Election Night 2015

[wazzap24]

YLN's excellent post and the article in the Guardian is exactly what I meant by some voters not really understanding the whole package they have voted for.

There are going to be a lot of households with £40-70k incomes who have been duped into thinking they are middle class enough to be voting Tory. With the cost of living these days, a household income in that range makes them upper working class at best.

As YLN put it, they think they are closer to the rich than the poor and they aren't. The squeeze is going to surprise more than a few.

I and I'm sure many other Tory voters know exactly what to expect, but think the squeeze is necessary. The economy blew up because it was built on money that never existed and governments overspent too. The answer in my opinion unfortunately is and has been austerity as well as better bank regulation, amongst other economic policies. I genuinely don't understand how people are totally anti-austerity, it just seems unrealistic to me. I'm sure many in the centre made their decisive vote based on who they think is more competent with economic matters. I mean the shadow chancellor didn't even get voted in his own seat.

Agree that others have voted with their eyes firmly open and if that's the case good luck to them.

Austerity on steroids is what is being proposed and it is not required.

The only economists that still believe it actually works are those with a political bias. All the scare tactics used in 2010 have been debunked out of sight.

There are better alternatives, the opposition failed to promote them properly and the Tories have taken full advantage.

[wazzap24]

YLN's excellent post and the article in the Guardian is exactly what I meant by some voters not really understanding the whole package they have voted for.

That's not the voters' fault.

Not necessarily saying it is mate, it's what I have said before - it's a brilliant swindle by the Tory party and a fantastic campaign.

It doesn't make the point any less valid though, people have been duped and the Tories have taken advantage of those voting on one or two core issues.

Is it not possible that people haven't been "duped" and just don't agree with your opinions and have made a sensible and informed decision on their own that has brought then to vote Tory?

Why is it that the people who voted Tory (more than any other party) are the ones who have been duped and not you?

Its a very high and mighty point of view I must say.

Stevo, I am not being high and mighty I promise you (although I prefer that to sanctimonious!).

I've tried to be really clear about what I mean and I am only talking about a section of the voting public.

I'm not in any way saying that everyone who voted Tory is wrong or that they have all been duped, far from it.

I'm saying some people have and when you are looking at such a small majority government, it's those people that probably tipped the balance.

[blandy]

... I genuinely don't understand how people are totally anti-austerity, it just seems unrealistic to me. I'm sure many in the centre made their decisive vote based on who they think is more competent with economic matters. I mean the shadow chancellor didn't even get voted in his own seat.

This is how I see it as well, seems to be based purely off ideology rather than economic sense IMO.

Some might hold that view because of ideology, but it's far from an ideological viewpoint in the main.

Economists (yes, I know they are about as reliable as estate agents) tend to say that Austerity as implemented by the tories is a mistake, economically.

By the way "austerity" was a term the Gov't coined, because they didn't like the words "cuts", but that's what it is.

The reason, without going into massive depths why economists don't think much of what the gov't did is because in a recession people (normal folk) will be scared for their jobs, pay rises are pushed right down and people stop spending and start trying to pay off debt they might have. As a consequence economic activity falls. Instead of going to the pub or cinema, or on holiday, people stay at home. So barmen lose their jobs, as do ushers, and travel agents and airlines cut flights and so on, so airport workers lose their jobs. Then those people have to claim benefits, whether unemployment or income support.

The only people who can reverse that situation is the government. By actually investing in (for example) rail and road repairs, and power stations, and the national grid, and school buildings and hospital equipment and so on two things happen - people and companies get more work and the country's infrastructure gets updated and repaired and is of benefit for the next 40 years. You can add in energy conservation investment and all kinds.

What actually happened was when they got in last time they did loads of cuts, and killed off recovering economy. Then after 2 years they changed tack, and that's when things started picking back up a bit.

The part of austerity that people think of is the benefit system cuts, and some of that was right. But, they ideologically drilled away at things that were not money saving - the bedroom tax, I think cost more than the money it "saved", IDS's reforms to bring in Universal benefit went horribly wrong (unsurprisingly, the thick numpty) and still haven't been brought in.

And all that hurt people, and for no reason. So when people see that side of it - the suicides, the people declared fit for work, who die shortly afterwards, they rightly rail against it.

