I don’t usually comment much upon the “others” scores in regular voting intention polls – there’s various reasons for that: support for them is so low that movement from month to month is hidden away by rounding, for the SNP and Plaid you really need proper Scottish and Welsh polls to get anything meaningful, and for minor parties like UKIP, the Greens and BNP their support has little impact, whether any of them breaks through to win seats at Westminster depends far more upon them getting concentrated support in particular constituencies (as Caroline Lucas did in Brighton) than their overall support.

Nevertheless, the comparatively high levels of support for UKIP last week produced some comment, so I thought it time to have a better look at the figures. The graph below shows a four-week rolling average for the others in YouGov’s Sunday Times polls (obviously a rolling average of all YouGov’s daily polling would be better… but would take 7 times longer to type into a spreadsheet!)

graph

As you can see, there is an overall upwards trend, but different patterns for the different parties. The BNP’s position is largely unchanged from last Summer, with no obvious trend up or down in their support. The SNP & Plaid (YouGov do not separate them out in GB polling) have a rise in support, particularly in the run up to the Scottish and Welsh elections last May – very much in line with the increase in SNP support that we know happened at the time from Scottish polling.

The Green party have a clear upwards trend in their support, though total levels remain very modest. By far the biggest increase is for UKIP, who have gone from around 2% last July to around 5 or 6 percent.

One can only speculate about the reasons. It seems a fair assumption that the increase in the last week is due to the issue of Europe moving up the agenda (though it’s worth noting that UKIP’s support is not always based on the issue of Europe – in past polling we’ve seen that issues like immigration are more important). I’d suggest other factors could be support from the disgruntled right of the Conservatives, and perhaps more significantly, the Liberal Democrat entry into government meaning the Lib Dems are less available as a vehicle for protest votes from those opposed to the main two parties, and that other parties have the opportunity to pick up these votes.


258 Responses to “Growing support for “other” parties”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. CROSSBAT11

    I think you are ignoring Curtice’s clear political bias.

    Prior to the Scottish GE, he appeared on TV ostentatiously wearing RED SOCKS!!!

    Need I say more? :-)

  2. @OldNat

    “I think you are ignoring Curtice’s clear political bias.
    Prior to the Scottish GE, he appeared on TV ostentatiously wearing RED SOCKS!!!”

    Blimey, I hadn’t realised that he had revealed his political affiliations in such a blatant way. Mind you, they say the colour of one’s underpants is usually the tell-tale sign. Mine rarely come into public view but those lucky few who have seen them with their own eyes will vouch for them being of the deepest red hue, with a hammer and sickle tastefully, and thoughtfully, embroidered on the Y Front!! lol

  3. Mine are black and tattered.

    Appropriate for the world economic output…

  4. Mine are gold plated, bloated and unproductive.

  5. @Lefty Lambton, [plus Valerie, & Colin.
    “I don’t recall howls of complaint about the public sector during those years.
    Ups and downs…”

    As long as private pension plans were prospering — high annuity rates, rising stock values to ca 2000– we didnt hear much about public sector pensions. Then, when things went to [money] pot in the private sector, the latter turned on the public sector, demanding “equal misery”. The mismanagement of private funds by company bosses who were supposed to know what they were doing, the imbecility of “pension holidays”, eagerly grasped by misinformed private employees, the calculated optimism of financial advisors who predicted high growth rates into the indefinite future, etc attract little or no criticism.

  6. Robbie.

    In my own professional area, there were regular complaints in the professional literature (c.2000) that we were tied into boring final salary pensions; that we should overhaul the system and have a defined contributions pension because this would give us untold riches in retirement.

    In the 10 years between 95 and 05, as a public sector employee (working on projects that would give Chou pause for thought I should add), I never once got a pay rise above 4%. In that period, I was regularly ribbed by mates who were coining it in in the private sector.

    How quickly we forgot that era once the private sector started suffering.

