UK General Election 2010

[North Suran]

Even so, that seems a pretty blatant contradiction of their political stance. That is akin to a Communist being in support of the privatisation of government services.

I disagree. I think for some reason people who describe themselves as free market are taken to mean completely unfettered and totally laissez faire in all sectors, but that's not generally how the term is used in economics.

A genuine free market system demands nothing less than a total laissez-faire government in all sectors of the economy, aside from the prevention of illegal force and the prosecution of fraudsters - and even some of the more radicals would be opposed to this.

[Hydesland]

A genuine free market system demands nothing less than a total laissez-faire government in all sectors of the economy

I don't know where people get this idea from.

[Angleter]

Free-market libertarians who support government-run healthcare?

That's mostly how it works in the UK now. It's just a bit weird to think of a privatised system for us, it's like asking for a privatised court system in the US, sure a few lolbertarians want that but they are the minority in general.

Even so, that seems a pretty blatant contradiction of their political stance. That is akin to a Communist being in support of the privatisation of government services.

It's because the NHS is Britain's state religion now.

[North Suran]

A genuine free market system demands nothing less than a total laissez-faire government in all sectors of the economy

I don't know where people get this idea from.

I'm going to wager a guess that it is the many sources which say so.

[Chrobalta]

Even so, that seems a pretty blatant contradiction of their political stance. That is akin to a Communist being in support of the privatisation of government services.

I disagree. I think for some reason people who describe themselves as free market are taken to mean completely unfettered and totally laissez faire in all sectors, but that's not generally how the term is used in economics.

A genuine free market system demands nothing less than a total laissez-faire government in all sectors of the economy, aside from the prevention of illegal force and the prosecution of fraudsters - and even some of the more radicals would be opposed to this.

Yeah, but the lolbertarian movement in the United States is also a pretty strict constitutionalists movement (though only when dealing with the parts of the constitution they like ), so they would recognize that the constitution does setup a federally run court system(only the extreme radicals like the Randites would disagree with that).

Though I am not sure how it works in the UK.

[Hydesland]

I'm going to wager a guess that it is the many sources which say so.

Well firstly, there are two large parts to the economy, the generation of its wealth and its distribution. NHS is regarding the latter and historically, free market concerns the former (with regulation and privatisation etc...). Nevertheless, any source that claims that this is what the free market specifically means I think is seriously misreading a number of people, from Smith to Friedman.

[Georgism]

I'm going to wager a guess that it is the many sources which say so.

Well firstly, there are two large parts to the economy, the generation of its wealth and its distribution. NHS is regarding the latter and historically, free market concerns the former (with regulation and privatisation etc...). Nevertheless, any source that claims that this is what the free market specifically means I think is seriously misreading a number of people, from Smith to Friedman.

Precisely. One can have a free market and still have a sizeable welfare state, for example Canada and the Scandinavian nations

[Forsakia]

May well be a rogue, probably won't last, but.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2607&cp=1#comments

YouGov

CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8)

This is going to be a fun one.

[Georgism]

May well be a rogue, probably won't last, but.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2607&cp=1#comments

YouGov

CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8)

This is going to be a fun one.

Proportional representation would make it even more fun

[Forsakia]

May well be a rogue, probably won't last, but.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2607&cp=1#comments

YouGov

CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8)

This is going to be a fun one.

Proportional representation would make it even more fun

Nah, with PR you'd know vaguely how many seats they'd all get with FPTP there's going to be suspense all through election night.

[Georgism]

May well be a rogue, probably won't last, but.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/?p=2607&cp=1#comments

YouGov

CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8)

This is going to be a fun one.

Proportional representation would make it even more fun

Nah, with PR you'd know vaguely how many seats they'd all get with FPTP there's going to be suspense all through election night.

The end result would be more lulzy though

[Esperantujo 2]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Heinlein
"There ain't no such thing as a free market" me
When the bankers' greed and stupidity threatened their bonuses, they came running to the government to dole out money to them, and lo and behold, the government obliges, so once again the poor are subsidising the rich. I would send them on courses, to learn how to get by on Job Seekers Allowance. And in a really "free" system, wouldn't workers be free to withdraw their labour, to demand better pay and conditions?
I think the number of people with real power in Britain is very small, perhaps one or two thousand company directors. How does this compare with totalitarian regimes?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Heinlein
"There ain't no such thing as a free market" me
When the bankers' greed and stupidity threatened their bonuses, they came running to the government to dole out money to them, and lo and behold, the government obliges, so once again the poor are subsidising the rich. I would send them on courses, to learn how to get by on Job Seekers Allowance.

