I haven’t had chance to do my normal round of the YouGov/Sunday Times poll today. For the record the topline figures are CON 32%, LAB 40%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 10%, so another single digit Labour lead following those earlier in the week.

Also out this weekend were Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings’s projections for the local elections next month (based on a model using the data from the various local by-elections held around the country each week). They are expecting Labour to gain 350 seats, Conservatives to lose 310, the Liberal Democrats to lose 130 and UKIP to win 40. Their prediction for the national equivalent vote (the estimate of what the shares of the vote would have been if the whole country had local elections, rather than just the shires – similar to the BBC’s projected national share) is CON 29, LAB 38, LD 16, UKIP 11.


42 Responses to “YouGov/Sunday Times – CON 32, LAB 40, LD 11, UKIP 10”

  1. What, no detailed analysis of the ST questions on such matters of national importance as the contents of school lunch boxes, whether you cry at funerals and if the working classes are ruder than the upper classes?

    Reading through the tables today was exactly like being stuck at a particularly dull North London dinner party. I suppose we should only be grateful there were no questions on house prices.

  2. @ Billy Bob (from the previous thread)

    “Thanks for the polling news, its seems like the Thatcher tribute was part of a strategy – campaigning to elect the first female LA Mayor. She has ground to make up now though.

    I’m not that good on name recognition, so when one of the presenters on Radio 4 (he used to be BBC Washington correspondent) mentioned Deval Patrick as a possible contender for the 2016 nomination. I recognised the name but couldn’t put a face to it.

    Anyway, just watched his speech again (DNC) – at the time I remember thinking the tempo was pretty awesome, with a digression about the Orchard Gardens elementary school before building to the final climax. I now learn that he came up with Obama’s “Yes we can” slogan in 2008.

    Maybe a bit early to start thinking about the range of possible candidates, but that is one important decision to get right.”

    Deval Patrick (D-MA) is the Governor of Massachusetts. He was first elected in 2006 and succeeded Mitt Romney in office. The same guys who helped run his campaign went on and ran Obama’s campaign later.

    He might be a contender but I doubt he’d beat Hillary. Frankly, I’m not sure anyone can beat Hillary. But Hillary might not run.

    Bill Clinton is going to hurt Wendy Greuel and I’ll tell you why. The San Fernando Valley (or ‘Valley’) used to be considered a conservative stronghold and a Republican stronghold. It still has that reputation but is no longer at all. It’s now heavily Democratic, very progressive, and extremely diverse. Nevertheless, in low turnout local elections, there is this Republican arc of very suburban neighborhoods if you will stretching from the north Valley (Granada Hills, Chatsworth, North Hills) to the west Valley at the very edge of the city. Here, Republicans do well in local elections and are a force (it’s where they hold their lone seat on the City Council). They also tend to turn out more than the central and eastern parts of the valley that are now firmly progressive even in local elections (where Wendy is from incidentally). If you want to win these conservative, white, suburban, older Republican voters, bringing in Bill Clinton is NOT the way to do it. It’s not surprising that Eric is leading with Republicans and by wide margins too. That’s not going to help because notwithstanding Clinton’s appearance at Langer’s Deli, Eric will run up massive margins in Central and East LA.

    Now, I’ve ranted on about West LA before so I’ll be quick this time. West LA is always high turnout and always coveted by candidates. But here’s something you should know about the politics of the area. If you drive on Sunset Boulevard from Ladera Drive (the western border of Beverly Hills) to Pacific Coast Highway (where the ocean is), you will drive through precinct after precinct of billionaires and millionaires with few exceptions (UCLA’s being one of them).

    Now, in 2012, these were the precincts that voted for Henry Waxman and delivered him to victory. These precincts voted by double digits AGAINST ballot initiatives that would have harmed public sector labor unions in California back in 05′ and they vote in favor of bonds and added funding for mass transit. Obama won them all in massive landslides but this is also where he held his 50 million dollar fundraisers. In March, Eric swept them all (except, oddly enough, UCLA’s) and he’ll probably need them again next month and by large margins.

    Point is, these voters are anything but conventional. They’re not controlled by labor unions, party machines, or the Chamber of Commerce. They can’t be taken for granted ever and they’re not going to be told what to do. It’s now kinda clear to many what Bill Clinton is up to and why he’s intervening in these races. Voters like that (high propensity ones) don’t enjoy being used as political pawns. They may love Bill Clinton but the idea of Bill having them vote a certain way in order to support a future political ambition is a major turnoff. And that’s a problem for Greuel.

