UK General Election 2015

[DungBeetle]

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

A little like the Tories claiming to have rescued the economy?

From the ONS:

'This edition contains revised historical estimates of labour productivity back to 1948, consistent with revisions to National Accounts introduced in Blue Book 2014. These estimates show that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the post-war period.'

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_397326.pdf

I see this measure a lot recently (eg France has higher productivity than UK).  How is productivity managed?  Is it some per capita measure?

[DungBeetle]

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

A little like the Tories claiming to have rescued the economy?

From the ONS:

'This edition contains revised historical estimates of labour productivity back to 1948, consistent with revisions to National Accounts introduced in Blue Book 2014. These estimates show that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the post-war period.'

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_397326.pdf

stop bringing facts into this argument please. I think we'd all prefer to hear more of the Tory narrative about how they've 'fixed' the economy. Because, you know, science.

Come on - both sides spins it.  Labour will say they were doing a brilliant responsible job before the trademarked "Global Economic Crisis" happened which was out of their control and wrecked everything.  Which begs the question, what would have happened to Debt v GDP if there has been a bog standard recession in the UK?

[neeko]

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

A little like the Tories claiming to have rescued the economy?

From the ONS:

'This edition contains revised historical estimates of labour productivity back to 1948, consistent with revisions to National Accounts introduced in Blue Book 2014. These estimates show that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the post-war period.'

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_397326.pdf

I see this measure a lot recently (eg France has higher productivity than UK).  How is productivity managed?  Is it some per capita measure?

It's usually the number changed to make the rest of the GDP figures add up.

[TightEnd]

The first final poll :

Populus has it level pegging

Con 34 (+1), Lab 34 (+1), Ukip 13 (-2), Lib Dems 10+1

[doubleup]

Milband said this yesterday - thoughts?

"‘There was a financial crisis – and the financial crisis drove the deficit upwards. The debt and the deficit before the financial crisis were lower than those we inherited and that’s clear.’"

The GDP one is here

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-sector-finances/july-2013/chd-1--story.xls

So probably true, but not massively clear and excludes PFI and unfunded pensions.  Including unfounded pensions would reverse that for instance.  I haven't checked the deficit one but I'd be surprised as that was falling when Blair took over.  I guess he must have checked though.

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

Pension liabilities have never been included and barring a soylent green exercise, I'm not quite sure what Labour were meant to do about demographics.

PFI arguable, but then again that was a John Major invention enthusiastically embraced by Blair.

[mulhuzz]

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

A little like the Tories claiming to have rescued the economy?

From the ONS:

'This edition contains revised historical estimates of labour productivity back to 1948, consistent with revisions to National Accounts introduced in Blue Book 2014. These estimates show that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the post-war period.'

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_397326.pdf

I see this measure a lot recently (eg France has higher productivity than UK).  How is productivity managed?  Is it some per capita measure?

France not the best yardstick maybe?

The euro area manufacturing PMI was revised slightly higher from 51.9 to 52 in April, but was still down compared to March. The most important aspect of the report was the strong under-performance of France, as its PMI fell to 48, much below PMIs of other countries (51.9 in Germany, 53.3 in Italy, 54.2 in Spain…).

[TightEnd]

[RickBFA]

Leafletted parents outside schools in many elections myself and I'm sure I've seen politicians on TV in schools all thru this election too.

Maybe local authorities ban this type of thing for the fun of it then?

Aren't you getting confused with polling day?  The polling stations are usually schools and campaigning is prohibited in the immediate area of a polling station.

Just what the Electoral Commission told me. The guy there seemed pretty switched on.

[AndrewT]

Love the best case scenarios - for Labour and Conservatives it's 'nowhere near enough for a majority'. For the SNP it's 'all of them'

[Doobs]

Milband said this yesterday - thoughts?

"‘There was a financial crisis – and the financial crisis drove the deficit upwards. The debt and the deficit before the financial crisis were lower than those we inherited and that’s clear.’"

The GDP one is here

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-sector-finances/july-2013/chd-1--story.xls

So probably true, but not massively clear and excludes PFI and unfunded pensions.  Including unfounded pensions would reverse that for instance.  I haven't checked the deficit one but I'd be surprised as that was falling when Blair took over.  I guess he must have checked though.

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

Pension liabilities have never been included and barring a soylent green exercise, I'm not quite sure what Labour were meant to do about demographics.