  7. Tonight’s YouGov:

    Con 37
    Lab 41
    Lib Dem 8
    UKIP 6
    SNP / PCY 3
    Green 2
    BNP 0
    Respect 0
    Other 1

    Approval 28 – 58 = -30

    Non-voters 23% (Tories 10%)

    Tables are here:

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2011-11-02/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-021111.pdf

  8. Old Nat,

    I’m sure I’ve seen a couple of ‘skool’ references, thought probably poor spelling, more than homage to St Custards….. :-)

    Generally, it must be a day for leaning on the sanctity of ‘professional’ opinions. I’m sure Prof Curtice is deeply eminent, so his views are not to be disparaged, even though we are told that history is irrelevant in the new Coalition scenario in which we find ourselves. But if he sees Labour in the driving seat, who am I to argue?
    I can only put forward the opinions of the cream of the UK turf accountants.
    11-8 on for Tories to win most seats next time round. Labour generally 11-10.
    Prof Curtice I suspect doesn’t lose his job if he’s wrong, but the market makers will if they’re wrong. So I’ll not bet the farm yet on Curtice’s call.

  9. Latest YouGov/Sun results 2nd Nov CON 37%, LAB 41%, LD 8%, Others 13%; APP -30

    No surprise there, then.

    I have developed this amazing predictive algorithm. You just leave the Lab vote unchanged, split the Con difference in the last two polls, assume the LD vote will move in the opposite direction to Henry’s latest prediction, and always allow for a rounding error.

    Alternatively, you can keep your eyes peeled in case YouGov’s tables inadvertently appear on their website a few hours before schedule.

  10. oldnat @ CROSSBAT11

    “I think you are ignoring Curtice’s clear political bias.

    Prior to the Scottish GE, he appeared on TV ostentatiously wearing RED SOCKS!!!”

    Last time I saw him at a concert his shirt tail was hanging out at the back. I’d rather trust someone with the Donald Dewar level of interest in his appearance than an Heir to Blair.

  11. Phil, great call. Nice bit of soothsaying. Shabby on the approval though at 1% out :-)

  12. OK, the last week’s worth of 5 YouGov polls have been the worst for the Lib Dems since the beginning of January. I haven’t noticed that the political weather nor news coverage has particularly changed in the last week or two. What do you think is going on?

  13. phil
    Since this thread seems to be about making predictions, here’s mine FWIW.

    I suggest that tonight’s YouGov might turn out to be something very close to C37, L41, LD8, Others 13.

    November 2nd, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    phil
    LThis prediction lark is getting a bit lonely. Nonetheless, here’s another. Govt Approval -30 tonight.

    November 2nd, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Uncanny – you even got the rounding right. Maybe the clue lies here:

    Label
    Update 2nd Nov – Voting Intention + councils
    Linkhttp://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2011-11-02/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-021111.pdf
    PublishedWed November 2, 6:15 p.m. GMT

  14. colin green

    “OK, the last week’s worth of 5 YouGov polls have been the worst for the Lib Dems since the beginning of January. I haven’t noticed that the political weather nor news coverage has particularly changed in the last week or two. What do you think is going on?”

    Nobody likes the Lib Dems?

  15. Damn, you’re not supposed to confess till the next to last chapter. :P

  16. @Bluejock. Thanks for the compliment, though given our posts crossed I suspect the last para will prompt you to retract it. Approval was 0% out.

  17. NickP

    Can’t resist an open goal? It was meant to be an open question. What’s changed?

  18. @Bluejock

    “I can only put forward the opinions of the cream of the UK turf accountants.
    11-8 on for Tories to win most seats next time round. Labour generally 11-10.
    Prof Curtice I suspect doesn’t lose his job if he’s wrong, but the market makers will if they’re wrong. So I’ll not bet the farm yet on Curtice’s call.”

    Ah, yes, the seers and sages that are our bookmakers. Professor William Hill of The University of Ladbrokes has spoken and the result of a General Election in three and a half years time is determined. Of course, their odds ahead of the 2010 election, much nearer polling time, were stunningly accurate in terms of the eventual outcome too.

    Cardinal rule of betting. The bookies favourite always wins. I’m off to Ladbrokes tomorrow! lol

  19. @ Colin,

    I would say the LDs doing badly is largely because Nick Clegg has reared his head (after being non-existent for a long time) by trying to show his distance from the Cons (e.g on Europe last week, talking about growth etc). Unfortunately that’s reminded everyone that he is still there propping up the Cons and the LDs carry their share of the blame for the current policies etc.

    I think most of the time people see the govt as Conservative in ethos and policy. NC would be well advised to keep quiet and hope people forget he’s in government and leader of a different party. He’s certainly done as much as he can to get people to think he’s part of the Cons party.

  20. Socks reveal political preferences? Damn, I’ve been wearing Mosleyite British Union of Fascists socks for years!

  21. (When what I really wanted was the dark blue of the Griffinite BNP.)

