UK GENERAL ELECTION THURSDAY MAY 6th 2010

[Slothrop]

By and large, though, if you couldn't have got the 50% + 1 to pass a vote of confidence then you won't be able to do much else...

I mean, it looks like it's being put in place to give them a window to repair relations if cracks appear in the coalition, rather than to let them hold onto power for against the will of parliament for an extended period.

 

[crackerjack]

By and large, though, if you couldn't have got the 50% + 1 to pass a vote of confidence then you won't be able to do much else...

I mean, it looks like it's being put in place to give them a window to repair relations if cracks appear in the coalition, rather than to let them hold onto power for against the will of parliament for an extended period.

That sounds a bit generous. It looks to me like they're passing a law that means this Tory minority can't be voted out of office early.

edit: It seems a prety simple orthodoxy to me that if you can't command the house you shouldn't be in office.

has the HoC ever required more than a simple majority for anything?

 

[boombox]

I give them the benefit of the doubt and agree with Slothrop.

 

[Slothrop]

That sounds a bit generous. It looks to me like they're passing a law that means this Tory minority can't be voted out of office early.

That's true, actually - I hadn't done the maths properly. I thought it meant that they had to completely lose the lib dems before having to call another election, but it actually means that the most the lib dems can force if they decide to split is a minority government.

Not sure how long they'd limp on with a minority government, but yeah it is a bit scary.

 

[craner]

Obviously this is personal for you in some way I don't understand (which is fair enough, as everyone is alway speaking through their own experience when giving opinions), else there's no reason to ask that question.

Because everyone should be given equal opportunity to vote, and it shouldnt' be made harder for those with the most commitments, or who live in underresourced areas, which, let's face it, are usually poor areas.

It's not personal in the slightest, I just thought the coverage of and reaction to this was ludicrous and annoying -- from Dimberlby on the BBC saying it was like being in a Third World Country (not quite, David) to some woman outisde a polling station barking about being "disenfranchised" -- to you, this afternoon, saying that volunteers and organisers at polling stations have contempt for voters, an absurd and unfair assertion.

Everybody apart from the very, very rural lives within 20 minutes of a polling station -- under or adequatley resourced...you can only accomodate people so bloody far, however many commitments they have. Voting is a pretty important commitment, so -- short of a public holiday -- you either make room for it in your ever so hectic day or arrange a postal vote to avoid disturbance (not a difficult procedure, after all) or disenfranchise yourself and don't moan about it.

 

[grizzleb]

Tory 'headbangers' or not aside, hey, at least i see that ex-investment banker David Laws - rightly criticised even by his own colleague Chris Huhne for favouring health social insurance schemes that (as Huhne pointed out) invariably exclude some of the poorest sections of society - is chief secretary to the Treasury.

w ex-Royal Dutch Shell chief economist Vince Cable (honest bloke: as long ago as 2005 he was saying he'd go into a coalition w the Tories) as business secretary it's some firm pairs of hands from the liberals to go alongside George Osbourne, Michael Gove and the like as we go about the business of cuts, cuts, and, er, cuts again.

oh, er, where was i?

Cuts that were round the corner regardless of who got in. Oh, but Labour would have put it off for a year...Nice one. I'm sure that extra 6 billion would have been the difference between economic growth and recession...

 

[scottdisco]

Cuts that were round the corner regardless of who got in. Oh, but Labour would have put it off for a year...Nice one. I'm sure that extra 6 billion would have been the difference between economic growth and recession...

small differences.

Wealthy taxpayers face a squeeze on incomes whichever party is elected next week, but the old faultlines of politics still divide the parties on how to deal with the poorest – with Labour benefiting low-income families more than rivals, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Labour's one percentage point rise in national insurance next year will not affect the millions of people out of work who don't pay tax, leaving those in work and wealthy pensioners to pay the £6bn bill, the economic thinktank said in a 100-page analysis of the parties' economic plans. The rise in NI is dubbed the most redistributive of all tax changes compared with rival parties.

Middle-income earners will benefit most from the Liberal Democrat proposal to raise personal tax thresholds to £10,000. That plan will put £705 a year in each taxpayer's pocket and leave "better-off families", where both parents work, with a £27-a-week boost to their incomes.

