If there was a GE today who would you vote for?

[87SPD]

Bit cheeky but I’m curious to see if there are genuinely any Tory voters out there at all following another disastrous week for Rishi Sunak.

So who would get your vote?

I‘ll go first, I would vote Labour. As much as I would love to hear more on policy and a firm grittiness from them, I do understand that Keir Starmer is doing the best he can, in that he can’t alienate a large proportion of the electorate so needs to toe the line.

And why did the US do so much better than the UK & Europe? The US borrowed to invest for future growth. Austerity was a political choice, not the only choice.

In 2010 the UK was struggling to keep its credit rating on Government debt and the only way to do was cutting spending or increasing taxes.

If the credit rating was cut then interest rates would have risen making the problem even worse.

Secondly there was minimal lending going on by banks to businesses because they had been burnt by bad debt. If the Government piled in borrowing more money then that would have crowded out what minimal lending was going on for businesses.

Economic theory has moved on from 1930s Keynes.

@MadderthanMorris

Your suggestion doesn't even make sense. If ALL political parties simply did WHATEVER they had to do to get elected, then all their manifestos would be exactly the same. It would simply be a question of finding out what most of the public already think and already want, and reflecting it.

++++

Such as everyone guaranteeing the triple lock on pensions which is unaffordable?

Or all parties promising to prevent migrants across the channel? Which is pretty much impossible.

On other topics the country is divided such as Brexit, so you have Labour and LibDems chasing the remain voters and the Tories chasing the leave voters (which is a bit more difficult because very few will now admit to it).

Or on taxation- when only 50% of income earners pay income tax do you target those not paying by saying I'll increase Government spending by increasing income taxes or do you target those who pay income tax by as you won't increase it?

@Justbetweenus

"And why did the US do so much better than the UK & Europe? The US borrowed to invest for future growth. Austerity was a political choice, not the only choice."

+++

Because the US economy has a higher degree of liberalisation and lower social spending that would be politically unacceptable in the UK or Europe.

@MadderthanMorris

Bollox. My comment came after highlighting the Brexit fiasco. Ed Milliband was pressured in 2015 to offer a referendum on exiting the EU to match the Tories' promise. Labour weren't unaware of the political pressure - they had the immigration mug and all that crap to try and capture some of the bigot vote themselves. But he refused to do so, because it was obviously a stupid idea that would wreck the economy and deliver no particular benefit.

+++

Even David Cameron thought the Brexit referendum was a stupid idea except firstly he only agreed to it in order to shut up the anti EU MPs in his party, secondly he feared losing more Tory defections to UKIP and thirdly he thought it was a fairly safe bet because surely no one would be dumb enough to actually vote Leave.

He got it wrong which is why he then quit or in his supposed words " if they think I'm going to stick around to clear up this shit (actually his shit) then they are wrong ".

Ed Milliband on the other hand didn't have the same level of internal dissent on EU membership.

@jgw1

Surely we don't need 80 new hospitals because Boris got 40 built and there is £350million extra a week for the NHS?

+++

Boris took the whole politician lying thing to a new level. Previously politicians such as Reece Mogg used their words very cleverly so as to not actually lie. However Boris took the view that voters think all politicians lie so what the hell let's go big on lying and not even attempt to cover yourself with clever words.

To be fair it worked quite well with a lot of voters.

Your suggestion doesn't even make sense. If ALL political parties simply did WHATEVER they had to do to get elected, then all their manifestos would be exactly the same. It would simply be a question of finding out what most of the public already think and already want, and reflecting it.

++++

Such as everyone guaranteeing the triple lock on pensions which is unaffordable?

Or all parties promising to prevent migrants across the channel? Which is pretty much impossible.

No, such as ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, ALWAYS.

And as a result, Ed Milliband DIDN'T "say whatever complete bullshit he had to to get elected" which was your original claim. You seem to think that because you can suggest REASONS why he didn't, that somehow exhonerates your claim from being manifestly wrong.

