ComRes poll on alternate Labour leaders
As soon as there is a leadership crisis in a party, it is only a matter of time before the “how would you vote if X was leader questions” come along. Bang on time they have arrived, with ComRes providing the goods for tomorrow’s Independent.
Now, poll questions like this are an interesting beast. In my opinion they are both of very little use in actually showing how popular leaders would be, but at the same time of massive importance. The first part is because the public are firstly very poor at predicting how they will respond to future events, and secondly know very little about the potential alternate candidates. Even if they are quite well known, like Jack Straw, no one has any clue what Jack Straw would do as leader, what policies he would champion and so on. Anyway, more about leadership polls in general here.
If they are of such limited use, why do I say they are so important? Well, even though I don’t put much weight in them, lots of MPs do. Until now no poll has ever shown an alternate leader doing much better than Gordon Brown, so Brown’s supporters can justifiably say to rebel Labour MPs that there is no evidence that any alternate leader would do any better than Brown. The ComRes poll changes that.
ComRes’s normal voting intention question, with changes from their last poll, has shares of CON 38%(+8), LAB 22%(nc), LDEM 20%(+2). It was conducted between the 5th and 7th June, so after the local election results were out and James Purnell has resigned, but before the European election results. On the face of it, it shows a large increase in Conservative support, but I’d pay that little heed: the previous ComRes poll was that freaky one showing the Conservatives down at 30%, almost certainly a rogue poll.
ComRes went on to ask how people would vote if other people were Labour leader. These showed Alan Johnson cutting the Conservative lead to 10 points, Jack Straw to 11 points, David Miliband to 12 points, Ed Balls and Jon Cruddas to 14 points. Harriet Harman would produce a 16 point Tory lead, and James Purnell a 17 point Tory lead.
Now, for various reasons these figures are not actually comparable to normal voting intentions. Firstly each was prompted with just the name of the hypothetical Labour leader, not the names of David Cameron and Nick Clegg (and to be entirely fair, they should be compared to a question asking specifically about Labour led by Brown). More importantly none took into account likelihood to vote, so we don’t know if any would make Labour voters more or less likely to back their party, only whether they make people actually switch.
For those reasons and the ones I mentioned at the start of the article, I don’t think they tell us much at all about how well all these people would actually do as Labour leader. It doesn’t really matter though, since it provides Brown’s critics with something they can point at as showing that alternate leaders would do better than him.
Filed under: Communicate, Labour, Voting Intention
Brilliant, first post euro-election poll:)
From memory didn’t the prior Comres poll show a 10% fall in the Tory vote, so if we exclude that one as a rogue we have in effect a 2% fall in support for them? This would be consistent with the election results and other polls suggesting a slight softening of Tory support.
I think it’s all moot now, reckon he’s survived….just a race of the gap inevitably closing (at least to some extent) fast enough or not….
Also agree with you that these polls are fairly useless, although they do give some indication of the ‘bounce’ a prospective leader would likely provide IMO…..which could have been useful with the change of leader and fast election theory some had recently….
Most MPs it seems to me want to gamble on a late surge in support under Brown. This is very foolish in my opinion. From the previous Euro Election in 2004 the polls indicate that all three parties improved by a few percent only.
If the same kind of improvements repeat themselves then we will have at the next GE Cons 40, Lab 24, Lib Dems 22. This would see Labour’s seats about halved.
However, now that Labour MPs have chosen to stick with a clearly unpopular, damaged PM it is more likely we will get something like Cons 42, Lab 22, Lib Dems 24.
Under Alan Johnson they would probably do a lot better. But this no longer looks likely to happen.
As was said on Newsnight most Labour MPs would like to wake up tomorrow with Alan Johnson as leader. The problem is the cumbersome process that would be needed to bring a change in leadership about.
