.

Maybe the 30-40 point leads that Labour had prior to 97 were unreliable, maybe the 10-12 point lead now held will sustain, but you asked where the logic was.

It’s simply that the gap is too small. People prefer, in much larger numbers than should be comfortable for Cameron, they prefer what Labour is doing to what Cameron/Osborne are saying they’d do.

It wasn’t so much the fact of a recession that gives Brown a boost, as the stark choices that are thrown up by it. Borrow and spend, then pay back later, or “cut until the bleeding stops” (which is what people remember as having happened before).

Do you agree with the expression “we are mid-term, with only a year to go , therefore the opposition should be x points ahead”?

Sorry I’m lost. In your original post you asked the question of would Brown change his strategy to arguing for public spending [i]cuts[/i] and switch his priority from spending on public services to curtailing debt. I argued that such a monumental volte face would be ridiculed by all and would be seen as a victory for the Tories.

I’m not sure what you are getting at with the question I have quoted above. The Treasury has already announced some future tax increases and implied that public spending will be slowed. The question you posed was would Gordon Brown go even further and effectively immitate the Conservative position.

“You say I’ve missed the point, but go on to agree with it. It wouldn’t matter if they Labour were behind by a few points on the trust to run the economy question. The numbers show a lot narrower gap than there would be if a Tory victory were a certainty. And the bookies would have closed the book and paid out by now”

Right lets sort this out:

1) Are you arguing that given we are in a recession the Conservatives need to be further ahead in order to win the next general election?

2) If you answered yes to the above question how do you equate the fact that the lead was much greater before the recession to your view? Do you not think this implies that there is a relationship between the level of Labour’s support and the recession? In other words the lead is at the level it is because of the recession as opposed to in spite of it.

3) Where did this certainty question come from? I don’t think the election is a certainty. However I don’t agree with the analysis: ‘we are in a recession, therefore the opposition should be x points ahead in order to win the next election’.

The best the Tories can come up with (after 18 months racking their brains for something) is that their hypothetical controls on money supply would have prevented the greedy b’s from nicking all our money. The only reason Thatcher’s trickle-down economics failed her was that the greedy free-market c’s didn’t spend their cash on charitable works,like she wanted them to, they spent it on lavish lifestyles instead, and placed the rest offshore.

Trickle-away economics is on its way out now, thank heavens, but if Brown had eveer suggested the f-m c’s llisten to Redwood-isms, he’d have been howled down from all sides, and been a lot lower in the polls than now.

” there is one policy area which the government is ahead on; economic policy during the crisis. ” You say I’ve missed the point, but go on to agree with it. It wouldn’t matter if they Labour were behind by a few points on the trust to run the economy question. The numbers show a lot narrower gap than there would be if a Tory victory were a certainty. And the bookies would have closed the book and paid out by now.

“What happened around the world was something I’ve been warning of for years.”

John:-
“He’s running a huge political risk if he does”

So how is GB going to convince the Markets & the Electorate that Public Borrowing will be reduced, without saying that taxes will go up and/or Public Spending will grow less than the economy grows?

No that’s the point. The 20 point lead isn’t there because up until now there is one policy area which the government is ahead on; economic policy during the crisis. That and also because the electorate is naturally less receptive to a message of change during a recession.

“But supposing Labour switch to a programme of austerity-, public spending cuts-tax rises even- reducing debt-all the things that GB has avoided like the plague?”

He’s running a huge political risk if he does. For months he’s attempted to label the Conservatives as being in favour public spending cuts, as a ‘do nothing’ party and defended the UK debt position. Not to mention his constant attack that Cameron flip-flops on all the big issues. He would be effectively saying that Cameron was righ all along.

I can’t see what he’d gain from going against everything he’s stood for. He would be ripped apart by the press and the Tories.