Cause for concern

Mike Brighton

One poll that has launched more grasping-at-straws commentary (Fink excluded) from left of centre commentators desperate for both a story and for the NuLab government they have slavishly supported not to die ignominiously as it graphically illustrates their failed belief system. All other polls pointing to a ×14 point Tory lead ignored!

Michael de Anjou

You are right to worry about the bond market. The capitalisation of the global bond markets is much bigger than that of stock markets. In general terms bonds are much of a muchness the world over, bar their currency of denomination and the underlying creditworthiness of the borrower. My point is there are no particular reasons why anyone must hold UK government debt (unless of course it is held to match a particular UK liability or is required to be held by domestic institutions at the behest of government rules). What drives market selection is prospective real returns. Currently the UK offers one of the lowest prospective real yields in the marketplace (approx 1.8% on a ten year view) and this already compares unfavourably with Germany (2.4%), France (2.5%) and even Japan (2.4%). Longer term research suggests that investors seek, and obtain, real yields of around 2.5%. The countries I have quoted (and indeed many others of broadly similar credit quality) are offering about the normalised trend; however the UK is expensive and very vulnerable to being shunned by non-domestic institutions. Why is the UK expensive? - I suspect the answer is simply quantitative easing (printing money to buy our own government debt). What is particularly worrying? - That London is the global investment management centre. Its Brits here, managing overseas client's funds, that will pull the plug when their confidence fails, not people half a world away.

John Wilkes

You are right to emphasise "strong governments" under the present system. One of the worst things (amongst many) about this government is that, despite having very workable majorities, they have failed to do anything. They came into office promising huge changes and have really achieved nothing. For those old enough to make a comparison, just ask yourselves how much real change occurred in the UK between 1979 and, say, 1987. People might argue whether or not it was all good but real change there was. What about the current government? They usually trot out things like devolution and the Human Rights Act which, to my mind, only emphasises their failure to change the lives of real people. Apart from responding to the financial crisis of last year, which couldn't be avoided and all governments around the world had to do, the fact is we haven't been governed since the shambles of the 2007 non-election. It's therefore not surprising that people are desperate for government of almost any sort.

Battle 2807

I'll tell you what worries me....the family share of the national debt (as shown at the top of this page) has gone up by NINETY THREE quid since Monday!!!
Just think about it, folks. Could you fork out ninety quid every few days for ever?
It seems to me that the figure is rising faster than it was when you started it. Back then, it was a mere 23,000 odd pounds per family.

Alex

Why is this still making waves?

A poll conducted by a biased left of centre paper with a sample of less than 500 people. Moreover, a poll that has been totally at odds with other polls by with larger samples.

Cuffleyburgers

@ John Wilkes

You are correct in that they have achieved very little of any positive value. On the other hand they have managed to do an almost unimaginable amount of damage to the public finacnes, the armed forces, the constitution, the police, foreign affairs, the national demographic even.

i would say you are totally, 180° wrong. The people are not crying out for more government. They are crying out for less, less expensive, less corrupt and less incompetent, less dishonest, really the list is huge.

This labour administration has been an utter disaster to this country. A disaster.

Norman Dee

The problem is that there are vested interests in a hung parliament, deliberate and maybe as a side effect. The Lib Dems want a hung parliament for no other reason than they think it will be a way to promote and sell their PV policies as a bargaining tool, Once again proving that they have no interest other than driving forward their own agenda regardless of the damage it will do in the short, medium and long term, truly selfish politics.
The others of the UKIP, who have nothing else but euroscepticism to sell, will weaken the conservative vote to the point where the Europe they hate will be further foisted on them by a combination of liars and fools in the the liebour and liberal liers parties

denis cooper

I've read both the linked articles, and as far as Finkelstein's goes I have to say that I no longer care if a hung Parliament, or anything else, brings down the monarchy.

Technically, "Parliament" has three parts - the Crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, and technically all three must agree to the passage of an Act.

In practice the monarch now fulfills ceremonial and some diplomatic and economic - mainly touristic - purposes, but no longer accepts any significant independent role in our constitution.

As we found out, when the Queen refused to act as our constitutional longstop, and betrayed her people by allowing the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified without the promised referendum.

That was a golden opportunity to restore the popularity and prestige of the hereditary monarchy by acting as a proper Head of State should act, to step in on the rare occasions it becomes essential to intervene to defend the people as whole - in this case, against the Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs who brazenly abused the power the people had lent to them on the basis of a clear pre-election promise.

She would have had overwhelming support from the people, and would have triumphed, in the ensuing constitutional crisis; instead she allowed Brown to walk all over her.

The monarch is now constitutionally irrelevant, a cipher, an idling wheel doing nothing more than transmitting whatever motion is imparted by the scum which has been installed in the House of Commons by three corrupt and degenerate political gangs.