Gordon Brown will now survive until the bye-elections in Norwich and Glasgow – that is his next crisis (or the party conference, whichever comes first). What is happening to ComRes? They changed their methodology, produced two duff polls, and now this asking skewed questions! They are fast discreditting themselves.
Of course the Indy are using this poll to “prove” that the Conservatives are so unpopular that if Alan Johnson was PM they would be ruined. Maybe Iain MacKintosh writes for them; or Chris Newey.
People would rather vote for Cruddas or Purnell, or Harman than Brown? Seriously? Brown hasn’t exactly been a perfect PM or exemplary leader, don’t get me wrong. But having Purnell or Cruddas running the country is unimaginable to me. Literally, I can’t even imagine them being bad leaders.
Philip JW.
The 2004 Euro elections produced figures of Con 27 Lab 23 LibDem 15. A year later at the 2005 General Election the voting shares were Con 33 Lab 36 LibDem 23 – very significant increases !
@Quincel
You may be unable to imagine Purnell or Cruddas as bad leaders. Unfortunately, I don’t have to imagine Brown as a disastrous leader. I’ve seen it for the past two years!
Graham,
Don’t forget the UKIP, Green, BNP, and “other other” votes that piled on top of those. How much re-consolidation happens this time is anyone’s guess, but I just feel it important to note that fact. We’ve got more of all of those around to roll back this time, but we also have the minor parties doing better in many local areas (and very likely in a position to run candidates in more seats) than last time.
I can’t say what effect Labour being all but dead south of the Thames will have, but I can say that between the expenses and the bump the minor parties are having it’ll be a bit more of an interesting election than most of us were expecting a few months ago.
Cyno,
I think it’s fair to say that literally plucking a warm body off the street in lieu of Brown might well get an improvement right now. That said, we’ll see where things go in the next few months. Who knows…he might bumble into some competence.
i can see the conservative vote being 42% by dec 09 and a slight month by month up turn in the vote from then on untill the GE most likely in may 2010.
@Gray
To be honest, picking a cold body from any convenient morgue in lieu of Brown might well get an improvement.
I personally am a LibDem/Tory swing voter, but most of my family were solid core Labour voters in the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire. Now, they are deserting Labour … to the BNP, UKIP, SLP, LibDems & Tories. It’s anything but Gordon, and the reason was nothing to do with “expenses” – it was Gordon’s 10p tax fiasco.
[...] Polling Report has more details here including the results with alternative [...]
Is it worth taking any ComRes poll seriously after the euro-elections (and other disasters).
Sometimes looking too closely at polls obscures the ‘real’ world. I’m struck by the fact that in April Darling was ridiculed, including by many posters in this forum, for his assertion that the UK economy would be in growth by the end of this year. The Tories savaged his forecasts and came out as strong spending cutters. Yesterday the OECD reported their expectations that the UK along with some other economies would be in growth in 2009 – much as Darling predicted.
I don’t know whether this will happen, or if it does whether it will be a strong enough pick up to make a difference, but I do suspect that Brown may have a little more credibility by next spring and Cameron a little less. This might not be enough to overcome the sense of decay in Labour ranks, but if Labour stop the internal savagery I doubt very much they will poll below 30% at the GE, and if the economy works well for them they could be higher.
Polls on potential leaders are useless – I remember polls before Brown became leader claiming that Labour’s support would drop under Brown, when almost immediately Labour went 10 points clear – oh happy days!
@Alec – I find it so frustrating that only a couple of months ago Labour and Darling were ridiculed by the Cons, the right-wing press and armchair economists around their economic forcasts – the more and more promising news coming out the quieter and quieter these ‘experts’ have become.
I recall the Tory Leadership contest when Thatcher went and the Conservative Party candidates being in the news evry night made a difference in itself.Lot’s of ‘it would be bad if labour got in’ remarks before the candidates or their supporters moved on to their own pitch. Labour could not get any media coverage during the process.A similar thing would happen with a Labour leadership contest. In effect The Labour party would have weeks to advocate their polices dissing the Tories who would have little media space tro refute.Now the Economy is so bad this time that it may not make much difference but it is hard to see it making none.