  22. Bill Patrick

    I do hope they have been regularly washed!

  23. @Bill Patrick

    “Socks reveal political preferences? Damn, I’ve been wearing Mosleyite British Union of Fascists socks for years!”

    You haven’t got a black shirt to go with socks as well, have you??

  24. Why are the BBC so stunningly abject on the topic of pensions? They present a misleading ( that is to say blatant lie) statement that over 50’s will have their pension rights protected as a “concession” by a generous government – total nonsense. These workers will be paying 46% more in cash terms into the fund to receive the same benefits as now – how is that a concession? Ah yes because originally they were to be paying 62% more into a benefit paying 36% less.

    I think I need to explain the sheer brutality of the government’s proposals here – many of you on here don’t get it.

    At present an average employee pays in 6.5% a year into their pension for a nominal 40 years and gets on average 26 years of pension – this equates to around 24% of salary for a 6.5% contribution – it is generous and does need reform – no-one disputes that. What the government is proposing for those over fifty is a 9.5% contribution for either 24% or possibly with the changes to career average and re-indexing 21.5% of benefits ( the government contribution down from 17.5% to either 14.5 or 11%) . What it proposes for all other workers is a 46 year payment of 9.5% for 15% less in benefits for 25% less time. This effectively cuts government contribution from 17.5% of salary to around 5% . In other words the government intends to renege on its previous level of support by around 2/3 of the total amount.

    That is why we are so angry. If the government say reduced its contribution by say 20% or 25% and then used that cash saving to bolster earnings related pensions schemes for private sectoor employees then they might have a moral case. If they intended to use any of these savings to help private sector pensions for low and middles eareners then they might have some moral authority but this is purely and simply the government acting in the same unscrupulous manner as the private sector has – impoverishing employees to boost the wealth of others frankly.

  25. @Colin Green

    You said “…OK, the last week’s worth of 5 YouGov polls have been the worst for the Lib Dems since the beginning of January. I haven’t noticed that the political weather nor news coverage has particularly changed in the last week or two. What do you think is going on?…”

    Serious question, let’s treat it seriously. Since the election the Yellow vote a) fell to 11-13%, then b) fell further to 7-9%, then c) rose to 10-11%, then d) fell back to 8-9%, then e) rose to 9-11%, then f) fell back to its present 8-9%. Those coincided with a) the formation of the Coalition, b) tuition fees, c) the decision by Miliband to go easy on the LDs, d) AV vote, e) invisibility of Yellow during the News International kerfuffle, and f) strong defense of the HRA and EU from Clegg.

    Much of the insults directed at Yellow during year 1 revolved around them acting out-of-character, but I think that’s priced-in by now. What we are now seeing is Yellow acting *in* character – i.e. being Liberals and doing Liberal things. Problem is, these are illiberal times and people are looking for something to blame – the poor, the public sector, foreigners, et al. So although NickP was being glib, he was correct: liberalism ill-fits harsh and punitive times and so is not electorally popular.

    If it makes you feel better, Blue is bleeding to UKIP and Red are frankly invisible at the moment.

    Regards, Martyn

  26. This is a very male discussion about socks. Where are the women arguing that shoes are much more important?

  27. @NickP – “Mine [socks] are gold plated, bloated and unproductive.”

    Very funny.

    For what it’s worth, mine are green.

  28. Crossbat,

    I’m disappointed you took my comments on turf accountants as seriously as you took Curtice’s 2011 predictions on the 2015 election…….

  29. @Colin(10.14 pm)
    Colin,
    In response to your question I would suggest that there is an element of truth in Adrian B’s subsequent reply. As a Lib Dem member it seems to me that the only time that Nick stands up to the Tories is on a subject in which the LD position is not in line with the majority public position. Europe is a key example of this. Due, imo, to right wing reporting by the Express, Mail et al, the majority of the UK public support the UKIP position rather than the LD position yet this is where NC makes a stance. IMO if he had adopted similar opposi tion to the Tories on tuition fees, health reforms & education reforms then our VI position would be significantly higher.

  30. Phil,

    I initially suspected some subterfuge, but decided you seemed an honest chap…. :-)

    And forgive the memory lapse, I thought you’d said -31 approval but it must have been a n other……..

  31. Oldnat,

    Like my voting preferences, my socks change regularly.