@MadderthanMorris

"And as a result, Ed Milliband DIDN'T "say whatever complete bullshit he had to to get elected" which was your original claim. You seem to think that because you can suggest REASONS why he didn't, that somehow exhonerates your claim from being manifestly wrong.

+++

You seem to misunderstand. Cameron didn't propose the EU referendum in order to get elected- there was no pressure from the public for such a vote. For most voters it was a side issue.

Instead Cameron proposed the referendum in order to stay in power as he feared the prospect of the Conservative Party breaking up over the EU issue.

Whether it is promising whatever to get elected or doing whatever to stay in power all politicians are alike on their desire to get elected and stay in power.

On other topics the country is divided such as Brexit, so you have Labour and LibDems chasing the remain voters and the Tories chasing the leave voters (which is a bit more difficult because very few will now admit to it).

But that would be impossible according to your original claim. If all three parties were simply "saying whatever bullshit they have to to get elected" then there would be no reason for them to chase different sets of voters. Indeed it would be impossible. They would simply research which set of voters held more political power at this point in time, according to their numbers, likelihood of turnout, concentration in swing seats etc, and chase them at the expense of the others. The only thing that could possibly differentiate them is differences in the technology used to ascertain this - which would surely be minor considering the advanced complexity of information gathering and processing now.

The fact that you say this presupposes that there are other factors at work as well - ideologies, values, preferences about which demographics are to benefit from their policies etc. Needing to be electorally viable may well weigh upon these, change them and create compromise and sometimes corruption. But it can't possibly be allowed absolute power over them or there would be no distinguishing identities in different parties' policies or manifestos.

You seem to misunderstand. Cameron didn't propose the EU referendum in order to get elected- there was no pressure from the public for such a vote. For most voters it was a side issue.

What a ridiculous claim, when we all remember the rise of UKIP! Cameron feared the Tories breaking up precisely because UKIP were threatening to take their votes from the right. I distinctly remember Milliband being asked by interviewers whether he would also offer a referendum, and having to justify why not. Not simply being told "well of COURSE you won't be offering a referendum, because there's no internal pressure in your party to do so!".

This is descending into one of those situations where you will just "say whatever bullshit you need to to avoid admitting you were wrong". 😀I think I'll just leave you to it.

Only someone who is able to tell me scientifically correctly what a woman is will get my vote. Sadly it seems that it may well be no one at this rate🙄. If they’re not capable of understanding GCSE biology they should not be in government.

@Mountaineer0009 , I think this government has made a dogs dinner of exploiting the potential of BREXIT and I’m about as disillusioned with politics as I’ve ever been but I believe the price the EU would demand for our re entry if (and it should be) it was put to the electorate, would be too high. Hopefully we’ll eventually have a relationship with the rest of Europe which is mutually beneficial while maintaining our autonomy from the EU.

I can’t vote Labour. Starmer is dull, dull and more dull. In Mumsnet language he totally gives me the ick.

Lib Dems (no clue who their leader is) but no. Hell no.

Greens/Independent - non of them here.

Conservatives (at least they are not boring) have my vote.

fair points

Agree with PPs, the Brexit referendum was to hoover up potential UKIP voters. NF has possibly had more influence than any recent politician for this alone.

I also agree with other posters that they're pretty much all as bad as each other. We have an eye-watering public debt and Labour have always been a high spending party. Arguments often comes back to PPE wastage but, as others have said, there was a clamour to chuck money at it from both sides of the Commons. It was done in an utterly shit way but most countries were competing to secure limited stock and panic buying is rarely economic.

Labour wanted longer lockdowns and more financial support, which was also a popular position on MN. If we'd done this, we'd be even more in debt. Labour has a mixed economic track record, including Gordon Brown selling off half our gold reserves at a 20 year low. In fairness, Liz Truss's unfunded tax cuts were also an ill thought out policy.

Some of the economic problems we're facing are global, not just a result of Conservative rule. Many of the western economies, including the US are grappling with high inflation and the consequences of QE. The era of cheap money is over, Germany is in recession and unemployment rates are high in Spain and Greece.