Chances are Brown will hang on though.
It is interesting predicting what will happen. One thing I am struck by, which doesn’t help predictions, is that poll movements are bigger and swifter now than ever before. In this sense, the fact that Labour has polled a record low should by previous decades experience mean they are finished. But voter behaviour in previous decades was totally different. They may well be finished, but equally the GE may still be somewhat competitive.
@Alec
I can’t find anything that says that the OECD are predicting growth for the UK Economy in 2009. The only report I can find is them saying that the rate of decline in GDP is slowing. That’s not growth. Perhaps you would like to direct us to this report you quote.
Well, last week people voted in two separate elections to make it very clear that they do not want Brown running the country. The Labour Party has – for reasons that look a lot like the same self-interest underlying the expenses scandal – chosen to ignore voters and instead cravenly capitulate to Brown. How that special combination of self-interest, contempt for voters, and cowardice will wash with the public remains to be seen.
Angusa,
Exactly. Labours die hards are praying for some miraculous improvement in the ‘feel good factor’ within the next few months when, as history teaches us, it takes about a year AFTER GROWTH RETURNS for that to filter down to the electorate.
Though I’ve no doubt we may see growth return later this year, overall unemployment will be up and the economy will be smaller than it is now, people will be poorer.
If various other countries show signs of improvement at the same time then the Government will be left answering questions about why we needed to saddle ourselves with twice as much debt for the same result!
Labour are dead. Won’t poll over 30% from here on and will watch the Tories amass 45+ regularly from a months time onwards until any general election date. That’s my prediction.
“How that special combination of self-interest, contempt for voters, and cowardice will wash with the public remains to be seen.”
That is a very relevant observation James.
The Labour Party is engaged in a discussion about what is in its interests, and the interests of its MPs .
They desperately want to keep the voters at arms length because they are playing for time.
Brown’s stategy is built on four planks:-
1) Wait for the economy to improve late 09/early 10 & claim all the credit.
2) Do stuff which looks like removing the ability of MPs to write their own cheques on the Taxpayer & claim all the credit.
3) Start planning copy cat policies like “more power ” for patients & parents to cancel out Cameron’s manifesto.
4) Keep on saying “we will invest-they will cut”
1) may or may not happen & even if it does the voters may still say “thanks-now go”
2) There are too many Party initiatives already underway on this for Brown to get total credit-& he may not get legislation through anyway.There is the Kelly Report to come.The new Speaker will also have ideas & may be more independent than the last one.The voters will be confused by the array of initiatives.
3) The track record is all talk & no action-& who wants Conservative policies from a Labour Government?
4) Will the voters understand-or be made to understand by Fraser Nelson & others, that Labour’s last Budget included reductions in Public Expenditure.A new Labour Government -like a new Conservative will either have to cut spending or raise taxes.It will be a question of choices-not principles.
I think GB could win 2 out of these 4 with a huge following wind, but its one hell of a long shot.
The Weighted Moving Average is 37:22:19 and this has been completely stable since 31-May. The ComRes poll of that date was definitely a rogue as noted at the time.
A month ago it was 43:28:18 so it seems so far that the expenses scandal has hit C and Lab equally in absolute terms – they have each lost 6 pts. However this is a much bigger proportionate drop for Lab.
The effects of the spectacular bust-ups in the Labour Party will not have been felt in these polls and I would expect the C vote would recover to at least 43% whereas the Labour vote will fall nearer the Euro-election level of 16%. We shall see.
Graham,
The figures Philip JW refererd to from 2004 were the average opinion polls for Westminster at that time. I am inclined to agree that these, and the movement from 2004 to 2005, give a better guide to what may happen to Westinster polls from now until the GE than the actual Euro results.
