This morning’s YouGov poll for the Sun is here and has topline figures of CON 33%, LAB 43%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%. Once again, the Lib Dems remain in double figures.

Yesterday Opinium also put up an interesting article clarifying their methodology and pondering why it could be that they consistently show some of the highest levels of support for UKIP. First, it confirms that Opinium use two-stage prompting in their voting intention question, asking people if they’d vote Con, Lab, Lib Dem or Other, and then only giving the options of BNP, Green and UKIP to people who say other (this is the same as YouGov and in contrast to Survation, who prompt for UKIP in their main question).

Opinium’s guess seems to be that their higher UKIP scores are down to not politically weighting their sample. As regular readers will know, the majority of polling companies use some sort of political weighting. In most cases they weight their samples so that respondents’ recalled 2010 voting behaviour roughly matches what actually happened in 2010, with some allowances made for faulty memory, though YouGov instead weight using party identification. The two exceptions are Ipsos MORI and Opinium.

Ipsos MORI do not weight by past vote because they worry that the levels of false recall can change in response to changing public opinion, in particular they worry about people aligning their recollection of how they voted in May 2010 with how they’d vote now. Other companies like ICM and Populus acknowledge the reality of false recall, but think it is basically pretty constant and changes only slowly over time. In practice it means that MORI’s samples are sometimes more Labour inclined than those of other companies, and can be more volatile (although MORI would argue that this is genuine volatility that weighting by recalled vote is disguising).

Anyway, Opinium are the other company that do not politically weight and suggest in their article that this could be why they are showing a higher level of UKIP support than most other companies. This is certainly feasible. As I’ve written before, the two most obvious explanations for the difference between online and phone polls in terms of UKIP support is either interviewer bias (people are embarrassed to admit to a human interviewer that they are supporting a party outside the main three, less so to a computer screen) or if people who are online are more likely to vote UKIP than those who are not (or, of course, a combination of the two factors). If online panels do get a disproportionately large proportion of the sort of people who’d vote UKIP, then not using some sort of political weighting to control for this could easily produce much higher levels of UKIP support.


182 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – CON 33, LAB 43, LD 10, UKIP 10”

1 2 3 4
  1. On the volume III of Das Kapital and Charlie Marx… I think a lot is misinterpreted and selectively chosen from the said volume. It makes no sense without Volume I. Marx wasn’t against the financial capital, he was against capitalism. He showed that all wealth is appropriated by the capitalists – there is no innocent wealth. There is such a thing as “good” capital and “bad” capital – especially not since the 1870s. It is the two faces of the same thing.

    Current pseudo-Marxists and pseudo-leftists quoting busily from Volume III are disingenuous and in many cases (Sachs, Stiglitz) plain hypocrites.

    For those who still believe in capitalism, it would be more useful to quote those parts from Volume III, where he refers to how the managers and non-exec directors fleece the shareholders. There is are tons of studies on how it was done in the last 20 years. But of course the competition of China and India, etc. and also the banks are the causes of the problems not the fact that probably about 30% of the profits are simply stolen…

  2. @ Tingedfringe

    “Fingers crossed that doesn’t happen.”

    You have really only two choices: QE that eventually triggers sufficient inflation to reduce the real value of the existing debts OR a proper recession that wipes out claims for non-existing profits (including profits made from debts that do not perform).

    It is really tough: a proper recession would really upset the social order and so would a relatively quick inflation. But if the economic system of the post war period to be continued – one or the other, because the current economic policies (anywhere) do not work and rot the social order.

  3. ” “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl”

    Irving Berlin.

  4. To the voting intentions and polls.

    If the Labour Party was (want to be) serious, it would only have produce videos of Conservative MPs cheering the cuts back in 2010 and cuts on the same MPs giving a lesson to the lower classes last week. Produce a video for various websites and for YouTube and it is done…

    The second part of the video would require some thinking so probably it would have to be Part I and II though.

  5. TF

    I’m not sure why us dipping into recession (again) would be such a disastrous thing per se. The disaster is unfolding already in the long-term slump that NIESR’s graph shows only too clearly. We are de facto in a long term recession already with no sign of us pulling out of it. Every month that goes by like this moves is further and further from the long-term growth trend that has held for 60 years and we are hard-wiring in a permanent reduction in wealth.

    What we should be having by now is above-trend growth to catch up. In that light, whether we dip into a (entirely conventional) recession is neither here nor there.

