As the FT reports this morning, austerity has gone too far. A survey they sponsored has revealed the following:
Even Tory voters think cuts are a bit too much: overall that is the widely held sentiment.
But, Labour has not turned this into a vote advantage or a lead on economic policy.
And that is astonishing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It doesn’t seem at all astonishing to me. The media tells us hour after hour, every day, page after page, programme after programme, how bad the Labour party and its policies are, and how the only safe option is to stay with the Tories.
I agree. Only 2 days ago the Telegraph had another outing of ‘the Garden Tax’ fear tactic just before elections – scraping our website (strange that the spreadsheet they were quoting was only there for 3 days 18 months ago). The Express was about to follow suit but our chair scared them off with reminding them of the retractions they had to print last year. Worried homeowners are emailing us.
Austerity went too far the moment George Osborne declared the policy by ‘forward guidance’.
It’s just taken rather a long time for some people to notice.
It is indeed bizarre. Looking at it through a marketing lens, it must be because the Labour alternative, as viewed by the general consuming public and not its membership, simply isn’t attractive enough. However appealing many of its policies may be, if voters don’t have sufficient confidence in the leadership to deliver the programme then they will look elsewhere. As in commercial marketing, trust in a product or service is paramount. And it seems not enough people yet trust Jeremy Corbyn and his team.
The easy bit for an opposition is to criticise the incumbent government. The tough bit is to convince the public you can do better. That’s why, in so many instances, it’s governments themselves who are the architects of their own demise. Additionally, the Labour Party have so many internal issues being aired in public, thus diluting the integrity of their policies as seen from the outside.
The Tories are in a stronger position than they ought to be not only because of Labour’s inability to score open goals but because having created the mess suggest only they can clean it up – a modification of Shock Doctrine. Furthermore May will attempt to promote a front-bench of more moderate voices. The duplicitous arch neo-liberal Sajid Javid is not to be underestimated.
However, with so many variable factors still to be resolved, it’s way too early to predict the result of a GE. I’m not even sure the results of the forthcoming local elections will prove much. Labour should be wary of thinking that London and Manchester are typical of the country as a whole. And the MSM will promote anything positive they can find for the Tories.
All very frustrating. Barista, un caffè forte per favore.
For two, Senor
John D says:
“The Tories are in a stronger position……because having created the mess suggest only they can clean it up —”
An interesting take… Perhaps they might have applied the same reasoning in the aftermath of the GFC …..which was entirely Labour’s fault (?)
Aye . Right.
I think there is a view amongst the public that Brexit is the Tory’s fault, so they should be made to sort it, but that’s rather like getting the same plumber back when he’s just flooded your bathroom and brought the downstairs ceiling down on your head.
There are still people asking the ‘Compared to what?’ question so beloved of neo-classical economists. They suggest that a similar survey undertaken in 2007 asking if public spending had increased too much would have told the opposite of the story here.
In all candour no amount of public spending increase can be regarded as too little, and those who are comparing and contrasting past periods of fiscal expansion with now need to be purged from elected office and society in general.
To describe your writing style as obtuse is to be kind to it
What is your plain English argument because I read this three times and I am still not sure I know?