    At least once every five years.

    Crossbat11,

    No, a brown shirt, which has no fascist connotations whatsoever, right?

  32. Martyn,

    I’d add bankers, stockbrockers, the Church of England and “greed” to that list of de rigueur subjects of blame right now.

    I for one blame the new sins of our time: lust, envy, wrath, taxes and death.

  33. And especially the Archers & Patrick Moore.

  34. Talk of socks is almost as funny as watching the G20 summit. I love the way Merkel and Sarkosy have announced what the Greek referendum question will be about. Looks like they have their political union already.

    Interesting watching Paul Mason on Newsnight. The article drew parallels with the 1930s but had some surprising free market voices saying it’s time to forget globalisation and start looking at national solutions. Andrew Lilico made the point that while we have lauded globalisation for two decades now, it’s largely a mirage. In reality, Asian governments have successfully gamed the system by falsely doctoring exchange rates and multinationals have played off governments who can’t respond due to the threat of global competition. He thinks we need to return to a more nationally based system of management to help countries devise their own solutions without being stripped by globalisation.

    Mason also pointed out that in the 1930s slump, those countries that abandoned the prevailing orthodoxy quickest by leaving the gold standard (UK was first out of the blocks) recovered quickest, while those that stuck with a discredited system suffered the most.

    Today, it’s the Euro that is the discredited system. Mason reported a government minister saying after we left the gold standard ‘I didn’t know we could do that’. Today, policy makers have a similar narrow mind set that assumes only a narrow range of choices lie in front of us. The truth is that we can decide to take any course of action we choose, so long as we are prepared to take the consequences, good and bad. In nature or economics, no system can last forever, so why do they continue to tell us there is only one option?

  35. @Martyn – “Yellow acting *in* character”

    Help! The Tories are planing a Maoist revolution.

    Ok, we’re part of the coalition, we’ll back your reforms.

    Now look, our conference told us we can’t back your reforms.

    Yeah well, we are are part of the coalition.

    Hold on, what was that about Europe?
    Sorry! Quite understand about the Ukip thing, forget I said anything. ;)

  36. It amazes me that (a) protectionists have persuaded people that fixed-exchange rates are a new thing and (b) the Norweigians and Australians have successfully convinced everyone that exchange rate manipulation is something those mischevious Asians do, what with their china-plated sovereign wealth funds and all. Or maybe the cunning Norweigians and Australians didn’t even have to go to the effort of such propaganda.

    I am yet to hear a persuasive argument that this crisis was caused by either (1) Asian people or (2) globalisation. The problem, as I see it, was a financial crisis caused by crony capitalism based on a Faustian pact of regulation in return for removing the loss-disincentive on banks, which was then aggravated by an inadequate monetary response similar to the 1930s in the US.

    I agree 100% that the 1930s teaches us that money-supply loosening (in a 1930s context, Britain leaving the Gold Standard and Roosevelt engaging in gold buying in 1933) is the key to getting out a monetary crisis. We many of the problems that I thought had been left in the 1930s:

    1. An inflation-hawkish American right at a time when inflation is averaging around 1% over 3 years.

    2. A stranglehold system (the euro) that is even more difficult to escape than the Gold Standard.

    3. A left that believes that monetary policy has “blown its wad” (Obama’s words).

    4. No clear objective from central banks.

    5. Sweden outperforming anyone due to expansionary monetary policy.

    6. Britain muddling through (one hopes) behind a combination of fiscal tightening and monetary loosening.

    One new problem is that Obama is no FDR and the American inflation-hawkish right is far more politically effective than the right was in the 1930s.

    (I should say, in the Gold Standard’s defence, that it only became a hopeless system once the Fed was established to control it. Christina Romer’s research proved that the pre-1913 US system was just as stable as the post-WWII period in output and more stable in prices.)

    As for leaving the euro, it’s a possibility and it may be the least-awful-alternative for some countries, but no lunches are free…

    I’ll leave off with a fair-minded prediction about the euro full of foresight from 2000, when the euro seemed to have a bright future, and allow people to guess the economist-

    ” … the various countries in the euro are not a natural currency trading group. They are not a currency area. There is very little mobility of people among the countries. They have extensive controls and regulations and rules, and so they need some kind of an adjustment mechanism to adjust to asynchronous shocks—and the ?oating exchange rate gave them one. They have no mechanism now.