    Except for its effect on polling of course…

  6. @Lefty L

    “On the subject of NIESR, their regularly-updated Recovery (sic) from Recession graph is turning into ideal Labour election campaign material for GE15.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vynzPm3k8H4/UPAn7SM8q-I/AAAAAAAAANE/cwszy58748o/s1600/gdp+to+december+2012.jpg

    All the Labour folk have to do is find a crayon a put a big arrow pointing to where May 2010 is on the time axis”
    ____________________________

    Don’t hold your breath. I’m astonished by Labour’s continued failure to make any serious attempt to use the significant recovery it engineered in 2009 – 2010 as a means of counter the daily coalition mantra of “Labour’s mess”. It’s a serious tactical mistake, on a par with Labour’s failure in 1992 to properly rebut the charges that it was planning to hike general taxation.

    The lessons apparently learned after 1992 -that is, the need to contront the myths rather than allowing them to run and run – have apparently been forgotten, especially by Ed Balls.

  7. You only had to watch this week’s QT to see Labour struggle to win any argument, even in a sympathetic area like Lewisham (mostly because of their New Labour chickens coming home to roost).

  8. Hmmm- I was wondering when TNS BRMB were doing another poll and this one came up for 8 January on their website:

    Voting intentions poll shows CON 29% (-1), LAB 39% (-1), LD 10% (+3), UKIP 12% (0), OTHER 9% (-1)

    I may have missed this in the clutter of posts but can’t see that anyone has mentioned it. Not that there is any change!

  9. “Don’t hold your breath. I’m astonished by Labour’s continued failure to make any serious attempt to use the significant recovery it engineered in 2009 – 2010 as a means of counter the daily coalition mantra of “Labour’s mess””

    Possibly because it was driven by a 3% year on year increase in the deficit to 11.3% of GDP. Anyone can make the economy look like it is recovering if you just hose it down in even more borrowed cash.

    That is neither a real recovery nor a sustainable one. I think the Labour front bench are at least honest enough with themselves to understand that even if they don’t admit it.

    If there was no mess, why did Liam Byrne leave the famous message saying ” Sorry, there’s no money left”, then?

    I really think Labour would be doing a lot better in the polls if they moved on from this approach of claiming they were entirely innocent of the whole 2007-08 debacle. They would be a whole lot more convincing if they fessed up and moved on from it.

  10. “I really think Labour would be doing a lot better in the polls if they moved on from this approach ”

    Blimey. Better than 40% of the vote? That really would be landslide territory.

  11. @ RB

    I don’t think the general public is that knowledgeable for it to matter. I’m sure I read somewhere that 60% of people didn’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt and thought that the Tory plan was to wipe out the debt in one parliament.

    It may matter more to decision makers, “the markets” or political commentators who can partly set agendas and give credibility to an economic policy, but you just have to look at any political discussion about the economy to see how much nonsense all parties talk. So pick any random country who’s stats fit the argument and say how much better/worse we are doing than that country.

    Labour would be just as well to go on about how the debt is doubling in one parliament- yes it would probably have doubled under Labour, but soundbites are everything just as ‘triple dip’ and ‘new recession’ impact on what people think even though these situations have occured simply because of a few ups and down in the figures.

  12. “If there was no mess, why did Liam Byrne leave the famous message saying ” Sorry, there’s no money left”, then?”
    This has been explained before – it is a running joke at the treasury to leave a note for your successor which basically says, ‘Oops, sorry about the mess’. The coalition decided to take this out of context and leak it for (admittedly effective) political gain.

    Lazslo, Lefty,
    I disagree that the current slump is worse – it may mean that the social pain lasts a lot longer (although if we slump our way to the next election, the markets will be demanding a Keynesian response) – a recession ‘really upsetting the social order’ is putting it mildly.
    The re-emergence of extreme ideologies is really devastating Greece at the moment and a similar situation (where the police are in the pockets of a fascist party) is hardly what I want over here.
    There are proto-fascist rumblings already over here, but thankfully hasn’t developed further in to something like Golden Dawn.

  13. @RB
    “That is neither a real recovery nor a sustainable one.”
    I could spend a lot of time trying to persuade you otherwise, and no doubt you me. But it woud very likely be to no avail for both of us, and that’s not the point of this site anyway, so let’s not bother.

    The issue is about tactics, and I’ll address that separately.

  14. @”Current pseudo-Marxists …….. are disingenuous ”

    That’s what I like about them.

    They use strange words too-like Stanley Unwin used to- ( though not as funny).

    Deep Joy

    And I love their strange world of global socio-political conspiracy. They seem to live in a permanent episode of The X Files.