You think jobseekers need to pay taxes under this system? And bailouts are not capitalist!

And in a really "free" system, wouldn't workers be free to withdraw their labour, to demand better pay and conditions?
And wouldn't the boss be free to fire them?

I think the number of people with real power in Britain is very small, perhaps one or two thousand company directors. How does this compare with totalitarian regimes?

2000:1

[Chumblywumbly]

ComRes/ITV have just released the first post-debate poll on voting intentions.

I stress that this is not a poll regarding who won the debate. It is an actual post-debate poll on voting intention.


Conservatives - 36% (-3)

Liberal Democrats - 35% (+14)

Labour - 24% (-3)

Others - 5% (-8)


Somebody pinch me.

YouGov/Sun:

Con - 33%
Lib - 30%
Lab- 28%

"Labour have not trailed in third place in a national poll of this kind since the days of the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s."

It's all suddenly got a bit interesting, eh?

EDIT:

Fancy a flutter? Ladbrokes is offering 50/1 on Lib Dems taking most seats.

[Chumblywumbly]

I was pretty disappointed that the first two questions are immigration and crime, the third is expenses - I don't know, I just think these are great emotional media stories, lovely political talking points but not, actually, serious political issues.

What about finance first, how are they managing our money...

To be fair, the first debate was meant to be on domestic affairs.
The next one will be on the economy IIRC.

[South Norwega]

I was pretty disappointed that the first two questions are immigration and crime, the third is expenses - I don't know, I just think these are great emotional media stories, lovely political talking points but not, actually, serious political issues.

What about finance first, how are they managing our money...

To be fair, the first debate was meant to be on domestic affairs.
The next one will be on the economy IIRC.

I think it goes Domestic Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Economy.

Which is a fairly sensible split.

[Jedi 999]

well britain is going to suffer it doesnt matter who is going to win

[Avenio]

well britain is going to suffer it doesnt matter who is going to win

And why would they suffer, praytell? Is this based upon the fact that you hold a grudge against an entire society and wish to see them all suffer (A much more extreme form of hatred than anything the British elite held) for crimes committed by a small minority centuries ago, which most of the world (Including the majority of India) has gotten over? Or is it for some other reason?

Do enlighten us.

[North Suran]

ComRes/ITV have just released the first post-debate poll on voting intentions.

I stress that this is not a poll regarding who won the debate. It is an actual post-debate poll on voting intention.


Conservatives - 36% (-3)

Liberal Democrats - 35% (+14)

Labour - 24% (-3)

Others - 5% (-8)


Somebody pinch me.

YouGov/Sun:

Con - 33%
Lib - 30%
Lab- 28%

"Labour have not trailed in third place in a national poll of this kind since the days of the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s."

It's all suddenly got a bit interesting, eh?

Trust me, it really hasn't. People are just polling in favour of the candidate they thought performed the best during the debate. I doubt that this sudden increase for the Lib Dems is going to convert into any actual votes.

[Tagmatium]

And why would they suffer, praytell? Is this based upon the fact that you hold a grudge against an entire society and wish to see them all suffer (A much more extreme form of hatred than anything the British elite held) for crimes committed by a small minority centuries ago, which most of the world (Including the majority of India) has gotten over? Or is it for some other reason?

Do enlighten us.

If we're quiet and turn the lights off, maybe he'll go away...

I honestly pretty excited by the upcoming election.

[Persemacleus]

Whoever gets in will make no difference to me. The issues that are truely important to me and, in my opinion, the future of the world are not being addressed by any of the parties. The inherent problems of the monetary system, the constant pointless wasting of resources, the hugely varied quality of life, etc.

[The Archregimancy]

Conservatives - 36% (-3)

Liberal Democrats - 35% (+14)

Labour - 24% (-3)

Others - 5% (-8)

YouGov/Sun:

Con - 33%
Lib - 30%
Lab- 28%

"Labour have not trailed in third place in a national poll of this kind since the days of the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s."

It's all suddenly got a bit interesting, eh?

