The trouble is, while for most voters ‘the economy, stupid’ trumps racism toward migrants, asylum and immigration is a bigger issue than usual in the key marginals where the swing to the Tories will be largest. Migration Watch has done a ‘push-poll’ in the Labour and Liberal swing-seats to gauge how effective anti-immigration politics can be for the Tories, and the results suggest that anything with a blue rosette and an anti-immigrant stance would win in these seats.

With all the “denials” being issued, it’s as well to recall that after decades of diligent searches, no historian has found a piece of paper with Hitler’s signature authorising the holocaust. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a holocaust or that Hitler, as supreme leader in the Third Reich, didn’t give the nod to proposals put to him. By accounts, Hitler operated a form of “sofa government” and government departments in the Third Reich were enouraged to compete in putting up action proposals to him for approval. That was part of the Nazi’s “life is a perpetual struggle” meme.

“Authorised but deniable” has long been part of government practice in Britain.

It looks to me we are definitely in hung parliament territory. Although some would say the marginals may be different. Since I do not have any partisan attachment to any of them this is something I would welcome as it forces them to work together. Martin Wolf wrote a good column why we should welcome coalition government. It was after all the normal form of government in the UK for much of the 20th century.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3df8eca-1740-11df-94f6-00144feab49a.html

I wrote on here before Xmas that the media narrative of markets fearing a hung parliament was utter rubbish. A coalition government will have more legitimacy for fiscal consolidation. As a consequence, the necessary fiscal consolidation will have more chance of success coming from a coalition rather than a divisive government.

‘ Research by the House of Commons library shows that of the 10 largest fiscal consolidations in OECD member countries since 1970, seven occurred under coalition governments – in Italy, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Belgium (twice) and Norway. Provided those in power are responsible and the public understands what is at stake, there is no reason why a coalition government should not deliver the restraint the country will need. ‘

Martin Wolf wrote a good column why we should welcome coalition government. It was after all the normal form of government in the UK for much of the 20th century.

This is not necessarily a good thing. The point about ‘grand coalitions’ is that they amount to a contraction of democracy, because in the name of national unity, the different parties are refusing to represent the constituencies that elected them. Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the Labour leadership joined the cabinet during WWI rather than, as it promised its supporters, oppose the barbaric enterprise from without? Or that Ramsay Macdonald threw aside his party to form a ‘National’ goverment with the Tories, under a royal blessing? Wolf mentions the Churchill coalition because that is the only circumstance that it would seem to be an uncontroversial case due to the necessity of defeating the Third Reich. Even if one were to accept that coalition was necessary in that instance, does it really follow that it’s a good idea to repeat the example amid a recession? Are there not legitimate differences of interest and perspective over what needs to be done about this crisis? Should these not be debated with at least the bare minimum of rigour that parliament sometimes provides? If the majority favour a tax on profits, higher income taxes for the well off, or a ‘robin hood’ tax, rather than cuts in public services, are they not entitled to be represented rather than subsumed into a coalition between two parties who will compromise not on whether cuts should be made, but when and how rapidly they should be introduced?

“[Coalition] was after all the normal form of government in the UK for much of the 20th century.”

Just a mo’. When were coalitions in government post WW2?

Surely, the more powerful point to make is that Labour won more votes in the 1951 election but the Conservatives won a majority of seats. In the February 1974 election, the Conservatives won more votes but Labour won more seats. Arguably, those two elections were crucial because they were both fundamentally game changing.

Why does LibCon never criticise Gordon Brown? Why no mention of his contemptible behaviour towards Alastair Darling?

Christ, 43% per cent of voters think that immigration and asylum is among the top three pressing issues we face?

Is there any sane rationalisation of that?

“Why does LibCon never criticise Gordon Brown? Why no mention of his contemptible behaviour towards Alastair Darling?”

Perhaps because it’s not been established beyond reasonable doubt that Gordon Brown did behave badly towards Alistair Darling, whom GB claims is in fact a long-standing friend in politics.

As best I can gather, 10 Downing St has long had recurring problems with communication directors and official spokesmen who were OTO and out of control. This is why we have the issues over Alastair Campbell’s infamous dossiers on Iraq and why Damian McBride was obliged to resign last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/damian-mcbride-resignation

Alistair Darling has dropped hints that McBride had motivated the “unleashing of hell”.

It’s still a Tory lead. Don’t crow just yet…

@Luis, some research was done recently showing that voters are concerned about immigration on a national level, however when asked if it was actually a problem in their local areas, the vast majority of those voters said it wasn’t! So it’s a problem, just not in anyone’s own area – i.e. a problem created by the media that has no basis in people’s experiences.

Lenin
‘ Are there not legitimate differences of interest and perspective over what needs to be done about this crisis? Should these not be debated with at least the bare minimum of rigour that parliament sometimes provides? If the majority favour a tax on profits, higher income taxes for the well off, or a ‘robin hood’ tax, rather than cuts in public services, are they not entitled to be represented rather than subsumed into a coalition between two parties who will compromise not on whether cuts should be made, but when and how rapidly they should be introduced? ‘

Of course there are major differences of perspective of what needs to be done. However, there is essentially no debate now that the state must fiscally contract. The fiscal consolidation already outlined for the next five years by the present government is the severest contraction outside wartime in British history. It goes further than the cuts that the Thatcher government achieved in the 1980s. The Tory plans to cut deeper and quicker would probably make things worse and that is what is subject to debate. It would make things worse because the pressure is all on the income side of the national balance sheet and not out of control spending. That is why they are softening their line recently.

