Britain's First TV Election Debate

[Sheilbh]

And how many do the Lib-Dems have?

Dream cabinet they probably have as many as the Tories and Labour - including ex-leaders like Kennedy, Campbell and, in the Lords, Ashdown.  Practically I'd say 3-4 at most.

Labour and the Tories do, to their credit, have some impressive people on the back benches but they won't get a look-in due to internal politics.  I'm not sure that the Lib Dems are big enough for internal divisions.

Of course they won't win, and almost certainly won't push Labour into third.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I found all 3 of them deeply depressing on immigration; they were all pandering to the xenophobes.

They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

[Barrister]

They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

This is reassuring news though.   

[Sheilbh]

They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

This is only sort of true though.  They all said that there would need to be cuts and Darling's said they'll be deeper than Thatcher.  I believe the budget figures actually suggest spending cuts that'll be worse than when we called in the IMF. 

But none of them are willing to say what savage cuts they'll make.  I think they're all up for cutting public sector pensions and freezing public sector pay.  Labour's ring-fencing all 'front-line services', the Tories are ring-fencing international aid, defence and the NHS, the Lib Dems aren't ring-fencing, to the best of my knowledge.  But it is irritating and dispiriting that when we know they're all planning to make serious cuts we're arguing over a £6 billion difference in tax (that is, less than 1% of the deficit) which will apparently endanger the recovery whoever wins.

Edit:  Entirely agree on immigration though.  I find it genuinely distressing how unpleasant this entire debate has got that it's almost impossible for a politician to make a spirited defence of immigration.

Incidentally I found that the weirdest moment.  Brown was talking about immigration and said about how he talked to foreign chefs and told them there would be no more chefs from outside the EU.  Then he did the same to care assistants.  It sort of sums up his campaign.  Travel round the country spreading misery.  Thank God for Mandy:

[Josquius]

Wow, oppinion polls based on that are overwhelmingly for the lib dems.
I always knew they would come out well from this though. Exposure has always been their problem. And not seeming to be a major party. Not policies.
Unfortunately the lib dems doing well spells bad for labour. It splits the left wing vote even more.

I must say I like the lib dem idea of making savings in cutting the nukes.

Before I was quite meh, not planning to vote- labour always win in my area anyway. Now though...I might actually bother to tell my mam to vote lib dem for me.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, Darling is being more honest about the extent of the problem than most.

One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

[Agelastus]

Yes, Darling is being more honest about the extent of the problem than most.

Darling's been giving me the impression for months that he's tired of being Brown's "yes man" in the Treasury; he's not been towing the "Brown line" for months, in many ways. I smell a post election leadership challenge coming.

And yes, I have agreed with much that Darling has said over those months, something I find quite refreshing when I consider my normal reaction to what most Labour politicians say.

One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I'd say that's exactly what they are trying to do. Brown's attitude over the last few months has appeared to be one that "legislation = problem solved", not "legislation followed by action = problem solved".

I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

It's a sign they don't trust the electorate, in my opinion; even when all the opinion polls say that the general public believes cuts are coming, and, more importantly, sees them as both neccessary and unavoidable, they still can't break away from the tired old mantras they've been using for decades and take a risk with the truth.

[Sheilbh]

One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

No-one's talking about the debt, which is a problem.  In the context of the debt national insurance is even more pathetic a debate to be having.  I hope that everyone saying that things will be tough will prepare people for it, so they're not surprised when it happens.  I'm not, however, convinced that that's the case and I think whoever wins just wants the cover to say 'we warned you'.

I agree that we're in for a rough ride.  I think Labour's figures, in the budget for example, suggest an £800 million cut in education, for example - while, somehow, 'protecting front-line services'. 

[Sheilbh]

It's a sign they don't trust the electorate, in my opinion; even when all the opinion polls say that the general public believes cuts are coming, and, more importantly, sees them as both neccessary and unavoidable, they still can't break away from the tired old mantras they've been using for decades and take a risk with the truth.

Well I agree with them not to trust the public.  The public believes cuts are coming, but that doesn't mean they'll like them or the inevitable tax rises for that matter.  I think most people would like to believe that you really can cut everything away by cutting down on government waste, which is nonsense.