Some targetted reductions in some areas were fair enough, but the approach was much broader, whilst for political reasons leaving rich old age pensioners alone and cutting income tax for really rich people.

Lots of people saw all that and thought "if that's "austerity" then it sucks.

There's nothing ideological in objecting to it - the ideology was much more in the way the cuts were implemented.

[snowychap]

...the silent majority will continue doing what it does best...and voting in the best interests of this country.

The silent majority or an innumerate minority?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Kippers on twitter claiming Thanet South was rigged.

[snowychap]

The economy blew up because it was built on money that never existed and governments overspent too.

Firstly, what has changed or what do the Tories propose to do to change this 'money that never existed' - the forecasts on which the last budget was based and which is at the heart of the claims of Tory economic competence are growth based on an increase in household debt to 171% of GDP in 2019 (it looks like just under a third of that is non secured debt) and I'm not too sure there's any plan to reduce the QE level by then either.

Secondly, on Labour profligacy (which is what I'm assuming you mean by 'governments overspent too' as that is the standard part of the argument from Tories/(some) Lib Dems/people in the QT audience and so on), I'll leave it to Simon Wren-Lewis:

As I noted in my previous post, the very big government budget deficit in 2010 was largely the result of the recession. That fact is difficult to square with the myth that the coalition government rescued the economy from an impending financial crisis, so it is important to push another explanation for the large deficit: that it reflected the profligacy of the previous government.

Economic journalists know full well this is a myth. Yet it is a myth repeated on countless occasions by the coalition parties, and by journalists working for the partisan press. On one occasion one of these journalists tried to rubbish a post where I wrote it was a myth, and I hope learnt to regret the experience.

Just inspecting the chart in my last post shows this myth is nonsense. But the political commentators that are central to mediamacro seldom look at economic data. What they do remember of the pre-recession budgets of Gordon Brown was some criticism that he was not being as prudent as he might be. That memory is both correct (both the IFS and NIESR made that criticism) and the criticism is valid, as I set out in my study of this period. (To read the study free before the election, go here.) This is the half-truth that sustains the myth.

But mild imprudence is not profligacy. We can see that by looking at another chart, for the debt to GDP ratio. Profligacy would imply a rapidly rising ratio, but this ratio before the recession (37% in 2008) was below the level Labour inherited (42% in 1997), and below its fiscal rule figure of 40%. No profligacy there.

So the Labour profligacy argument on its own would fall apart, if it was not itself buttressed by another myth: the argument that the government should have been running large surpluses in 2007, because we were in the midst of a major boom. That myth is important and widespread enough to deserve a post of its own tomorrow.

One final point. There was no impending financial crisis in 2010, but there was a very real financial collapse in 2008. Even though Labour was not profligate, if it had been more prudent wouldn't that have given it more ammunition to fight the recession caused by the financial collapse? To the extent that Labour's countercyclical fiscal policy in 2009 was moderated by a worry about debt (which I suspect it was), this is a half-truth. But as Vicky Pryce, Andy Ross and Peter Unwin state in their book 'Its the Economy Stupid: Economics for Voters' (which I happily recommend, and which in its initial chapters covers much of the ground of this series):

"The elimination of the UK's structural deficit [under Labour before the recession] would not have been even a sticking plaster in the face of the haemorrhaging of the finance sector's jugular"

I would also add that the Conservatives not only argued for even less financial regulation before the financial collapse, but opposed Labour's measures to moderate the recession in 2009.

[markavfc40]

A few questions for those who voted Tory. Regardless of whether you have, and believe you'll continue to have, a couple of extra quid in your own pocket a week under the Tories do you believe under them that the disabled will be better off? that the working poor will be better off? that low paid workers won't continue to be abused by big business in terms of contracted hours and their terms and conditions? that workers rights won't continue to be eroded? that the minimum wage will rise as quickly as it desperately needs to ? that our NHS will be in better shape in 5 years? that the rest of our public services will be in better condition than they are now?

In my opinion if you can answer yes to any of them you are either very naive or a liar.

[Mantis]

Kippers on twitter claiming Thanet South was rigged.