    Then there’s the ethnic thing. So opponents of Eric’s have been trying to paint him as an outsider and “not one of us” employing this odd kind of self-deprecating racism by noting how Eric doesn’t match stereotypes of themselves. He’s half Jewish, half Latino, looks neither really, and has an Italian last name. But this is LA and ironically, the more this has occurred, the more it seems to help him by making certain voters who wouldn’t have otherwise known say “oh! He’s our son, I’m definitely voting for him.”

    (Mind you, I HATE identity politics but that’s another story for another day…..).

  3. @ Roger Mexico

    “What, no detailed analysis of the ST questions on such matters of national importance as the contents of school lunch boxes, whether you cry at funerals and if the working classes are ruder than the upper classes?”

    I just had dinner at a country club. I sympathize. :(

    “Reading through the tables today was exactly like being stuck at a particularly dull North London dinner party. I suppose we should only be grateful there were no questions on house prices.”

    I cannot stand dinners and events like that. Just painful. Discussing real estate is great but sometimes that can get a little dull with certain people.

  4. @ Billy Bob

    Also, before I forget. I’ve noticed that running as the “woman candidate” is often a strategy that has the effect of turning off a lot of liberal feminist women and a lot of conservative traditionalist women.

    The Thatcher thing might have turned off a dozen voters or so (I read on a random soccer blog that Jim Murphy’s brother lives in LA…maybe). So you know if the United Kingdom Labour Shadow Defense Secretary’s older brother just happened to be a naturalized American citizen who lived within the actual city limits of LA (cause’ we’re geographically described as far larger than we are due to sprawl) who was a blue collar worker and labor union member (an electrician for the DWP) who was going to vote for Greuel, I can imagine one hypothetical voter who would really dislike the Maggie Thatcher reference and switch vote. And frankly, I’m sure that there are ex-pats from Britain who dislike Thatcher who live in LA and vote and if they heard about it, would have switched their votes.

    Those dozen voters or so matter in a low turnout election. But really, I don’t think Thatcher added much to anything. Just a lot of ironic Facebook page craziness.

    We have a month to go, we’ll see what happens.

  5. Interesting Poll commissioned by News Night regarding migration : The result of which was

    “There is a significant gap between aspiration and making real concrete plans.

    We found that in Romania very small numbers of people, 1% of the total survey sample, said they were looking for work in the UK in 2013 or 2014, whether with a recruitment agency or on their own.

    In Bulgaria the figures were higher: 4.2% of those surveyed. However most people interested in coming to the UK, from both countries, said they would only move with a firm offer of work, either from an agency or directly from a company.”

    Presumably the result of this will be disregarded by UKIP as it is inconsistent with their rather absurd suggestion that virtually the entire population of Romania and Bulgaria will descend en masse on Dover.

    However,I doubt it will make a great deal of impact on their performance as primarily theirs is a protest (plague on all your houses) vote.

  6. Looking at the Thrasher and Rallings figures one thing stands out immediately: the UKIP figure.

    I have no trouble believing the three main party figures and I’m aware that UKIP has been making gains in local by-elections but those enable the concentration of limited resources.It’s very different when there are multiple seats to be fought in the same area.

    Do UKIP actually have as many as 40 target seats?The implication must be that there are substantially more than that since every party expects to miss some (>50/50 should count as success I’d say).

    I lack information and obviously Rallings and Thrasher know what they’re about so I’ll assume this is a reasonable forecast but still it surprises me.I’d have blindly guessed about +10,myself.

    Is there anywhere where these gains would be concentrated to give UKIP a target seat in 2015? Farage’s targetting in 2010 was pretty dismal stuff – can we expect anything better or is my confident guess of 0 seats in 2015 as safe as I think it is?

  7. I should correct the post I made yesterday morning.

    178 Labour councillors were elected in 2009 – that is a loss of 291 councillors on 2005 (Con + 244, LD -2).

    The nearest YouGov poll was showing
    Con 40%, Lab 24%, LD 18%

    However, on May 5th 2005 Conservatives lost the GE but picked up +152 councillors (Lab -114, LD 40).

    Again, in June 2001 Conservative lost the GE but picked up +121 councillors (Lab nc, LD -70)… the Conservatives were even making gains in these English shire elections in 1997!

    So, if Labour did make 300 gains that would put them back in the same position as 2005?
    Obvoiusly there won’t be anywhere near GE turnout levels on May 2 – and it is very difficult to make direct comparisons in local elections where there are all sorts of organisational changes year on year.