Tory plans will limit the hit taken by those earning above £78,000 a year more than those of Labour and the Lib Dems...

"The tax and benefit changes already in the pipeline from Labour are progressive... with small losses for poorer households that increase in size on average as households get richer. The Conservatives would make the pattern less progressive, reducing the losses of households at the top of the income distribution proportionately more than those at the bottom. The Liberal Democrats would make the pattern more progressive, redistributing resources from the wealthy to middle-income households (though not the poorest)."

 

[Slothrop]

Everybody apart from the very, very rural lives within 20 minutes of a polling station -- under or adequatley resourced...you can only accomodate people so bloody far, however many commitments they have. Voting is a pretty important commitment, so -- short of a public holiday -- you either make room for it in your ever so hectic day or arrange a postal vote to avoid disturbance (not a difficult procedure, after all) or disenfranchise yourself and don't moan about it.

But people did make room for it in their hectic days. They just made room for it at half eight or nine in the evening rather than at three in the afternoon. If people turn up at a time when the polls are meant to be open but they can't vote because there's queue two hours long it's not their bloody fault, is it? It's not like the poll cards say "limited availability - first come first served" or "polls open 7am-10pm, last admission 8pm."

 

[grizzleb]

small differences.

I can't see there how the Labour plans would benefit poor people at all???
"The rise in NI is dubbed the most redistributive of all tax changes compared with rival parties." I don't get it...

It really is small beans anyway, and to say 'cuts cuts and more cuts' as if they wouldn't be coming hard and fast anyway is disingenuous.

 

[Sectionfive]

Labour website crashes

 

[scottdisco]

It really is small beans anyway, and to say 'cuts cuts and more cuts' as if they wouldn't be coming hard and fast anyway is disingenuous.

you mistake me. i certainly didn't mean to imply any of the potential govts that we were facing on the morning of May 6th wouldn't be doing just that, of course (and if my post read that way, i apologise for any potential sloppiness); i was looking ahead and noting the business background acumen of the liberal members of this new coalition in that post of mine you quoted.
what was it some northeast Labour bod said just before the election?

'we'll cut your throat, but the Tories will rip your head off.'

something like that.

still, small beans remain small differences.

obviously very small differences.

believe me, i have never had any illusions about New Labour, or, more recently, about this recession and the sorts of responses the international community are demanding countries mobilise toward it.

making a couple of entirely reasonable and wholly accurate observations about a pair of Orange Bookers (Ashdown once thought Laws a Tory mole and the latter was apparently invited to join a Tory Shadow Cabinet by the new Chancellor once; Cable's recent Keynesianism notwithstanding, as i noted upthread) is small (that word again!) beer in this thread...

...whilst i'm on thread, we clearly have at least one piece of unambiguously good news from this new coalition govt that is, of course, worth mentioning

We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

 

[baboon2004]

It's not personal in the slightest, I just thought the coverage of and reaction to this was ludicrous and annoying -- from Dimberlby on the BBC saying it was like being in a Third World Country (not quite, David) to some woman outisde a polling station barking about being "disenfranchised" -- to you, this afternoon, saying that volunteers and organisers at polling stations have contempt for voters, an absurd and unfair assertion.

Everybody apart from the very, very rural lives within 20 minutes of a polling station -- under or adequatley resourced...you can only accomodate people so bloody far, however many commitments they have. Voting is a pretty important commitment, so -- short of a public holiday -- you either make room for it in your ever so hectic day or arrange a postal vote to avoid disturbance (not a difficult procedure, after all) or disenfranchise yourself and don't moan about it.

I didn't say that volunteers at polling stations had contempt ( I salute the volunteers for giving up their time, on the contrary), rather than those (whoever they were) who took the decision to underman/resource certain polling stations, and then to not even make a sensible decision to show some leeway when lots of people had clearly turned up well in time, but didn't get to vote, showed contempt for a lot of people. Whoever underresourced the polling stations in quesiton fucked up, and they should carry the can, not people who weren't allowed to vote. That's not absurd, but obvious. And you'd be saying the same thing if you had turned up at 8.30 or 9 and weren't allowed to vote at your polling station, as would anyone. Loads of these people DID make room in their day for it- that's exactly the point.