Higher taxes on profits may gain some populist traction. However, none of the main parties would support that other than in marginal adjustments as a means to eliminate the deficit. They all have economic advisors who start from the assumption that business does not pay tax. Consumers and workers pay the tax through higher prices and forgoing wages.

@ Bob B

There were 20 UK governments during the 20th century. Half of them were minorities or coalitions. Six minorities and four coalitions.

I can’t for the life of me remember who said, but it must’ve been a tory, that we shouldn’t take too much interest in this stuff because polling day will pull up lots of surprises – you know something is stirring in the opposition ranks when they appeal to, though plausible conjecture, unqualitative excuses.

Richard: “There were 20 UK governments during the 20th century. Half of them were minorities or coalitions. Six minorities and four coalitions.”

Thanks, but I asked about the coalitions in Britain since WW2. The only possibility I can recall is the Lib-Lab pact during the Labour governments of the 1970s.

What really gets to me on all this is the manifest lack of intelligence on the part of the Conservative leadership.

The leadership launches a string of personal attacks on Gordon Brown. But the Conservative poll lead dwindles so the leadership launches even more and more virulent personal attacks. The Conservative poll lead flags further so more personal attacks get launched.

What floating voters want to hear IMO are clear proposals focused on Conservative Broken Britain meme which The Economist trashed a couple of weeks back. What I think floating voters are beginning to suspect is that the Conservative leadership isn’t up to much more than launching personal attacks on Gordon Brown.

In case anyone here thinks that’s just my silly, eccentric view, try the Peter Brookes cartoon in The Times: Henry Moore Exhibition Opens:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/

On the economy, try this piece in The Times which argues for another dose of QE:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article7038528.ece

It’s just because we are so used to governments with thumping majorities with 40% of the vote that we think it normal. Go back further and there is nothing abnormal about it. The media tell us a hung parliament would be bad for us. My view is the media would hate it because it reduces their influence in media-inspired legislation.

When the Sun attacked Brown over his spelling mistakes etc. The polling suggested that it backfired. Political personality attacks cheer the core vote and turn everyone else off. The public end up sympathising with the victim of the attack. One can get a feel for it online reading the views of Conservatives. To them it is inconceivable that anyone would not share their talking points and view the world just like them. If they hate Brown the assumption is ‘ everyone thinks just like me ‘. Therefore, no arguments needed just personality attacks will do. When i backfires they are totally perplexed and unaware that they live in a bubble.

The economic polling model predicts that the governing party should be 5% behind at the moment. In the model,

‘ The popularity of the governing party relative to the main opposition depends positively on wage growth and house prices and negatively on retail price inflation, unemployment and interest rates. ‘

Rising inflation is very bad for an incumbent government. The problem for the present administration is inflation will continue to rise and only start falling after the election. Will voters blame the government or the BoE, as it is their job to control inflation?

I think they are right to keep the option open for more QE. However, I don’t think the argument in favour is overwhelming at the moment.

However, there is essentially no debate now that the state must fiscally contract.

This is untrue. The majority of the public don’t support fiscal contraction. There is a real debate over whether the state should raise more funds to sustain public services by raising taxes on the wealth and income of those who benefited most from the boom. This is one of the reasons for the buzz (perhaps overstated) about the Robin Hood tax. And that’s not just a debate that’s being had here. In Oregon recently, the public endorsed a measure raising taxes on the rich to protect services from cuts. This is increasingly going to be on the agenda across Europe as cutbacks provoke public sector strikes etc. Perhaps among politicians there is “essentially no debate” on this issue, but then that’s because they’re not listening – all the more reason not to let them consolidate their own minority consensus with a coalition government.

Lenin, it would be marvelous if we could eventually eliminate the deficit without cuts in services. However, it is fantasy to believe it can be eliminated by increasing taxes on those on high incomes. Relying on tax on high income means the state revenue is very dependent on a very small group of people. The top rate of tax was increased to 50% and the government expects to raise net 2.4 billion. The independent IFS believe the figure could be negative and cost the revenue money. The reason I cite this example is to show that there are just not enough high earners to close the deficit through tax alone.

It is interesting to speculate whether the ‘devil you know’ will come into play here or not. I”d imagine it is exercising Gordon Brown right now. If he had any sense, he’d go early rather than late, as a 6 -8 % lead for the Tories may disappear in an election campaign.

Though a son of the manse is unlikely to gamble, he hasn’t many options left, has he?

“Though a son of the manse is unlikely to gamble, he hasn’t many options left, has he?”

FWIW my perception, as a habitual floating voter, is that the Conservatives are doing much damage to their own election prospects by saying and doing silly things.

If that diagnosis is broadly correct – and the evidence from polls suggests that it probably is – then Brown has every incentive to hold on to allow the Conservatives to do even more damage to the public’s perception of their likely competence in government.

IMO George Osborne is an electoral liability for stressing the urgency of spending cuts while failing to acknowledge the frailty of the Eurozone economy, our main export market. If the government is cutting spending and consumers are also cutting spending so as to save more, while businesses are constrained from investing more because bank lending is being held back then exports are the only hope for boosting the economy.

His proposal to sell off cheaply the shares of banks propped up by taxpayers’ money is hardly consistent with his claim to want to put Britain’s fiscal affairs back on to a sustainable basis as soon as possible. Observers are apt to regard him as thoroughly confused.