  8. @sen5c

    2013 has not been that good for Con so far when it comes to local elections.

    They held 8, gained 2 and lost 14.

    Gains: 1 each from Lab and Ind

    Losses: 7 to LD, 3 to Lab, 3 to UKIP, 1 to Ind.

    These are only byelections though, and perhaps not in particularly representative areas to be able make comparisons with the May 2nd elections.

  9. @Steve
    “Presumably the result of this will be disregarded by UKIP as it is inconsistent with their rather absurd suggestion that virtually the entire population of Romania and Bulgaria will descend en masse on Dover

    However,I doubt it will make a great deal of impact on their performance as primarily theirs is a protest (plague on all your houses) vote.”

    Immigration does appear to be one of their main talking points. Though ISTR that anti-immigration sentiment is a lot higher in areas with low levels of immigration (such as the shires) than in areas with high levels of immigration (such as London and the Mets). So even if these findings are publicised, it’s unlikely to affect their vote in this year’s local elections.

  10. @sen5c
    “Do UKIP actually have as many as 40 target seats?The implication must be that there are substantially more than that since every party expects to miss some (>50/50 should count as success I’d say).”

    Since Farage is claiming they’ll win at least one seat on every council that’s up, they must have at least 35 targets (assuming, of course, that he’s basing the claim on more than just their national polling figures). As they presumably hope to hold most of the seats they won last time or won via defection since, that adds more than enough to make 40 targets.

    It is, of course, really difficult to estimate how well UKIP will be doing in these local elections. On the one hand, they’ve never been this high in the national opinion polls before. On the other hand, the last time these seats were up there was a European Parliamentary Election where they polled 16.5% – which is well above their current polling level. My gut feeling is that it’s going to go as well for them as 1989 did for us – lots of votes, but a distinct lack of seats. However, I have no actual evidence for this view and it may well prove to be wrong.

  11. Though the regional crossbreaks unfortunately can’t confirm this, the Economist made the point that UKIP has the advantage of being a Thatcherite party that isn’t associated with Thatcher when it campaigns in the North of England. So people with right-wing views who’d never think of voting Conservative might vote UKIP.

    So just as New Labour made politics in the South of England a lot more interesting, UKIP might make politics in the North of England more interesting.

  12. @ Billy Bob

    Thanks. On reflection the Labour gains do look high – more like a best case – and they’ll certainly have good cause to celebrate if R & T are correct, especially in the light of the lower national lead they’re currently getting.

    It is possible that the by-elections indicate a deepening anti-Con mood and an unusual rise in sullen apathy amongst Con voters.That would make these ‘national’ locals a distinctly unpleasant experience for Cons and it’ll take some elaborate ‘Ashcroftian’ analysis to work out what such voters are actually trying to say beyond ‘I’m fed up grump grump grump’

    @Greenchristian

    Obviously I share your gut feeling re UKIP but you have alerted me to Anthony’s use of the word ‘win’ re UKIP’s 40 seats.I chose to read it as ‘gain’ so it’s a little more believable as written.I still don’t think it feels right though unless the ‘plague on your house’ mood really has set in.

    I’m very surprised,incidentally, at how poorly the Greens appear to be performing, particularly with such a yawning gap available beyond Labour’s more-of-the-same-but-slower position and the Lib Dem’s no-Liberal-belief-so-sacred we won’t abandon it in office.I know Green politics feel to an extent an indulgence people can’t afford in times of economic stress but still, I’d expected a lot more than their current declining fortunes.

  13. On the issue of whether Labour need detailed policy or not as the election approaches to shift VI.

    I think people have made it pretty clear that Thatch was not that detailed. Three million unemployed was not exactly part of the policy mix on offer, nor was the near-doubling of VAT. (We could go on, eg removing the naval presence in the area of the Falklands when Argies were rumbling).

    The question is… could Labour get away with that now? Well Thatch was campaigning on the back of the Winter of Discontent, which was a big deal. And the economy was getting hammered by another round of oil price rises, leading to inflation going up again and another recession.

    Was Blair that detailed in 1997? I doubt he needed to be, any more than Tories did in 2010. There was a general austerity vibe but were there details on child benefit, pasty taxes, tuition fees up to nine grand, gay marriage, NHS, the bedroom thing?… there were plans to erase the deficit within a Parliament (or the “structural” part or whatever) but that soon changed.