Not a clever bunch are they? They seem to be ignoring 3 key things:

 

1. The constituency of South Thanet includes many areas that don't come under Thanet council

2. Votes in local elections are often different to parliamentary elections

3. Farage didn't contest the result

[villa4europe]

A few questions for those who voted Tory. Regardless of whether you have, and believe you'll continue to have, a couple of extra quid in your own pocket a week under the Tories do you believe under them that the disabled will be better off? that the working poor will be better off? that low paid workers won't continue to be abused by big business in terms of contracted hours and their terms and conditions? that workers rights won't continue to be eroded? that the minimum wage will rise as quickly as it desperately needs to ? that our NHS will be in better shape in 5 years? that the rest of our public services will be in better condition than they are now?

In my opinion if you can answer yes to any of them you are either very naive or a liar.

 

my answer to all of those is obviously no, followed by i dont care, probably followed by im also racist

 

 

[PompeyVillan]

A few questions for those who voted Tory. Regardless of whether you have, and believe you'll continue to have, a couple of extra quid in your own pocket a week under the Tories do you believe under them that the disabled will be better off? that the working poor will be better off? that low paid workers won't continue to be abused by big business in terms of contracted hours and their terms and conditions? that workers rights won't continue to be eroded? that the minimum wage will rise as quickly as it desperately needs to ? that our NHS will be in better shape in 5 years? that the rest of our public services will be in better condition than they are now?

In my opinion if you can answer yes to any of them you are either very naive or a liar.

my answer to all of those is obviously no, followed by i dont care, probably followed by im also racist

Villa4europe, I'm guessing you'll vote to stay in Europe. [emoji2]

[villa4europe]

yes, my name is actually villa and im a staunch supporter of the EU

[Genie]

I love how all the ukippers are crying about how unfair the system is (votes/seats)

How about in 650 parts of the UK only the people of 1 of them thought UKIP were the best option to look after them of all that were on offer.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

They are right, as much as I hate to admit it. If the system was fair and representative they would have more seats. The electoral system is biased against small parties and minority voices. As it is the system rewards whoever between Labour and Tories can sway a handful of constituencies to vote for one over the other. Is that fair? Not a jot. Tories have a majority government which is not representative of the population, just as Labour did in Blair's third win (I believe?). I don't think that is right and it hasn't been for some time.

 

It simply isn't democratic.

 

As horrid as the thought of 80 UKIP MPs is, it is a fairer representation of the will of the people.

Edited May 9, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Demitri_C]

The problem for labour now is that they now somehow have to regain all those snp seats in scotland and I dont see how that is going to happen

[bickster]

The problem for labour now is that they now somehow have to regain all those snp seats in scotland and I dont see how that is going to happen

Quite easily, It doesn't require much of a swing to Labour.

[tonyh29]

A few questions for those who voted Tory. Regardless of whether you have, and believe you'll continue to have, a couple of extra quid in your own pocket a week under the Tories do you believe under them that the disabled will be better off? that the working poor will be better off? that low paid workers won't continue to be abused by big business in terms of contracted hours and their terms and conditions? that workers rights won't continue to be eroded? that the minimum wage will rise as quickly as it desperately needs to ? that our NHS will be in better shape in 5 years? that the rest of our public services will be in better condition than they are now?

In my opinion if you can answer yes to any of them you are either very naive or a liar.

Alas im not allowed to answer this as I didn't Vote Tory but if I was allowed to id say what a load of melodramatic bolloxs

Sorry Mark I know you mean well

[Neil]

Great result in the end for me, voted Tory here.

Selfishly, or whatever, it's the best result financially for me...and in turn my family. Beaming with joy, litteraly.

[PompeyVillan]

I do wonder how many people out there are party political muppets. I know I have a few in my family, they vote Conservative without actually knowing anything about their policy. I doubt anything another party could offer would change their vote.

[Seat68]

kippers bleating on about the vote are comparing the rest of the uk to scotland, in scotland they barely got 1.5% of the vote so if they are going to use the SNP's share in scotland then they must use their own share in Scotland as the comparison.

[Neil]

The extra 10k tax free dividend I can take a year and 30 hours childcare are amongst my favourite manifesto promises.