  15. The left seems almost non-existent in the UK, the best is the Green Party and this poll gives them a pathetic 1%.

    Disappointing!

  16. RB
    “That is neither a real recovery nor a sustainable one. I think the Labour front bench are at least honest enough with themselves to understand that even if they don’t admit it.”

    And that comment sums up the paucity of the debate in this country. Sweeping assertions and trite one-liners have dominated the response to the most severe and complex economic difficulties for 80 years, if not 140 years.

    In such a climate, is there any wonder that we have stumbled into our own Lost Decade?

  17. @ AW

    Maybe time for an update on the UKPR average?

    I did have a question to ask about how this is calculated because You Gov seem to have about 50% of the polls taken so is there any weighting to take account of this? Seems to me that a lot of other polls are showing both Lab and Con dropping to around 39% and 30% respectively whereas yougov has them both one or two points higher.

    I suspect this is to do with higher UKIP scores on other polling organisations maybe moving from don’t knows rather than a drop in actual support (especially for Labour) so with more people expressing a preference for UKIP the percentage share for Labour drops.

    Either way it seems a little unfair if Yougov takes 50% of the data on working out any average.

  18. Shevii
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average
    ..has details of the weightings.

  19. RB’s response rather makes my point, which is about political tactics.

    As things stand, we’re not having a debate, just one side firing “Labour’s mess” shells with no response whatsoever. The absence of response implies (at least, in the eyes of the public) acceptance of the idea that the deficit results entirely from lousy actions of the previous government which continued right to the very end of its term.

    By contrast, a debate over the question “would Labour’s 2009-2010 recovery have continued if Osborne hadn’t slammed on the brakes so hard” would frame things very differently. It would leave he coalition (a) starting from the acceptance that there was a significant recovery in GDP under Darling’s Chancellorship and (b) having to argue that Osborne’s actions to bring that recovery to a shuddering halt so quickly really were necessary.

    Now we can all disagree over the merits of the answers to the question. But the point is that the latter debate puts the coalition on the defensive, and fights the battle in a manner consistent with the course that Balls is advocating now.

    Such a debate doesn’t require Labour to defend its entire record, just the record in the aftermath of the crash. It’s quite possible to advocate a very different course from that followed by Osborne, whilst conceding the case that the country should have been in a (slightly) better position to cope with the global financial crisis of 2008. That is, it’s possible still to accept that Brown should have been more restrained in terms of the public finances in the middle of the last decade and that he was unwise to go along with those on the right arguing for effectively unregulated financial markets.

  20. A very interesting speech today from EM to the Fabian Society.

    I was particularly interested to hear His thoughts on the insecurity of tenure in the private rental sector and the suggestions of a move towards longer term security of tenure as present in the rest of Europe.

    I know this might not be a jump out policy but with 9 million people in private rented accommodation already and growing fast and property purchase effectively unaffordable for 80% of those living in our major cities and the South East this is a vital area of reform which is being totally ignored by the current Government.
    In my own situation my Family have been fortunate to rent the same property for 13 Years but as Ed said we could be required to move at just 2 months notice despite always paying our rent and being model tenants.

    This and indications of pursing a living wage policy are IMO potential election winning policies.

  21. @ RB

    Possibly because it was driven by a 3% year on year increase in the deficit to 11.3% of GDP. Anyone can make the economy look like it is recovering if you just hose it down in even more borrowed cash.
    ————————–
    And yet Osborne + the BoE have hosed the economy with £325Bn of QE with £50Bn more approved & failed to get anything like the growth which Labour got from targeting a little bit of borrowing & VAT reduction to exactly where it was needed.
    ————————–
    That is neither a real recovery nor a sustainable one. I think the Labour front bench are at least honest enough with themselves to understand that, even if they don’t admit it.
    ————————-
    Labour have, like we do on this site, looked at polling & decided the voters don’t want to hear it. “We were doing great & you stupid people didn’t re-elect us, now look what’s happened!” simply isn’t likely to win friends & influence people, is it?