As Phillip suggests, each of the three main parties will put on a modest amount compared to current Westminster polls as the euro boost for others gradually fades. The rate may be uneven, and patchy in geographic terms. It is also quite plausible that Lab may find it harder to do so than Cons and LDs.
Just for the record, the Lab lead in the polls in June 2004 was c3%, and their lead in May 2005 was 3%. So that puts paid to the ill-founded notion that polls always move in favour of the government as the GE approaches.
Alec, Chris
Tory voters ridiculed the *numbers.* Of course there *could* be a positive month or two dotted between down months. But the specific numbers of 1.5% this year and 3.5% for the next X years is what people were ridiculing.
Where you lefties are being far too optimistic is that you think once the first positive month is in, the economy is going to soar and we’ll see bigger and bigger growth each month. But actually, dont be surprised if we get further negative months dotted in there even after we start seeing positive months.
And if those projected numbers are not achieved, there is a hole in the budget since its those numbers the borrowing/spending numbers are based on.
Just like Chris with the housing market. You think once we see an up month the housing market has “turned round.” Fantasy.
Polls like this are completely inept at predicting what would actually happen if a certain event occurred. Especially so in this case given that ComRes have produced some obviously questionable polls previously and were the worst performing pollster for the recent elections.
Besides this is now a moot point since Brown is going nowhere at least until the autumn.
A key point to note is this. EVEN IF the economy recovers at the miraculous rate predicted by Ally Dee (and it wont) we will still be left with previously unthinkable debts – £606bn in just 4 years. That means that even if this recovery does take place, our economy is still going to be down the pan for at least 20 years. In the very likely event that the economy does NOT recover at that rate, we will be in an even worse state – probably needing to borrow well over £200bn this year alone.
When we will recover is not the issue – the fact is we are already so deep in the Brown&Darling stuff that our economy is out of it for the long haul. Recovery or no recovery, the next government – whatever party – will have to DRAMATICALLY cut public spending AND in all probability raise taxes. The result will be that the standard of living in the UK will fall by 10%, maybe more.
Graham,
Sorry, I did not make my last comment as clear as I should have.
Paul H J,
Yes, exactly that was point. Thank you for bringing clarity to the discussion.
Comparing the Euro and General Election is not comparing like to like. Indeed, according to my calculations Labour’s vote dropped by nearly 60% from the last GE to this EE. But due to the greater impact of the ‘others’ and the lower turnout in the EE it would be silly to assume that at the next GE such a massive drop in Labour’s vote will occur.
However, considering a 30% drop in Labour’s vote combined with a 10% rise in the Tory vote would result in them taking about 150 seats from Labour in the coming GE, the EE result does seem rather ominous for Labour.
If labour fell by 30% from the last GE that would leave them with 25%, while a Tory rise of 10% would give them 36%. That seems to leave an awful lot for the smaller parties.
In reality I think the Conservative vote will rise by at least 20% from the last GE – to about 40%, while Labour’s vote will not drop quite so drastically, perhaps also by around 20%, leaving them on 28/29%.
Libdems are likely to shed around 10% of their vote, and poll about 20%, while other parties will surely pick up a bit – in particular the 3 “best of the rest” – UKIP, Greens and BNP.
I mean good point Re: 9:56am
Perfect examples of this delusion are the VAT cut and the car scrapping scheme. These do not help the economy, they hurt it. I expect a comment like that will blow the minds of some people here though.
Philip JW,
My pleasure.
The reason I was only “inclined” to agree with you is that I think we may still have some fall-out from the expenes affair to work through. This is most likely to manifest itself by a higher vote for “others” in the short term.
On the expenses fiasco (* see below) – I suspect that the effect will fade over the summer, but be re-ignited briefly in the autumn when Sir Christopher Kelly reports. However, provided Brown does not try to play politics and create unnecessary dividing lines, the whole issue can be put to bed by late October so that it falls away as a factor for any election next year.