    LibDems made various promises but like VAT in ’79, didn’t exactly stick to them.

    Which allows us to perhaps consider two possibilities. That parties do not necessarily need to give much policy, particularly if the other party/parties are in a hole. And secondly that they can if necessary just stick to some crowd-pleasing policies and turn their back on them once elected.

    The question as to how much policy Labour need to give may depend on how close Tories are to Labour as the election approaches. The worse Tories are doing, the more likely it is people may take a chance regardless of policy detail and vote otherwise.

    There is another thing to consider… at least when it comes to the economy voters have already experienced Labour’s response to the banking crash and current policy is not much different. They also experienced its effects… deficit yes but also growth. As opposed to deficit and no growth and losing the AAA rating etc. So Labour don’t necessarily need to come up with much on that anyway

    In the end, the bottom line may be this. One might consider the 29% who voted Labour in 2010 despite Brown, the crash etc. as a pretty solid core vote. Short of something pretty exceptional they only need to keep a fair chunk of defecting LDs to win the election. If you were a LD refugee disgusted with austerity, who would you pick next time?

    Labour with few policies, or Tories/LibDems knowing they favour austerity?

  14. Conservatives clearly think they could lose as many as 500 seats, that is why they are painting it as a choice between Blue and Red, and claiming that anything less than 500 gains for Labour will be a disaster for Ed Miliband – killing the one nation claim. 500 gains for Labour is clearly unrealistic.

    Large swathes of Conservative held areas in the shires have LD in second place… 3 out of seven recent LD gains from Con can be attributed to UKIP taking 20% or more of the vote* – (UKIP does not seem to have been a factor in any recent Lab gains fron Con)… plus there are those 3 UKIP gains direct from Con. The fact that UKIP is feilding double(?) the number of candidates this time round must increase the chance of upsets.

    *UKIP supporters seem to score high on certainty-to-vote/turnout measures. Their average in all seats they have contested this year is closer to the higher polling numbers we have seen from some companies, i.e. mid/high teens.

  15. I should add there are also a number of cases where Labour do have policy, it’s just that it doesn’t stand in complete opposition to Tories. An example is Labour’s stance on benefits whereby they would keep the Tory cap but do it differently making some allowance for regional rent differences.

    This might be considered a form of triangulation but it also has something in common with Microsoft’s “embrace and extend” approach developed in response to commercial threats from the web, the Java platform etc. For those who follow computing. ..

    Whatever aimed call it, it’s a rather convenient “cake and eat it” strategy.

  16. @Steeve

    It’s one thing how BBC presents this potential immigration survey, and how others is a different one. DT for example goes on about the threat of 350,000 flooding the UK. So, UKIP doesn’t have to deal with any discrepancy, I’m afraid.

  17. So its Monday and a new week begins and we woke up to the plain fact that the narrowing trend of the Labour lead is a reality after all, whether some people like it or not – its fact!
    Of course the Conservatives will lose a few hundred seats – it would be stange if they didn’t certainly under the circumstances and how high a position they start from.
    There will be many factors as to just why Labour arn’t much further ahead in the polls midway through such a difficult time for any government – BUT they arn’t and some will wonder why!
    All interesting stuff though and makes this spledid site much more interesting than a continuous and boring 40, 30, 10 etc!

  18. @Steeve
    It’s one thing how BBC presents this potential immigration survey, and how others is a different one. DT for example goes on about the threat of 350,000 flooding the UK. So, UKIP doesn’t have to deal with any discrepancy, I’m afraid.

    ——
    Ukip leader Nigel Farage has warned that “29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will have the right to unrestricted access to Britain’s benefits system after 2014.”

    I can’t see any record of him adding but 99% of them won’t!

  19. Anthony – regarding the T&R Local Election projection, is there any split by type of areas.

    Lab/Con
    Lab
    Con
    Con/LD
    UKIP likely to be stronger (eg Staffs possibly)
    etc

    ?
    Thanks

  20. “Bill Gross blasts UK and eurozone over austerity

    The chief executive of bond-trading giant Pimco has laid into the fiscal progammes of the UK and parts of the eurozone today, as the austerity debate continues to rage.

    Bill Gross called for new stimulus measures to get economic growth moving again,rather than worrying about short-term debt targets, in an interview with the Financial Times published this morning.

    Gross warned:

    The UK and almost all of Europe have erred in terms of believing that austerity, fiscal austerity in the short term, is the way to produce real growth. It is not.

    You’ve got to spend money.