PFI arguable, but then again that was a John Major invention enthusiastically embraced by Blair.

I didn't say the pension scheme liabilities had been included previously, but they are very real and very much should be.   As should PFI.  If the official position was a tiny bit better than they inherited just before the crisis, then there is little doubt that the real underlying position was a lot worse.

The parties of whatever colour should be very aware of demographics.  If they were, then they wouldn't be sat there complacently saying we should have carried on spending these past few years.  Just because some economist has realised that it was safe to carry a certain level of debt in the past doesn't mean we can in the future.

[Jon MW]

Leafletted parents outside schools in many elections myself and I'm sure I've seen politicians on TV in schools all thru this election too.

Maybe local authorities ban this type of thing for the fun of it then?

Aren't you getting confused with polling day?  The polling stations are usually schools and campaigning is prohibited in the immediate area of a polling station.

Just what the Electoral Commission told me. The guy there seemed pretty switched on.

I would have thought campaigning by the polling stations is covered by the Electoral Commission - so that should rule out that's what he was talking about as the local authorities would be irrelevant to that.

[doubleup]

Leafletted parents outside schools in many elections myself and I'm sure I've seen politicians on TV in schools all thru this election too.

Maybe local authorities ban this type of thing for the fun of it then?

Aren't you getting confused with polling day?  The polling stations are usually schools and campaigning is prohibited in the immediate area of a polling station.

Just what the Electoral Commission told me. The guy there seemed pretty switched on.

I would have thought campaigning by the polling stations is covered by the Electoral Commission - so that should rule out that's what he was talking about as the local authorities would be irrelevant to that.

Local authorities set the "boundaries" (there is an official name for them that I can't recall) of the polling station.

[doubleup]

Milband said this yesterday - thoughts?

"‘There was a financial crisis – and the financial crisis drove the deficit upwards. The debt and the deficit before the financial crisis were lower than those we inherited and that’s clear.’"

The GDP one is here

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-sector-finances/july-2013/chd-1--story.xls

So probably true, but not massively clear and excludes PFI and unfunded pensions.  Including unfounded pensions would reverse that for instance.  I haven't checked the deficit one but I'd be surprised as that was falling when Blair took over.  I guess he must have checked though.

I am not sure it is right to just exclude inconvenient things that make you look bad and claim you are winners.  Just makes you look looks sore losers.

Pension liabilities have never been included and barring a soylent green exercise, I'm not quite sure what Labour were meant to do about demographics.

PFI arguable, but then again that was a John Major invention enthusiastically embraced by Blair.

I didn't say the pension scheme liabilities had been included previously, but they are very real and very much should be.   As should PFI.  If the official position was a tiny bit better than they inherited just before the crisis, then there is little doubt that the real underlying position was a lot worse.

The parties of whatever colour should be very aware of demographics.  If they were, then they wouldn't be sat there complacently saying we should have carried on spending these past few years.  Just because some economist has realised that it was safe to carry a certain level of debt in the past doesn't mean we can in the future.

The debate was Labour's debt accrual in comparison to what they inherited, so in that context unfunded pensions are irrelevant.

In the wider debate you could argue that (as Greek pensioners have discovered) unfunded government pensions are not liabilities, merely another facet of government spending funded through taxation and can be cut if required.

[TightEnd]

By 10 o'clock on Thursday evening the people will have spoken but the questions which will then follow look likely to be - "What on earth did they mean by that? Who actually won? Who has the right to govern?"

Unless the polls are wrong - which they very well might be - and unless there is a late switch in opinion - which there still could be - most players and pundits are now expecting an election that is too close to call and may produce a result which could allow for either David Cameron or Ed Miliband to become prime minister.

So, what is obsessing politicians of all parties behind-the-scenes is the debate about what a legitimate government would look like.

You might think that's simple - one led by the winning party - but think again. In politics things aren't nearly so neat and simple as that. What's more your definition of what is a legitimate government tends, surprise surprise, to be shaped by how it helps the party you support.

So, what are the competing arguments?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32591505

[DungBeetle]

I think under our system, a coalition that can form 320 seats has legitimacy even if it doesn't have the winner involved.  However, Miliband will get accused of lacking legitimacy in the press at every turn if he gets in by finishing distant 2nd, especially if things start poorly.  This won't make things easy for him.

I also think it would harden the vote for the "winner" that ends up in opposition significantly next time around.