I describe the expenses affair as a “fiasco” because of the way it has been handled by the Government, the Parliamentary authorities, the Party Leaders and the Media, and the way the public has reacted.
At the heart of the problem is the simple fact that we do not pay our MPs a salary commensurate with their responsibilities, and so make up for it with an allowance which is badly designed. In order to prevent the allowance being diluted by Tax, the system now calls for receipts so that it qualifies as a “deductible expense”, which in turn has led to some creative documentation.
Yes, some MPs abused the system in milking it for every penny they could get, and the system needs to be both rationalsied and made more transparent. But we should not allow ourselves to forget that MPs do need to operate two homes in order to fulfill their duties, and that has a cost which should legitimately be borne by Parliament. Whether that is done by grossing up their salary, a fixed (taxable) allowance or specified expenses (subject to a cap) is open to discussion, but some form of support is required unless we want to exclude any “normal” person from becoming an MP.
On the other hand, the furore stoked by the DT was totally out of proportion, and the constant drip of information became poisonous. It is almost as though the DT wanted to discredit all three major parties in advance of the Euro-elections so as to whip up support for minor parties such as UKIP. Funny how it has all gone quiet on that front now the election is over and UKIP have made net gains when only a few weeks ago they were expected to be routed.
Good point Neil at 9:56am. The thing that the left seem to ignore, or just not get, is that boosting GDP now by borrowing and spending simply brings future GDP into the present. We dont just magic extra GDP out of nowhere by playing with the numbers or printing some money like the left would love to tell you. We will pay for it (and *more* because of interest on the debt) with lower future GDP. Some are going to be surprised just how weak growth will be, on average, over the next few years. For many it will still feel like recession. And the Government are doing everything in their power to drag it out.
The funny thing is their ineffective line of attack on the Tories of “do nothing” is exactly what they should be doing. Nothing. We have to go through it. The damage has already been done in the last 10 years. Thinking we dont have to suffer or that we can reduce the suffering is the equivalent of denying gravity exists. We already consumed a whole load of stuff we dont even have. At the expense of savings and capital investment. How do we expect to just pretend that didnt happen? People seem to think that when we print money we are printing goods and services. Or when we borrow money to buy stuff, that stuff is ours. It isnt. Its on loan until we pay it off. And we still have to go without at some point to make that payment.
This jumping on every non-terrible bit of economic information recently, by the left, like its the sign of some imminent surge is very desperate. I notice there is no mention of the May 0.8% decline in retail sales after the April increase. Exactly the kind of stop/start im talking about.
(Anthony, I notice it was a version of the post above, with the most substance, that was deleted. Its interesting how with someone on the left like Chris Newey you often seem to just make edits and let the substance of the post remain. That’s telling I think. Although I can understand why people on the left dont want this kind of information being posted.)
Neil,
I suppose the main point I was seeking to make is that the Tories may only need to improve their share of the vote by 10% in order to take 150 seats from Labour.
@M what posts of yours I can see contain (in my opinion of course) very questionable economics that I’m tempted to reply to, and I imagine that’s why Anthony moderated you…..because such a debate would quickly turn into an argument and is waaay off topic.
Ive seen many people on this blog saying that ComRes’s credibility has been dashed, now before we go cruucifying comres we dont know the exact question asked in that poll, if they mixed it up with a euro-poll or anything, so who else is up for giving ComRes another chance before we crucify their credibility:p
Yes I have no doubt that in your mind it would be questionable. As well as in the minds of certain others here. Thats part of my point. Thats why I say words to the effect of “those on the left will tell you…”
Unless you are still trying to pretend on this site that you are not on the left?
You could always post it somewhere else and link to it.
@ M….I take it then that you are ’still’ convinced that I am on the left? I’d honestly like to know at some point what I’ve ever said to give this impression….as I said though, best not discussed here, I’m working on my own small site which may have a forum in the end, maybe we can talk there in future
Possibly for now we could agree to disagree without you insisting that I’m left wing because I disagree with you….and I won’t insist that you’re left wing because you disagree with me :p
Paul HJ,
I think you are underestimating the impact that the expenses scandal has on Labour’s traditional supporters.