    If we look back at recent history, they’ve tried in the past to have rigid exchange rates, and each time it has broken down. 1992, 1993, you had the crises. Before that, Europe had the snake, and then it broke down into something else. So the verdict isn’t in on the euro. It’s only a year old. Give it time to develop its troubles.”

  37. Iceman

    It’s clear that both sides are digging in for a lengthy war of attrition, with each side yielding ground by the inch until a deal is finally done in about two years’ time.

    I suspect both sides have a very good idea where the deal is to be done but unfortunately we’re going to have to go through a lot of strikes to get there. Neither side can afford to be seen to cave in.

    As a parent of kids at primary school I am resigned to them losing out on many days of their education. I have no choice.

  38. @Bill P,

    Is it Sir Alan Walters?

    Sounds like him.

  39. Sergio

    The “series of strikes” is how the unions and employers bridge the gap (in the short term).

  40. Neil A,

    Close, but someone from even more humble origins than Alan Walters with less of a record of being eurosceptic and more willing to consider the possibility of success. Alan Walters was certain the euro would fail since at least 1928 when he said his first word: “Euroblivion!”

  41. Bill P,

    Careful. You’ll get lynched on these pages for quoting such a heretic……to most here, if it’s not Keynes, it’s not economics…..

  42. @Colin

    Nick

    ”But you don’t like a public sector at all much, do you?”

    Don’t be silly
    ================================

    Colin, having read your posts for the last 2 1/2 years, it is self evident that you don’t like the public sector. NickP is hardly being defensive. 8-)

  43. Bluejock,

    I could have dug up a quote from Keynes about how a country can control its domestic price level or its exchange rate, but that would have the disadvantage of not being quite true since a country can have both those things at the cost of capital controls & the subsequent corruption, inefficiency and ultra-predatory financial system.

    I doubt that Keynes would have approved of the Euro (he supported the idea of a Bancor, but that would have at least been for only international purposes & revaluation would have been easier) and I also doubt he would have approved of the Keynesians’ enthusiasm for Britain’s entry into ERM in the 1980s.

  44. Gotcha!

    Milton Friedman.

    (I may have cheated a little).

  45. Bill P,

    Why did we (agree to) join the ERM when there was so little prospect of embracing monetary union?

  46. @ Bill patrick

    Keynes would have been horrified by the Euro – how can you have a currency and a central bank controlling it without direct accountability or control of fiscal levers?.

    The Euro is and was and always will be an insanity unless all members become part of a political union – no Germany,. no France no Italy but a United States of Europe with a federal structure – and this is politically unacceptable – so we are left with a giant nonsense of an EU with a Eurozone and outer nations.

    How we relate to this bizarre construction is a huge question.

    We are bound by and to and an organisation that we are only partly involved in – we are half pregnant if you like – we all know that the Uk cannot adopt the Euro politically or economically and so we will live in a state of constant tension between us and Europe.

    As this fiasco unravels expect a surge of scepticism leading to UKIP VI rising andto even more scepticism in the language and policies of both Labour and Tory parties.

  47. I think the answer to that is that at the time, a large part of the commentariat (including many senior Tories) genuinely thought we could, should and would embrace monetary union.

    I may be reassuringly middle-of-the-road these days when it comes to Euroscepticism, but I can remember when taking a simple, categorical “no way, Jose” stance on monetary union was wont to get a person written off as an ignorant, bigoted, empire-loss-mourning “Little Englander”.

    Those of us who mainly opposed monetary union because we simply didn’t see it as being a good thing for the UK were, basically, slandered.

  48. Pre-meeting
    ===========
    Papandreou: “Evangelos, it’s easy. I’ll go to Cannes, threaten them a bit, they’ll renegotiate no probs. Watch a master at work…”

    During meeting
    ==============
    Papandreou: “We propose a referendum in mid-January…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…just after Xmas…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…in early December…”
    Merkozy: “Continue”
    Papandreou: “…on the acceptance of the bailout…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…er, on Greece remaining in the Euro…”
    Merkozy: “Continue”
    Papandreou: “…whilst we renegotiate the bailout…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…whilst we accept the bailout as originally negotiated…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…whilst we defer the bailout until after the referendum…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…whilst we defer the bailout until after the referendum and conditional on that referendum being passed, even though we’re due to run out of money before then…”
    Merkozy: “No”
    Papandreou: “…whilst we defer the bailout until after the referendum and conditional on that referendum being passed, selflessly regardless of our own financial matters…”
    Merkozy: “Continue”

    After meeting
    ==============
    Papandreou: “Mindful of our duty to the Greek people and the wider world, we propose a referendum on 4/5 December on the subject of whether Greece should remain within the Euro. We voluntarily defer our loan of 8bn until after the doubtless triumphal affirmation of the question by the Greek people (or at least those who haven’t left yet). Let democracy reign!”