Some people have more hectic lives than you and me, who were both posting on Dissensus quite a few times during a weekday, after all! Show them some empathy!

I agree that some of the moaning surrounding the election is ridiculous, but this is one example where I think it is entirely merited. I support getting more people (who want to) to vote through reasonable compromise, and the majority of the people who were turned away in these instances HAD made a good effort to get there on time. You can only accommodate admnistrative fuck-ups so far.

Again, public holiday is the best answer, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[massrock]

Difficult call to make on the night though. I mean the law says when people can vote until. Some returning officers bent the rules and others didn't.

Also if there was a public holiday for elections you just know people would be moaning about having to bloody vote when they're supposed to be on holiday.

 

[hucks]

small beans remain small differences.


...whilst i'm on thread, we clearly have at least one piece of unambiguously good news from this new coalition govt that is, of course, worth mentioning

Would add to that scrapping the 3rd runway at Heathrow

Thing is about the LibDem Tax plans, is that it should be a progressive move. It's a good idea that low paid people shouldn't pay tax. The fact that middle earners also pay less tax should not detract from that. But, if you wanted a purely progressive move, you should raise the allowance then raise the basic rate and lower the threshold for the higher rate accordingly.

 

[baboon2004]

Would add to that scrapping the 3rd runway at Heathrow

Thing is about the LibDem Tax plans, is that it should be a progressive move. It's a good idea that low paid people shouldn't pay tax. The fact that middle earners also pay less tax should not detract from that. But, if you wanted a purely progressive move, you should raise the allowance then raise the basic rate and lower the threshold for the higher rate accordingly.

well yeah, exactly.

any speculation been happening on what Cable's strategy for the banks is gonna be, or rather, what the coalition is going to allow him to do?

 

[crackerjack]

Would add to that scrapping the 3rd runway at Heathrow

Thing is about the LibDem Tax plans, is that it should be a progressive move. It's a good idea that low paid people shouldn't pay tax. The fact that middle earners also pay less tax should not detract from that. But, if you wanted a purely progressive move, you should raise the allowance then raise the basic rate and lower the threshold for the higher rate accordingly.

Indeed. There's now a suggstion that taxes will rise - the new stateement says PS will bear the majority of the deficit-reduction burden, which presumably means not all. Meanwhile the Tories have used the coalition to throw away the sweeties promised to rich and MC voters - no NI increase, Inheritance Tax reduction. It's a pretty canny statement from what I've seen, quite centrist. Will be interesting to see what happens next - I really think C&C's main problem won't be with lefty Libs but the Tory headbangers, esp. if there's no attempt to repeal the HRA. Will the tabloids not like that!

 

[crackerjack]

well yeah, exactly.

any speculation been happening on what Cable's strategy for the banks is gonna be, or rather, what the coalition is going to allow him to do?

NO, only that Vince will no longer be leading it, but is just a member of a committee led by Boy George.

 

[scottdisco]

But, if you wanted a purely progressive move, you should raise the allowance then raise the basic rate and lower the threshold for the higher rate accordingly.

that'd be good.

 

[baboon2004]

NO, only that Vince will no longer be leading it, but is just a member of a committee led by Boy George.

I don't get the joke :slanted: arrghh, no longer getting Boy George jokes - my brain must have atrophied.

Saw (well, edited) a hilarious case transcript of Boy George's attempt to get onto Celebrity Big brother, though.

 

[vimothy]

Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor, is not impressed with the ConDem coalition agreement:

“Deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain,” states the coalition agreement between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. If so, the rest of the document does not live up to the billing.

Compared with budget plans the government has inherited from its Labour predecessor, the agreement included no specific new spending cuts, lots of public spending pledges, copious tax cuts and a commitment to faster deficit reduction.

Unless there are huge spending cuts or tax increases planned but not yet announced, far from contracting, the deficit is about to deepen

No holding back there.

Meanwhile, Robert Barrie of Credit Suisse has been crunching the numbers and he reckons the fiscal measures so far announced imply a loosening of fiscal policy:

If they were all fully implemented, they would add close to £10bn per year to the deficit. That contrasts with the coalition agreement’s assertion that there will need to be “a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit”, with the new Office of Budget Responsibility ensuring that the numbers add up.

So much for tightening then.

Ha!