    Gross’s broad point is that it is a serious mistake to slash spending in an attempt to please the financial markets:

    Bond investors want growth much like equity investors, and to the extent that too much austerity leads to recession or stagnation then credit spreads widen out – even if a country can print its own currency and write its own cheques.

    In the long term it is important to be fiscal and austere. It is important to have a relatively average or low rate of debt to GDP….

    The question in terms of the long term and the short term is how quickly to do it.”

  21. … if now even the bind traders are turning against austerity…

  22. Bond traders, not bind traders. Though the autocorrect does seem rather apt. ..

  23. But do you spend money that doesn’t actually exist?

  24. Tell me, somebody, does Farage still drink and smoke?

  25. “But do you spend money that doesn’t actually exist?”

    See all previous conversations re QE and Bank lending. Money doesn’t exist, full stop.

    We just pretend it does.

  26. But Mark, we do wonder why Labour aren’t further ahead, and what it means. We have discussed it very much, and Anthony wrote an article about it on Yougov over a year ago.

    Possible reasons include but are not limited to…
    – Labour are doing quite well to have been ten points or so ahead, so soon after getting trashed in the election. Took the Tories a decade to recover after ’97
    – it was easier in the past for Tories to get big leads over Labour when the left’s vote was badly split
    – the Labour gains have been via libdem defectors rather than from tories and that vote may be stickier in a GE.
    – unlike what often happens where governments do unpopular stuff early on then throw in some feel-good stuff later, Tories have plenty not-so-feel-good stuff coming online even now…

    And the question remains open as to whether Labour actually need 20% leads and so on. Just because it was commonly associated with a change in government in the past does not mean it is actually necessary for victory.

  27. @SEN5C
    “I’m very surprised,incidentally, at how poorly the Greens appear to be performing”

    Are we?

  28. Now the spotlight has finally shone on Labour’s undeclared economic policy (why so few people have demanded to see the detail of their solutions before is beyond me), [perhaps – AW] we will see their lead crumble further and force them to make some commitments.

    However, my prediction is that we will only see more promises of ‘reviews’ []

    A potentially useful Tory strategy would be to give the LDs some success and let them regain some of the support lost to Labour. Clearly, there are many voters there for the taking going by the most recent polls.

  29. Carfrew,

    To a large extent, Labour’s prospects are determined more by whether (a) they can hold on to ex-Lib Dem voters and (b) whether the Tories can find some way of improving on their 2010 result.

    Here’s one idea: Labour could ask why they lost a lot of left-wing voters to the Lib Dems between 1997 and 2010, so they can better know how to keep them. For example, are these voters with strong views in favour of civil liberties? Are they rural voters? Do they have left-wing views on public service reform? Etc. All questions that I imagine Miliband has been pondering.

  30. MARK JOHNSON
    “But do you spend money that doesn’t actually exist?”

    ————–

    Apart from Nick’s point that money is created as debt, people, businesses and companies borrow to make more money all the time. Investment. We are borrowing a lot at the moment, but without much return on investment via growth. That is what these bond traders and IMF are worried about. It’s nit great news fro Osborne that Fitch have downgraded us, IMF are coming to see Osborne and now bond traders are concerned. If the GDP figures this week also disappoint, that won’t help either. They are hard to call though. ..

  31. @Steve2 – ah an excellent stratagy indeed – get the LDs up to at least 15 again and as long as the % comes off Labour the lead will tumble further!
    Purely non partisan comment of course – merely an observation just like the rest of you -lol

  32. And the night after I suggest that Labour need to test-drive some policies, they test-drive a very sensible policy on health & social care.

    I promise I have absolutely no connection to (or affection for!) the Labour party.

  33. “I promise I have absolutely no connection to (or affection for!) the Labour party.”

    Gosh, I am surprised…..(roll eye thingy)

    I said yesterday that they were putting forward a HSC plan today which I think will go down well with most people & IMO, it deserves cross-party support.

  34. Excuse me, can somebody answer my previous question? I am building up a theory on Farage’s voters and how he gets good polls.

  35. @Bill

    I agree that holding onto ex-lib Dems is important for labour, that’s what i said in my post though your post sounds like I wasn’t saying that.

    I think there’s polling on why lib Dems left for labour – Keller wrote on it a while back but can’t remember the details. I think signing up to austerity played a fair part in it as did tuition fees.

    The point I was making is that is less that labour have to keep them as such. …the thing is that there is little Tories, UKip or LibDems are likely to offer to tempt them away from labour. However, I’m not saying it is impossible, I was just showing how labour may be able to get away with not giving much policy.