    Regards, Martyn

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15550422

  49. Some interesting changes to the 60-poll averages (the most recent 60 YG Scottish crossbreaks, averaged with a SD of one).

    Con: 19.5%
    Lab: 39.9%
    Lib: 6.1%
    SNP: 29.1%

    First, this is the first time I;ve seen Labour on less than 40% of the VI. Up until the YG methodology changes their VI was generally around 41%-42%. Expect the number to drop further (in the last thirteen polls only once have they had greater than 40% of the VI).

    Secondly, at last there’s been a change in the Scotland Votes Westminster seat allocation (ok, so it’s not that realistic, since the BC changes were announced). For months the seats were:

    Lab 43 (+2)
    SNP 8 (+2)
    Lib 5 (-6)
    Con 3 (+2)

    However, with the reduction of Labour’s VI, it now stands as:

    Lab 41 (NC)
    SNP 9 (+3)
    Lib 5 (-6)
    Con 4 (+3)

    Lastly, I’ve done another 60-poll graph, but this time I have removed the actual poll points, and left the trendlines in place, to give a more clear indication of things.

    h ttp://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/60poll2ndnov.png

    What’s really interesting is that the Lib Dem VI has remained largely unchanged throughout. I wonder how the methodology changes tie in to a flattening Lib Dem VI, while the other parties’ VI are shifting?

  50. @ Neil A

    “Those of us who mainly opposed monetary union because we simply didn’t see it as being a good thing for the UK were, basically, slandered.”

    Um….didn’t your side win and haven’t you been proven correct and vindicated? Although comments against your side were nasty and dismissive, I’m not sure they amount to slander.

    @ Old Nat

    “This is a very male discussion about socks. Where are the women arguing that shoes are much more important?”

    Really? I’ve never thought of discussing one’s socks as a male or female activitiy. Most of my socks are brown or black and purchased on sale at Johnston and Murphy. But then I have white socks for the gym, usually from New Balance or Nike and designed not to be particularly visible (they don’t go above the ankle, usually they sit below it). They go in different drawers even. I’m not sure if my socks have any political meaning to them. I’ve never thought of them having political meaning. Tie colors, those can have a political meaning (I have two blue ties actually for this (both Brooks Brothers), I wore one to an Inaugural Ball…of course I never wear ties and they usually just kinda sit in my closet. Also I kinda like blue and think of it as my color so I’m not sure the decision was completely political).

    A conversation about shoes is a more female conversation. But I’ve never thought of shoes as having political meaning though either.

    @ Alec

    “Talk of socks is almost as funny as watching the G20 summit. I love the way Merkel and Sarkosy have announced what the Greek referendum question will be about. Looks like they have their political union already.”

    I get the feeling that like none of them know what the hell they’re doing.

    @ Bill Patrick

    “One new problem is that Obama is no FDR and the American inflation-hawkish right is far more politically effective than the right was in the 1930s.”

    I think that’s a little unfair. FDR wasn’t that effective in his first two terms and saw 1938 put conservative majorities in both Houses of Congress. I’m not so sure the American inflation-hawkish right is as effective as you think either.

    In fact, I’m not sure how inflation-hawkish they really are. Because, they seemed to have no problem charging the country’s credit card during Dubya’s presidency. Trillion dollar war in Afghanistan, trillion dollar war in Iraq, 1.6 trillion in tax cuts mostly to the wealthiest, 600 billion for a prescription drug plan designed to be more than twice as expensive as it had to….I could go on but I think the point is clear. I don’t use this just as political hay either but to point out simple reality. They spent like no other. Now, they oppose spending. But honestly, they seem to oppose just about anything Obama says or does or proposes. Hell, they’ve even held up funding for Gabe Zimmerman’s (Gabrielle Giffords’s staffer who was murdered) memorial room at Capitol Hill. So, I’m not sure how much their inflation-hawkism is based on actual ideology or political opportunism.

1 2 3 4 5 6