And so too with the House of Lords, now packed with ermined party political hacks - bloody Lord This and bloody Baroness That, many of them just as much scum now as they were previously when they disgraced the House of Commons, and others whose only qualification is that they're the special favourites of one or another of the gang leaders.

Major, fundamental, reform is essential to thoroughly cleanse the system of these poisonous parasites - not the cream of our society as they like to believe, but more like the dregs - and make sure their kind never get back into positions of power.

Of course nothing is to be expected from Cameron in that regard - we can already see that he's no better than the others.

If that necessary convulsion can only be precipitated by a hung Parliament - which it should be noted actually refers to only one of the three parts of Parliament, the self-regarding, self-seeking, members of the House of Commons - and if in that process the monarchy is swept away, then so be it.

Marco9

The Spectator is being dragged along in the Labour slip stream. Not very good. Facts, as Mr Gradgrind might have said: a similar poll was carried out on exactly the same days and gave the Tories a 13% lead; the IPSOS Mori poll was delayed by several days because the paper going to use it was the Observer (a Sunday paper). In the following days an Angus Reid poll was published showing a 17% Tory lead; this poll incidentally had twice as many respondents as the IPSOS Mori and therefore is likely to be slightly more accurate. The average of all three shows a Tory lead of 12%. I know what is going on: Tory rightwingers are trying to get Cameron to become as swivel-eyed as they are; the Tory high command is hoping they can use it against the Turnip Taliban (don't rock the boat); and Labour is trying to start a narrative of their fightback. If you wanted to help our economy you would write an article with the facts.

Dorothy Wilson

Steve Richards is just daft.

If there did happen to be a hung Parliament, one of the first things that would happen is that the credit rating agencies would down-grade our AAA standing. Interest rates would then shoot up and the economy spiral down. There would then have to be another election. And it is highly unlikely Labour would win.

John Wilkes

@cuffleyburgers
I wasn't meaning to say we want more government in the way that the Labour Party talk about more government i.e. taking over all of our lives and doing everything for us. Assuming you accept the need for some government i.e. for defence of the realm, to enforce the rule of law etc, then you want a government that governs. Otherwise I agree - I want less government and more freedom - I want the government to leave me alone.

Roger Davies

A hung Parliament will result in the FTSE bombing a run on the £Sterling and a call to the IMF.

Snowman

if you want a strong Government shouldn’t you go for a dictatorship that could run by decrees?

didn’t the last 12 years provide sufficient and as-fresh-as-it-comes evidence that the last thing the country needs is a ‘strong government’ elected on a pitiful share of the popular vote?

Naomi Muse

Ensuring the health of our AAA credit rating should be the preoccupation of anyone in parliament so that any sale of government debit is successful.

Bonds will not sell at all, and they have been sluggish, to say the least, if there is not a clear sign of a strong fiscal policy on the horizon.

Personally, I would like there to be a hung parliament as far as cleaning up politics in the UK is concerned, as it would be the quickest way of achieving that.

However, if the triple A credit rating is to be jeopardised, then we might need to take a longer route to cleaning up politics properly and go a single party route as long as we can insist that the 'clean up politics movement' is not shoved on to the back burner but has all party agreement to a timetable of reform, looking for cross-party, elected members of a select committee to work with a public committee to effect it.

Without that, our triple A rating is potentially in jeopardy anyway.

As to reform. Reducing the number of MPs down to 200, removing whips altogether and radical rethinking of what its all about and what its role really should be, is the only way to get rid of the chaff and establish true democracy to us.

denis cooper

Removing the whips would be a very good move, Naomi Muse, but reducing the number of MPs to 200 would be at best a pointless, and far more likely a very bad, move.

Apart from anything else, with only 200 MPs there'd hardly be any need for official whipping during the early years of a Parliament, as most of the MPs of the governing party would either have some kind of government post or could reasonably hope to get one before the end of the Parliament.

It's backbench MPs who no longer have ministerial ambitions who are most likely to defy the wishes of the Prime Minister, and with only 200 MPs there'd be far fewer of them. Similarly I'm sure the opposition leaders would much prefer it if they had fewer MPs to keep in line.

As a rule what's good for the party oligarchs is not good for the people.

mac

Hellzbellz, James, as I've asked before, what is it with the Speccie's "Steve Richards says . . . " obeisance? I very much doubt that many CoffeeHousers give tuppence for what he says.

And the poll was a rogue.

Amadeus Plonquer

Two items.

First, I understand Mori will likely call the General Election a win for Labour. They always do that, I recall.

Second. What's wrong with a hung Parliament. There are a lot of people in Britain who would love to see Parliament hung.