    Because given a choice between continued austerity and only vague labour policies they are liable to still move against austerity. Austerity is such a big deal that it trumps a lot of other concerns. The question then becomes what can the other parties do to wrest them from labour. ..

    The assumption at the moment seems sometimes to be labour will inevitably lose them again as the election nears unless they come up with something to keep them. I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case and am interested in exploring if it is.

  36. @Bill

    I agree that holding onto ex-lib Dems is important for labour, that’s what i said in my post though your post sounds like I wasn’t saying that.

    I think there’s polling on why lib Dems left for labour – Keller wrote on it a while back but can’t remember the details. I think signing up to austerity played a fair part in it as did tuition fees.

    The point I was making is that is less that labour have to keep them as such. …the thing is that there is little Tories, UKip or LibDems are likely to offer to tempt them away from labour. However, I’m not saying it is impossible, I was just showing how labour may be able to get away with not giving much policy.

    Because given a choice between continued austerity and only vague labour policies they are liable to still move against austerity. Austerity is such a big deal that it trumps a lot of other concerns. The question then becomes what can the other parties do to wrest them from labour. ..

    The assumption at the moment seems sometimes to be labour will inevitably lose them again as the election nears unless they come up with something to keep them. I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case and am interested in exploring if it is, cos it is usually the case that oppositions usually have big leads at some point before taking over. ..

  37. @ Mark Johnson,

    If your household finances were heavily in debt would you go and attempt the borrow even more money (debt) to invest in some scheme in the hope it eventually paid dividends to pull you out of the mire.
    I think not – you surely would cut your cloth to suit your means and not deliberately ramp up your debt!!
    ————————–
    A person paying £600 per month in rent will surely reduce their debt, if they can buy the property from their landlord & get a mortgage that is £400 per month.

    A person paying credit card rates, will surely benefit from borrowing more at better rates; enough to settle the credit card & ensure they need not use it again until their earnings recover. Indeed, when paying off a credit card, the responsible lender always recommends borrowing enough so that the credit card need not be used for the foreseeable future.

    A person in debt, who needs their own transport to get to work, should always borrow to pay their vehicle expenses. Otherwise, they will lose their income & be in an even worse position.

    And a person, or a company, which is heavily in debt has the option to go bankrupt & walk away. This option is not really available to governments. Instead the government can:
    1. Raise more income via taxes – which GO claims to be doing via a crackdown on avoidance; although we shall see how passionate he is about this when the rubber hits the road regarding tax havens which are British protectorates. I hope he is sincere; or
    2. Use QE (up to a point) to keep liquidity in the monetary system & hope that growth happens because businesses & people become afraid of inflation & begin to spend, invest & borrow again; or
    3. Use QE (up to a point) to directly invest in e.g. housing to drastically cut the housing benefit bill (the mortgage analogy) or transport (the vehicle analogy). This is the scenario which you seem to think is pie-in-the-sky ‘leftism’; or
    4. Claim to cut spending; but they do not actually cut spending, they just move the expense elsewhere. i.e. From the general population to the individual. So the UK, as a nation, has not “cut its cloth to suit its means”, it has merely shuffled the deck.

    I hope my comment will help to widen your view of the options open to the UK.

  38. New thread.

  39. @amber

    Yep. If your deficit is bad you may have no choice but to up your income as cuts may not be enough or may be detrimental.

    And some investments are pretty reliable, eg housing which not only gives an asset you can sell and can cut housing benefit costs but also can stimulate growth.

    You can also invest in ways to hedge as insurance in case particular investments don’t come off.

  40. @ AmberStar – nope – as a said before your views simply peddle the Labour Party view of Finances.
    Borrow -spend – Borrow – spend, Borrow – Spend – BOOM!

    Every single time – the same old story and in the end it just doesn’t work!

  41. By the way – i’m not responding to this thread any further as we will never agree in a million years so just leave it!

  42. Actually I would agree with you that Labour borrowed, but it matters not whether we agree, the point at issue is VI, in other words what the voters think. And what they think may be influenced by what information they receive and by the actions of ratings agencies, the IMF, bond traders and also today senior figures in the EU also saying a change in tack is needed on austerity

    Because while it’s true Labour borrowed, they also got growth. Whereas currently the coalition have also been borrowing a lot only without the growth. Hence all the concern. Still, we’ll see on Thursday if things are any better. ..