[Agelastus]

I agree that we're in for a rough ride.  I think Labour's figures, in the budget for example, suggest an £800 million cut in education, for example - while, somehow, 'protecting front-line services'.

So he's going to stop pumping money into the public sector pension schemes he himself wrecked then? 

I think I've mentioned this before, but while its' quite obvious the local hospitals in my area are battening down the hatches in terms of recruitment, local schools are still recruiting as if they think the money tap is eternal. And I don't think this is a case of the local hospitals overspending their budgets; the last couple of years have shown a distinct trend away from deficits, with many health authorities reporting year-on-year surpluses.

[Agelastus]

Well I agree with them not to trust the public.  The public believes cuts are coming, but that doesn't mean they'll like them or the inevitable tax rises for that matter.  I think most people would like to believe that you really can cut everything away by cutting down on government waste, which is nonsense.

Six or twelve months ago you would have been wrong in my opinion. The "man in the street" spots that local and national news is so fond of showed an excellent grasp of the situation, at a time when Brown was still on his "spend, spend" mantra. Now, you are probably right, but that's only because all parties have started talking of "efficiency savings" which you and I both know are not going to be anywhere near enough.

Of course, the first question I ask when someone speaks of savings through efficiency gains is if these cuts were possible, why didn't you make them ten years ago? Or if the cuts are in areas you have provided more funding for, why did you provide the funding to let the bureaucracy bloat?

I find the national insurance row hilarious. Not because the Tories are wrong, and not because Labour has had to resort to calling on economists for support when they couldn't find any business leaders to do it, but because the public sector will be paying the most if the increase goes through (it is 52% of our economy, roughly, after all.)

[Sheilbh]

So he's going to stop pumping money into the public sector pension schemes he himself wrecked then? 

I think the Chancellor's debate had them all agreeing, broadly, to major public sector pension 'reforms' (cuts) and a freeze on public sector pay.  I remember Osbourne saying it could be an area of cross-party consensus. 

In all honesty I think the difference in terms of cuts will be negligible whoever wins, because they'll become essential.  Either our government or the IMF.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, which does mean that the NI increase will effectively have the benefit of reducing the public sector wage bill 

The NI increase, in 2011, will raise £6bn a year. But, we will have borrowed another £180bn by then. The government is currently paying 4.2% on it's bond issues IIRC. So  the recurrent interest on the money we borrow this year will exceed the money raised by this flagship taxation proposal.

[Sheilbh]

Of course, the first question I ask when someone speaks of savings through efficiency gains is if these cuts were possible, why didn't you make them ten years ago? Or if the cuts are in areas you have provided more funding for, why did you provide the funding to let the bureaucracy bloat?

But the answer's because we had ten good years - we shouldn't have had a deficit then - but we had strong growth, so the need to be strict with spending is less ever-present.  It's like so much of the work Cameron put in in 2005-08 just doesn't matter any more.  In good times he could afford to focus on more, sort-of, feel-good policies (like matching Labour on the NHS, talking about the environment etc) which helped him then but I think now make him look more like a peace-time candidate.

I recommend this OECD gizmo on deficits though.  It's pretty surprising how normal they are in so many countries, which is part of what's going to necessitate deep cuts now:
https://community.oecd.org/community/factblog/blog/2010/03/23/deepening-debt

I find the national insurance row hilarious. Not because the Tories are wrong, and not because Labour has had to resort to calling on economists for support when they couldn't find any business leaders to do it, but because the public sector will be paying the most if the increase goes through (it is 52% of our economy, roughly, after all.)

I disagree with the Tories on national insurance simply because I think it would be less economically damaging than a VAT rise which is the other probable option. 

But I find the whole argument infuriating because the Tories and the right-wing press call the raise a 'stealth tax'.  It was announced two years ago, something that's been in budgets for 24 months is not stealth, it's just not been noticed.  It's no more a stealth tax than Whitsunday is a stealth holiday.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'd be amazed if VAT isn't at least 20% by 2012; regardless of which party wins. Apart from anything else it keeps the inflation rate up which is handy when you owe vast sums of money.

Though that can make raising further tranches of money more difficult and costly 

And, indeed, Britain has to pay a higher rate of interest than Italy when it sells a new bond :

http://markets.ft.com/markets/bonds.asp