    Labour were doing what was needed to turn the economy around. That said, the Tories in opposition would never have accepted that QE was needed, had it been Labour which was doing it. The – so far – mature acceptance of a policy which would have caused absolute uproar had the boot been on the other foot, speaks so highly of Labour that I am surprised by it myself!
    ————————–
    If there was no mess, why did Liam Byrne leave the famous message saying ” Sorry, there’s no money left”, then?
    ————————–
    Because he knew that the banks/ UK monetary system was illiquid to the point where £Bns of QE would be needed. He didn’t write: ‘We’ve spent all the money.’ He wrote: “There’s no money left,” because he meant it literally, IMO. He’d have been out of the shadow cabinet ages ago, was there not an alternative explanation for what he wrote. That said, it was still a stupid letter to write.
    ————————–
    I really think Labour would be doing a lot better in the polls if they moved on from this approach of claiming they were entirely innocent of the whole 2007-08 debacle. They would be a whole lot more convincing if they fessed up and moved on from it.
    ————————–
    ‘Fessed up to what exactly? Failing to do the £375Bn of QE soon enough? Not regulating the banks enough? Labour have already admitted to these faults. So what do you have in mind that Labour should ‘fess up to?

  22. LEFTY

    @” the paucity of the debate in this country”

    That is a fair comment-but when you observe Japan’s latest desperate gamble with yet more Sovereign Debt -after two decades of trying-I think you have to conclude that the influence which politicians have on systemic macro economic changes & catastrophes is severely limited-however much they talk & theorise.

  23. AMBER

    @” He didn’t write: ‘We’ve spent all the money.’ He wrote: “There’s no money left,” because he meant it literally, ”

    Your best yet Amber.

    unlimited smileys.

  24. I think Labour are being a little unfairly crisitcised for their tactics here by some. As has been mentioned, they have established a clear VI lead, which, considering the mauling they took in 2010, is in itself something of an achievement, although there remain many caveats about how firm or ‘real’ this lead may prove to be.

    There is one phrase that does seem to have been forgotten here, which is the ‘too far and too fast’ mantra. It’s not used so much now, but it was very effective and for a while it became ingrained in political and economic commentary. In my view, it did everything some are suggesting Labour should have done, but in a much better way.

    Without trying to defend themselves or specify anything in particular, which would have left them open to attacks that they were trying to gloss over Labour failings, the phrase neatly encapsulated a risk that turned out to be true and highly relevant. It consciously places the onus onto the government, without specifying how good or bad the circumstances they inherited were, and it provides a subtle yardstick against which to measure government performance. In doing these three things, it has proved far more valuable to Labour than simply trying to argue that the situation in May 2010 wasn’t as bad as all that.

    I actually think Labour have done as well as they could have expected with their tactics, and events have greatly strengthened their hand. They called the future economic circumstances correctly, and have reaped the political reward so far. Lets not forget that Balls was derided by many right leaning posters on here for the ‘too far, too fast’ mantra, as these people confidently expected growth and a wiping out of the structural deficit within a parliament. This was a huge political gamble by Labour, and they pulled it off.

    This is a zero sum game, so if Labour are up, Tories are down. Labour gambled that they could sow the seeds of doubt about government economic policy, during the coalitions own honeymoon period. Events panned out very well for the tactic, and now, while there is undoubtedly a considerable level of residual doubt over Labour still in the minds of the electorate, there are equally rising doubts about the coalition. This, far more than a line by line defence of Labour’s own record, is a far more effective strategy for 2015.

  25. The main argument against turning the focus back on what happened when the Tories took over is that it reopens the “look what a mess we were left with” narrative. As Alec says, that argument is now effectively neutered, in that it is priced into the current polls. Re-opening the argument might not have the desired effect.

    Things are now moving onto more favourable territory for Labour (triple dip, loss of tripleA rating, 80% of cuts still to come). These are effectively the same points (massive cuts and the economy is still flatlining) but don’t hark back to a past where the Tories can try to shift the blame onto Labour.

  26. @ Alec

    There is one phrase that does seem to have been forgotten here, which is the ‘too far and too fast’ mantra.
    ——————
    The Autumn Statement made it redundant. Osborne is now working to pretty much the same timetable as Darling was. If Osborne pushes it out any further, Labour will be using ‘too little too late’ as the mantra.

  27. ACA The Underground

    “The left seems almost non-existent in the UK, the best is the Green Party and this poll gives them a pathetic 1%.”

    The SNP are Butskillite.

    Nowadays Harold MacMillan would be regarded as centre left, and to the left of NewLabour.

  28. Two consecutive days of “senior ex Ministers” knocking the Govt.

    Heseltine on Cameron/referendum is brilliant. Absolutely cutting.

    Wonder if these drip-drip-drips add up in polling……

    Craig: They don’t just ship the locals from Lewisham into Q. Time – they ballance the audience as I thought would be fairly obvious.

  29. UKIP 10, LD 10

    Two points up or down for either or both would, with FPTP tell us nothing.