There are still millions of hard working people in Britain who earn around 15,000 pounds a year. A large proportion of these jobs involve a high level of responsibility – even life and death ones. The lowliest backbencher earns 4 times more than that!!!!!!!!
How scandelous you find the expenses scandal is largely dependent on the sums involved realative to ones own personal income.
For many traditional Labour supporters the expenses scandal was a large last straw.
The one third drop in Labour’s support at the EE shows the extent to which Labour’s core support feels betrayed. Unless Brown, Darling, and people like Ed Balls are removed then there is a real danger they will get less than 20% at the GE.
Oh I would like to add one more word to the comment – pensioners!
@Wood – I wouldn’t be offended – anyone that doesn’t believe M’s Mail/Express mindset is a communist in this chap’s opinion.
Philip,
Thanks for the reality check in terms of how there is a gulf between the cocoon occupied by the Metropolis and the hard-working folk out there in the real world.
I can well see how this affects traditional Labour support more than other parties. Not just in terms of what their supporters earn relative to MPs, but also in terms of the expectation that Labour MPs are supposed to represent, and uphold, the same values and aspirations as their voters, and not behave like wannabe millionaires.
As you note, pensioners are a prime example of those offended by this scandal – and they were one of the groups badly affected by the 10p tax fiasco too. What is more, pensioners vote.
The danger, as I see it, from the DT campaign is that we may have a “populist” backlash which prevents us from attracting high calibre candidates who are not either wealthy or supported by outside interests (eg Trade Unions as the first Labour MPs were).
There is a fine balance to be achieved between compensating MPs properly and not attracting candidates who are anly after the money. This could perhaps be addressed by raising the minimum age qualification for candidates to say 30. That way, not only would MPs come into parliament with some breadth and depth, but they will also have a better appreciation of the role & responsibilities vs the reward offered.
Leading up the the 1997 General Election, most polls put Labour at least 15-20 points ahead, but they only won by about 12. I think quite a few people who intend to vote for the Tories will change thier minds in the voting booth and vote for Labour, thinking back to what the Tories did during Major’s Premiership. I’m not saying that Labour are doing a good job, far from it in fact. I think if they keep Brown the Tories will have a majority simaler to Thatcher’s in 1979, around 40, but if they replace him with Johnson within the next few weeks and he calls an election in September or October, it could be a hung parliament.
943,000 people voted BNP in the 2009 UK EU Parliament elections. ( 6.2% of 15million voters out of a 45million electorate)
193,000 people voted BNP in the 2005 UK General election.( 0.7% of 27 million voters out of a 44million electorate)
If , from cosy comfortable & secure communities, we go on telling the former group that the answer to their problems of housing, jobs & ethnic & cultural ghettos is more “intellectual rigour” they just might start voting BNP at the next UK GE as well.
Then we will have turned a local response to social exclusion amongst working class whites, by a bunch of demagogues, into a national movement.
Alec and Chris
Have either of you studied the subject of economics in your past scholastic careers?
At the moment both your utterances are inviting ridicule. There are fair points to be made in defence of the economic performance of the government and some of the criticism is OTT but until you stop living in cloud cuckoo land and imagining that the 7th cavalry is just around the corner nobody is going to take you seriously. A bit of humility and honesty would not go amiss.
Paul HJ,
I agree with everything you said. Its all about striking the right balance, and raising the minimum age of candidates to 30 would definately be sensible.
To get back to the main purpose of this website, this Com res poll on alternative leaders is likely to pour oil on a fire that Brown backers were hoping was dieing out.
I think the message being sent by the voters in the EE is that they have lost confidence in Labour, and in particular in Brown. There can be little doubt that his clumsy, insensitive response that MPs should be paid extra simply for turning up at work made things a lot worse.