I can understand the disillusionment with the Conservative government and I share some of it too. But I don't think Labour will be the panacea people think it will either. Our debt is at WW2 levels, the NHS needs major reform towards a French or German system and there's endemic crime issues in many cities. I think KS is a decent enough man but I doubt he'll be able to wave the magic wand that some think he will.

As I understand things we are in a huge mess as we have been through unprecedented times;

We had Covid and lockdown which spiralled our national debt to unprecedented proportions.

We also have had global issues such as the mass movement of manufacturing to places like China.

We have a huge aging population who are also quite diabetes ridden and therefore more likely to require costly care.

The number of tax payers is insufficient for the number of people requiring benefits and care.

The largest organisations all avoid tax by off shoring profits using complex schemes of franchising or loan agreements and people are so stupid they buy their coffees or good from these companies whilst ironically calling for a tax on the rich. Just don’t buy goods from a company not paying their fair share!

As for that, the wealthier PAYE or properly taxed partnerships / firms are paying more tax than under Tony Blair. There has been a loss of tax free personal allowances and pension - recently watered down to appease the NHS consultants whose pension pots exceeded the million mark. Labour briefly increased top tax to 50% but it was cynically done just before the 2010 election so that they could accuse the conservatives of tax cutting for the rich.
We are a wealthier family and would have been thousands better off under Tony Blair that’s how bad things are.

To be frank, none of the parties offer any solution to huge debt run up under Covid, huge migration caused by the turmoil of wars in Syria, Iraq and the overthrow of Gadaffi and most importantly, a too heavy aging population.

There has to be adult discussions on what we can afford and perhaps everyone should reflect on every penny they spend and whether that company is using some elaborate scheme to reduce their tax burden. There is no panacea to this be it Labour or Conservative. Norway and Sweden achieves more by taxing middle and lower earners more - not the better off. Here middle and lower earners don’t even cover their own costs. Again in France, extremely higher earners pay less tax despite a wealth tax and moreover get lots more back in pension benefits. Overall I think a move to an insurance backed health care system is needed as the NHS just sucks up money and gives poor returns. I thing that Brexit was a disaster but we are stuck with it.

For all this, I can’t be bothered to vote as no single party can address any of these key issues. They just tinker around the edges.

Does the same also apply to other aspects of science such as climate change?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of inanity that brought us Boris Johnson as PM.

You forgot to mention having an increasingly hard right government for the past 13 years who have insisted on enriching those who have more money than they need rather than looking after the country.

Who was Prime Minister this time last year?

I'd vote independent. None of the 3 major parties are competent. They need a shock (like Farage) to get the message that the public don't want nor trust them at the moment.

@Oaktree1233

A really good post that details the difficulties and realities we face rather than empty political sound bites.

However in regards to your point:

"There has to be adult discussions on what we can afford and perhaps everyone should reflect on every penny they spend and whether that company is using some elaborate scheme to reduce their tax burden."

When 48% of the population pay no income tax because they don't earn enough, it is logical for them to vote for the party that promises increased Government spending even if it is financed by "taxing the rich" (without ever defining who the rich are) because it will not cost them anything.

Thinking about personal tax bands for a moment, the Tories have frozen them till 2028, a defacto tax rise .
Labour have been very quite on this issue which is very disappointing. It does make me think we have seen nothing yet if Labour get in which is my major concern i don't trust them.
By 2028 people in very average jobs will be paying a tax designed originally for the very high earners.
I do feel anybody earning just above average incomes and better should be watching Labour very carefully.

In the interests of factual accuracy I would like to point out two things.

1. it is possible for the very rich to pay a small amount of their income in tax. In one known example a multi-millionaire paying less tax on his income than teachers and nurses do.
2. How many of those who do not pay income tax are pensioners and children?

People should watch Labour closely because the Tories have frozen the higher rate tax threshold?

Ok.