    The LDs are/were strong in the SW and in Scotland and get/got seats. 10% gets you nothing if it is evenly spread.

  30. Martyn

    That made me laugh

  31. @Robin

    Nonesense, Labour left a truly awful mess and it will be remembered by voters come the election.

  32. @RiN

    Funny it is. Funny leads to laughter. Laughter leads to constipation. Constipation leads to big blocked bottom burps. I sense much methane in this Paul Shawcross. Care we must take…

    rgdsm

  33. @ Tindegfringe

    Thanks for that- I did have a quick look before I posted but couldn’t see anything where I was expecting to! Seems prety fair.

  34. the other howard

    “Nonesense, Labour left a truly awful mess and it will be remembered by voters come the election.”

    You wish.

  35. Well David Cameron is certainly in a rock or a hard place over the EU & no mistake.

    It seems that Germany were willing to support some treaty revisions as the price for there not being an in/out referendum, only to discover that David Cameron was not suggesting it as an either/ or; he was intending to have his a la carte cake & eat it too. But Mrs Merkel is not agreeable to this scenario.

    I wonder whether David Cameron has begun to write his ‘tantric’ speech yet. If he has, then he will likely be revising it again!

  36. @ TOH

    Ignoring the political bias in your post, clearly the voters have largely forgotten about ‘the truly awful mess’ or don’t care. I think you are a little compacent if you are expecting a Kinnock re-run and focussing voters minds at election time to turn things around.

    I’m not saying there won’t be some effect just that in the current economic climate it seems unlikely to be a big factor when clearly coters are not impressed by the current government economic policy either.

  37. I’m with you TOH.

    Dedicate part of the GE campaign to reminding people about the economy at the end of the last two Labour governments with messages like:

    “We’re only the ‘Nasty Party’ because we have to make the unpopular decisions to sort out Labour’s mess”,

    “Labour just cannot be trusted with the economy”,

    “The UK must never go through that again”,

    “We haven’t finished tidying up after the last Labour government yet” blah-de-blah

    plus there will be a solid recovery well on the way by then.

    Labour would be mad to be confident.

  38. Good Afternoon All.
    Rain has stopped here in Bournemouth.

    STEVE2.
    I fully agree with your analysis above. Labour people seem to be too complacent, as David Miliband seems to have been hinting recently.

    NICK P.
    You probably recognise that 40% at this stage of the electoral game is not very convincing.

    The sitiuation reminds me a bit of the pre 1992 ‘new campaign’.

  39. I can’t see any way that Con will increase their vote share and I see little likelihood of the anti-Tory left wing 2010 LD voters doing anything bt vote vote Lab.

    Yeah Lab could take votes from the Tories, but even if they don’t Lab are going to win.

  40. @ Steve2

    “We’re only the ‘Nasty Party’ because we have to make the unpopular decisions to sort out Labour’s mess”…
    ——————
    Labour will be turning cartwheels if the Tories election campaign concedes that the Conservatives are the ‘Nasty Party’.

    Any hopes you may have cherished of being in charge of the Tories election campaign have just suffered a fatal blow. ;-)

  41. QUOTING “AXA THE UNDERGROUND”

    “The left seems almost non-existent in the UK, the best is the Green Party and this poll gives them a pathetic 1%.
    Disappointing!”

    Depends on your definition of The Left. Mine would include Labour, The Lid Dems and (yes) the Conservative Party run by David Cameron- all these Parties fall over themselves to bash bankers, Tax the Rich (even George Osborne wont be cutting the top rate below 45%- and he has just launched an audacious Gordon Brown-style raid on the nest-eggs of better-off pensioners).

    Only would I call UKIP economically (and otherwise) Right Wing- lower, flatter taxes, an end to the Green Agenda, more prisons- as well as leaving the EU. So by my definition I would worry about The Right only being represented by 10% of the Voters (or rather of those intending to Vote)! The remaining 90%- according to the above Poll- support Parties that espouse high “Tax-the-Rich; Spend” political stances.

    Ian Pennell

  42. The point is we were not in as bad a mess in 2010 as we are in now.

    No one can pretend that the collapse of the world banking system was wholly Labours fault or could have easily been forseen by Labour.

    Given the events of 2008, Labour did reasonably well until 2010 on the economy.

    It seems that the real damage has been done since the Coalition took over and is being done now.

  43. CHRISLANE1945

    Did you see Slugger O’Toole’s commentary on the “peripheral political sewer” of N Ireland?

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2013/01/12/leadership-thats-working/

  44. @TOH – “Nonesense, Labour left a truly awful mess and it will be remembered by voters come the election.”

