Very tactful; the implications of the ‘counter-intuitive’ point might be that a LibDem/Labour combination might do better than any other conceivable government on reducing the size of the public sector — which I find a step too counter-intuitive!
If you recommend a potential voter should be looking for a party which is being honest about the scale of the financial problem, you probably imply either voting UKIP (my impression is that they have talked a bit about the size of the problem) or not voting at all.
Another possible implication of a hung parliament might be the probability of another general election soon; which might or might not deliver an overall majority to a single party.
Perhaps if all parties involved were deficit hawks, the positive coalition outcome that Dr Booth tentatively outlines would ensue.
But with the Conservatives and Lib-Dems wobbly on the issue of ‘swingeing cuts’, and no upside from tax increases—with Laffer curve revenue attenuated, so that only cuts have perceivable long-term benefits—a coalition government will likely lead to half-measures and acrimony.
More probably, in lieu of a majority Conservative government—and even then—only market and ratings agency revolt will have sufficient impact to focus the minds of improvident politicians.
It is true that I did suggest there might be a positive outcome from a coalition but my main message was that there was unlikely to be the really positive outcome we need even if we did not have a coalition!
Comments are closed.
XWe use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent. Read More REJECTCookie settings ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Very tactful; the implications of the ‘counter-intuitive’ point might be that a LibDem/Labour combination might do better than any other conceivable government on reducing the size of the public sector — which I find a step too counter-intuitive!
If you recommend a potential voter should be looking for a party which is being honest about the scale of the financial problem, you probably imply either voting UKIP (my impression is that they have talked a bit about the size of the problem) or not voting at all.
Another possible implication of a hung parliament might be the probability of another general election soon; which might or might not deliver an overall majority to a single party.
I must admit, I did not have in mind a Labour/Lib Dem coalition when I was saying most of this.
Perhaps if all parties involved were deficit hawks, the positive coalition outcome that Dr Booth tentatively outlines would ensue.
But with the Conservatives and Lib-Dems wobbly on the issue of ‘swingeing cuts’, and no upside from tax increases—with Laffer curve revenue attenuated, so that only cuts have perceivable long-term benefits—a coalition government will likely lead to half-measures and acrimony.
More probably, in lieu of a majority Conservative government—and even then—only market and ratings agency revolt will have sufficient impact to focus the minds of improvident politicians.
It is true that I did suggest there might be a positive outcome from a coalition but my main message was that there was unlikely to be the really positive outcome we need even if we did not have a coalition!