In response to the failure to remove Brown I’m expecting Labour to drop a couple of points further in the polls.
@Angusa – the report was on the FT website, from yesterday I think.
@M – resorting to abusing me as a ‘leftie’ makes you look very silly – you clearly didn’t read or understand my post. Nothing in it suggests any personal political persuasion of mine, and I find your comment offensive. Your later comments re the VAT cut and scrappage scheme don’t fit with what is actually happening, but your post at 12.41pm does raise some interesting issues. You are quite correct about the impact of spending on future GDP growth – the key question you have failed to address is what would happen if the government ‘did nothing’ as you suggest. For example there is already clear evidence that government intervention will mean far fewer home repossesions than in the last recession. This means fewer families to rehouse, less benefits payments and lower government spending. As with VAT cuts and scrappage schemes – if they keep retail and auto workers in jobs we spend less on benefits. Your solution does not prevent public debt growth. The question is which approach is best? I’m not a ‘leftie’ nor do I pretend to know the answer. If you were honest you would also accept you have no certainty about which approach is correct – these are judgements, not facts. All I am saying, in a non political and unbiased way, is that there is some evidence that the UK governments approach is having a positive effect. I then pointed out that perceptions of this positive effect may (repeat may) have a bearing on the next election. This doesn’t make me a leftie, but your reaction to my posts says more about your political leanings than mine I think.
Note to posters;
1) Read posts
2) Understand posts
3) Only once steps 1 and 2 are completed respond to posts.
@ Nick Keene – another one who failed to grasp what I posted. As it happens, I have studied economics to a high level (probably higher than most people here, having spent many years lecturing on the subject) and currently run a successful small business. I’m not a Labour supporter, as I wearily have to point out far too often here, but I don’t necessarily subscribe to the most pessimistic view on the economy. If you read my posts carefully (take your time) you will see that I merely suggest the more hysterical rantings may be over the top. For example, Osborne fired off recently about a collapse in the pound on the exchange markets. Apart from being a particularly stupid thing for a likely future Chancellor to say in public, (in a years time its likely he will be depending on the markets, and they have long memories) I felt it is far too early to call anything on the UK currency, which funnily enough is just what the markets are thinking right now.
We had a hands off approach to previous recessions which was not a successful policy. We’ll all need to wait and see if the current approach is any better. If we are all honest, we will all agree that any policy approach is a gamble. Now its your turn to show some ‘humility and honesty’ and admit you don’t know the answers for certain either. The between us is I don’t go around abusing those who hold differing view points.
Alec
I cannot take seriously your claims to knowledge of economic competence when you claim that the latest OCED report shows that the UK would be in growth in 2009.
Oh and come on off your high horse you are clearly a Labour supporter.
@Nick Keene – sorry, but you are quite wrong. The period since 1997 has been characterised by timid government and wasted opportunities, with an economic model that was grossly over reliant on financial markets and with a view on wealth distribution that is socially damaging and economically illiterate. It’s all stuff I was teaching in the early 1990’s, but I don’t feel any pleasure in the ‘I told you so’ line. I see the first signs in Osborne’s speech yesterday that he is beginning to understand some of the issues, but I have little confidence in the Tory leadership – they have been as culpable as Labour and never once saw the dangers. In the present circumstances I fear a Tory government slightly more than a Labour one – (but only slightly more). If you think that makes me a Labour supporter, then think what you like.
And if you’re interested, the FT reported on June 7th a survey of city economists the majority of whom believe the UK recession is technically over ‘for now’. You need to accept that, rightly or wrongly, this is a widespread view among economists. The key question is whether the upturn is based only on short term issues like restocking inventories and whether consumer confidence will still hold, or whether there will be a ‘double dip’ recesssion or a very slow recovery, which is my personal view.
Do try to keep up.