    I think you’ve got to be very careful making statements like this (especially on here with Anthony’s comments policy).

    The key question isn’t whether Labour did or didn’t leave ‘a mess’ – in point of fact, they clearly did, but the political judgement is whether they should be blamed for that, and if so, whether blaming them for something that happened 5 years earlier is still valid to choices being made in 2015.

    As I said previously, this is a zero sum game, so voters judgements on this question will depend much more on their views of the intervening 5 years. So far, this isn’t going very well, so judgements on 2010 may soften. The longer the time this goes on, the more difficult it gets to blame the previous administration.

    In fact, there is a

  45. @Amberstar – I think your observation on Cameron’s problems with his EU speech are highly valid.

    I was surprised when the announcement of a big speech was made so far in advance – I think this was a major mistake. He has alerted everyone, both within his party, within the business world, and in foreign ministries, who are all lining up to have their say even before our PM makes his case.

    The tensions within his own party are already beginning to show, and whatever he ends up saying, there are risks that he will be seen to be reacting to other peoples views and the pressure that he has created for himself, almost regardless of what his final message is.

    What I did find interesting is a report in today’s Guardian suggesting that Hague has been re reading Thatchers Bruge speech to get some inspiration for Cameron’s intervention. They quote unnamed officials as saying that if Cameron was to make such a speech now, 25 Tory MPs would probably walk out of the party, as the speech would be far too pro Europe for the party today. That’s a real eye opener, and shows the problem Cameron has made for himself.

    I think by talking of an in/out vote he has made a classic error. Either result represents total failure. Either we leave – but he has told us that would be very bad for the UK – or we stay, thereby removing any legitimacy for renegotiation.

  46. ALEC

    @”Either we leave – but he has told us that would be very bad for the UK – or we stay, thereby removing any legitimacy for renegotiation.”

    THe conclusion to which statement would be-we cannot leave & we must stay on terms dictated by the EZ unless we too join the EZ.

    Greater fiscal union is the direction of travel for EZ-and we must join that journey.

    I cannot see this approach having much popular appeal in UK at present. It may be Hezza’s analysis, but then he always wanted us to join the EZ.

    It will be interesting to see what the Swedes & Danes-and the Dutch, do & say as the EZ core starts to move away from the central idea of the Single Market , towards the idea of the Single Fiscal , Monetary & Political Union.

    Miliband needs a position too-he needs to be careful of trying to apply his current strategy -oppose everything they say -if that means opposing public approval .

    This whole thing is becoming a dialogue of the deaf-DC & those who think like him see the EU as primarily a Trading Union-The Single Market .

    Hollande , Merkel & co see the EU as a Political project with socio-economic underpinning.

    To the extent that meaningful “negotiation” between these two positions is difficult to envisage, Hezza & the rest of the ” there is no alternative” crowd have a point.

  47. @couper2802: “No one can pretend that the collapse of the world banking system was wholly Labours fault or could have easily been forseen by Labour.

    Given the events of 2008, Labour did reasonably well until 2010 on the economy.”

    ————————————————————————————

    I don’t think anyone accuses Labour of being responsible for the global crash, but of creating a runaway national debt alongside the largest deficit in Europe (~12.5%, even worse than Greece if you remember) and then touting “even more borrowing” as the solution.

    I shudder at how much extra they would have borrowed by now, only to see the world economy still hasn’t recovered but now we have an even bigger national debt to service.

    As I said earlier, I voted Labour for the last three elections but, after watching the economy implode and Labour desperately tried to avoid all blame, I won’t be voting for them while their cabinet includes the same people who caused the mess in the first place.

  48. Colin

    Not sure why you are lumping the Dutch in with the Swedes and Danish, the Dutch use the euro and the Danes and Swedes do not. Besides which the Dutch had always pegged their currency to the mark before the advent of the euro, a very hard peg. The Dutch will follow Germany no matter what in my veiw but Howard will give us the inside track.

  49. Couper 2802

    @”The point is we were not in as bad a mess in 2010 as we are in now.”

    Also true for Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Japan, …….

    Some of these-like Germany-weren’t “in a mess” at all in 2010. All of these have seen GDP growth decline from 2010 to 2012-including into decline for 2012 for some.

    We are constantly told that one of the reasons why it is not possible to upset EU countries by trying to re-negotiate a UK relationship is because we have so much trade tied up with them.

    Is it not then inevitable that a decline in their GDP will affect our GDP ?

1 2 3 4