Barringtonia correctly pointed out earlier that the ComRes poll data I originally cited above was flawed; it was leaked unweighted data. The actually weighted data was Con 35 / Lab 28 / LD 24, which was little more than a mild LD increase, not a big surge.

But then that YouGov/Sun poll came out.

And that same Guardian article that Chumbly cites has now been updated to include a new poll....

Harris/Daily Mail

LibDem 32%
Conservative 32%
Labour 26%


North Suran may be sceptical over whether this will last, or translate into votes, but something is happening right now; suddenly this is the most interesting election since 1997. And while I might be mildly obsessed with this next example, it's suddenly arguably the most potentially interesting election since 1923.

And I bet you Conservative Central Office are ruing Cameron's personal decision to accept the debate terms that give Clegg equal billing to himself and Brown.

[Chumblywumbly]

It's all suddenly got a bit interesting, eh?

Trust me, it really hasn't. People are just polling in favour of the candidate they thought performed the best during the debate. I doubt that this sudden increase for the Lib Dems is going to convert into any actual votes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not banking on a Lib Dem Premiership, but there mere fact that a party routinely mocked for being wash-outs, a party that has barely polled above 20%, is now polling into 30% on voting intention polls is staggering - even considering the circumstances of the bounce.

As to those polled answering in favour of the candidate they thought performed the best during the debate, if Clegg can keep his performance and the Lib Dems momentum up throughout the debates and onto May 6th - and I realise that's a massive 'if' - who's to say a large chunk of voters won't be voting in favour of the candidate they thought performed the best during the debate?

Here's Anthony Wells from over at UKPR:

For once I do not need to add a caveat about changes being inside the margin of error and not necessarily being significant – today’s YouGov poll for the Sun shows a huge surge for the Liberal Democrats on the back of Nick Clegg’s debate performance, putting the Lib Dems ahead of Labour and into second place. The topline figures are CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8). The surge in Lib Dem support therefore seems to have come pretty evenly at the expence of the Conservatives and Labour. This is the highest level of support YouGov have recorded for the Liberal Democrats since the aftermath of the Brent East by-election victory, way back in 2003.

On a uniform swing these figures would leave Labour the largest party, despite being in third place. The Lib Dems would have around about 100 seats. In reality though, it’s almost impossible to say how this would translate into an election result. In 1983 when the SDP Liberal Alliance almost pushed Labour into third place UNS was actually a pretty good predictor of the result, but who knows how it would work in practice now. If the Lib Dems stay at this sort of figure I’m sure we’ll eventually see some more detailled polling to see how the electoral plates are shifting, but till then it is speculation.

The questions now are firstly whether other polls show the same thing? Secondly how long this boost lasts. Is it mostly a publicity boost that will rapidly disappear, or will it stick around? Boosts after things like the Brent East by-election didn’t last long, but in this case the Lib Dems will probably enjoy a further publicity boost from the very fact there are polls showing them in second place, and on top of that there are two more debates to go. Thirdly, how does this change the narrative – can the Lib Dems start painting themselves as a contender to actually win?

---

Harris/Daily Mail

LibDem 32%
Conservative 32%
Labour 26%

Bloody hell...

North Suran may be sceptical over whether this will last, or translate into votes, but something is happening right now; suddenly this is the most interesting election since 1997. And while I might be mildly obsessed with this next example, it's suddenly arguably the most potentially interesting election since 1923.

And I bet you Conservative Central Office are ruing Cameron's personal decision to accept the debate terms that give Clegg equal billing to himself and Brown.

Cameron's rushing about today expounding the evils of a hung parliament, trying to paint himself, not Clegg, as the candidate for change.

[Tagmatium]

Cameron's rushing about today expounding the evils of a hung parliament, trying to paint himself, not Clegg, as the candidate for change.

He would, though, wouldn't he?

I think Clegg would probably do better than Cameron, although I'm somewhat biased against the Tories, so I'm probably not being that even-handed.

I'm beginning to feel myself drawn towards the LibDems, though.

Who knows what'll change, come the 6th of May...

[Chumblywumbly]

He would, though, wouldn't he?

I think Clegg would probably do better than Cameron, although I'm somewhat biased against the Tories, so I'm probably not being that even-handed.

Cameron's plea didn't come off as very genuine.

(Oh, and - pet peeve - you're not 'biased' against the Tories if you simply have an opinion on them.)