[Snipped straightforward abuse - AW]
Alec,
On the economy, there are a range of views as to:
a – the likely path / timeline for recovery
b – the measures most likely to have an impact on that path in the short-term
c – the long-term impact of any measures in b (which may differ from their short-term impact)
d – whether it is preferable to have a double-dip (”W”)or a prolonged slow (”L”) recovery. (a sharp “V” is most unlikely – and probably undesirable).
Whatever the measures taken and the pace of the recovery, one fact remains, the country has a large structural fiscal deficit which is unsustainable in the long-term. That will require a combination of public spending cuts and tax rises to repair. We can debate the balance as between spending cuts and tax rises, but we cannot ignore the problem.
I agree that Cameron / Osborne policy from 2006-2008 failed to address that issue, but I think that was probably driven more by political calculations than a lack of economic understanding. The evidence for taht is how quickly the party has adapted to what is a new political paradigm (inasmuch that the public may now finally understand that the economic trajectory for much of teh past decade was always unsustainable) and are willing to accept that (a) we have a problem and (b) the solutions will be painful.
Brown on the other hand appears to be adopting the Micawber approach that something will turn up to make his problem go away. In all probability taht something will be that time runs out on him and it becomes Cameron’s problem not his.
@Paul H-J – I agree with pretty much all of what you say. I am slightly less charitable towards Cameron/Osborne, particularly with the ’sharing the proceeds of growth’ line they used to take. Both parties have also largely ignored the enormous imbalance in taxation that favours the wealthy that has been a major part of the structural deficit, and to date no one has come up with any proposals that will enable economic policy and performance to become less reliant on the distortions of a malfunctioning housing market. Over time uncontrolled assett inflation is as bad as retail price inflation, but despite repeated bad experiences with this UK policy makers have steadfastly refused to adapt policy. Osborn is beginning to talk about restricting mortgage credit in one way or another, but unless this is combined with other actions to either boost supply or control demand, house buying will return to something only the middle classes can achieve. But you’re right – there will be pain, and the political argument will be over where that pain will fall. The Tory’s past record on this is not good, but we’ll have to wait and see if Cameron can do better.
Alec,
I think that where we may differ in our view of the validity of ’sharing the proceeds of growth’ as a policy is that you are looking at it from what is right / needed for the country, whereas (all) politicians have to make a subtly different calculation as to what is “acceptable” to the electorate in order to gain office.
The sad reality is that the electorate do not have a good track record in rewarding politicians who present honest, but unpalatable, positions.
The economic predicament in which we find our country is not solely the responsibility of either the government or bankers, but of all those who suspended their doubts and bought into the idea that we could somehow maintain our standard of living on the back of borrowing against inflated asset prices.
At the risk of getting into a morality debate, the tragedy is that any solution will require the genuinely prudent to shoulder the greater burden while the profligate are supported out of the mire into which they have wandered. But it was ever thus.
Preventing a recurrence of the problem will however require some serious changes not just to government and welfare policy, but to social attitudes and ideas of personal responsibility – and that is where the “Broken Britain” strategy comes into play.
Fortunately, that task is not so much about spending programmes and more about moral leadership. In teh long-term it could significantly reduce the welfare burden on public spending – but it will be a long haul (decades, not just years).
Alec
Do try to keep up? What keep up with you!!!
Please answer the question originally put to you by Angusa
Where does the OCED say in their latest report as YOU HAVE CLAIMED that they forecast growth in 2009? Until you answer that question which you have been dodging ever since Angusa put it you have zero credibility.
Until today, as an ex-Liberal, I was intending to vote Conservative come the General Election. However, I have heard on the news tonight that Brown has ordered a look at Electoral Reform. If, and it is a big if, he can deliver a referendum BEFORE calling a General Election AND that at least AV Electoral Reform is as a consequence thus implemented PRIOR to GE polling day next year I will switch to Labour, even if still led by him – as I suspect many current Cameron-leaning ex-Liberals would do?!