It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This is why Labour will not loose the next election

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:09 PM

UK economy impressive, says IMF

The British economy's performance has been "impressive" and it should continue to grow, the International Monetary Fund has told the Treasury.

The report, which looks at the health of the UK economy, predicts "continued strong growth" and inflation on target.

However, it warns that government borrowing could be too high, and wages need to be kept in check to counter the need for interest rate rises.

Interest rates, at 5%, have been raised twice this year by the Bank of England.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

You have to admit that Labour have worked the economy very well and this is probably one of, if not, the main reason why they have not been voted out of office.

Aslong as inflation is kept down, the economy will continue to grow.

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by infinite

You have to admit that Labour have worked the economy very well and this is probably one of, if not, the main reason why they have not been voted out of office.

I don't believe your right when you say the main reason the Labour Party haven't been voted out is because the economy is strong, the distinct lack of opposition has been the main reason the Labour Party have clung to power.

The state of the economy is partly down to the Government in power but it is also affected by external factors and the unforeseen, and lets not forget the public debt of £39 Billion (wikipedia, UK Economy 2006) and the fact that the UK is up there on the income inequality scale, and the financial woes of the NHS.

Yes the current Government has managed the economy well but lets not give them all the credit, they didn't just turn the economy magically into the state in which it resides, they built on what they inherited.

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:46 PM
In the 2009/10 general election (unless Gordon decides to go sooner) we'll see if the axiomatic "it's the economy, stupid" holds true for us at that point or not.

It also paints the tory party into a very tight corner, Cameron knows he polls well and his appeal is ok as long as he can appear optimistic (hence all that tosh about 'letting the sunshine win').
But tory optimism about the Labour - and specifically a Brown - run economy doesn't do them much good as a line of attack.

The instant their attack goes on the negative they start to look bad and loose.

......and that's just with todays polling numbers, a year or three in and all that "new" and "future" superficial guff ought to look a lot less appealing and sound a lot more over-done and tedious.

The comparison between the substance-free 'nice' Cameron
(backed by a troy party as unappealing as it ever was)
and Brown
(backed by a Labour party a bit more 'to the left' and as appealing as it is) and his excellent - and very long - economic record
will not in the end be a flattering one for tory chances when it comes to it, IMO.

We shall see
(as I'm always fond of saying, politics is afterall an inexact 'science').

BTW Wizard, British debt (as a % of national earnings) is not at a 'record level', it's actually quite low, historically speaking.......your tory pals had that figure up to around - in todays money - £100 billions.....which is a record.

Even their much prayed for chance of an economic down-turn is no guarantee of anything for the tory party.....they ought to know as they won twice despite presiding over the 2 longest deepest and most damaging economic recessions since WW2.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 04:12 PM
Cameron, when he first became leader of the Tories did say that Labour had a good record on the economy and his motto was

"if its not broken, don't fix it"

but, i feel, the economy will play a huge factor when coming to the Middle Class voters because the last thing they want is someone coming in and mess around with the economy.

If the Tories are still keen on "keep it green" then they might form a coalition with the Green Party (who are gaining more support) and they (the Greens) are against economic growth (due to environment issues).

'Cause if Cameron is the next PM and Osbourne decides to mess around and damage the economy, they won't be in power too long.

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 03:35 AM
The Tories may choose not to focus on the economy. Instead they may choose an issue related to race based funding for the likes of education if its relevant. Such a tactic raises valid issues and almost brought the center right opposition party's to power at the last NZ election.

Maybe questions might be asked of England's Islamic community.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by infinite
Cameron, when he first became leader of the Tories did say that Labour had a good record on the economy and his motto was

"if its not broken, don't fix it"

- The problem here is that this presupposes that they could even be trusted to leave things more or less alone and not to do damage to the economy.

I honestly don't think their record shows they're even capable of that.

I would not be surprised to see the torys back on their usual target (as xpert11 says) in 2 or 3 yrs time.

Fundamentally tho I just don't see the British public taking a chance on Cameron's inexperience and tory 'pr' over the experienced if unexciting solid competent performance of Brown and Labour.

In 1997 it was quite different, the tory party had just finished publicly shredding the remains of their reputation for economic competence (in the eyes of those remaining that ever believed in such things) so Labour's inexperience was not the quite the 'chance' it might otherwise have seemed.

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM
It's an interesting question... what will the issues be at the next election. There are some dead certs:

- Immigration
- The War on Terror (Iraq, Afghanistan... Iran/North Korea?)
- The economy
- 'Green' issues

But I think there are other, more ambiguous issues on which importance may grow. There has been talk (you may recall the leaked document from Hazel Blears in which a May 2008 election has been suggested for instance) of an early General Election (and the BBC have come up with an interesting article on the subject here). But if the election is 2009/2010 (Labour tend to hold elections on a four year basis so it's likely but not certain it'd be 2009) then I would suggest other issues might crop up over the next few years that will also play varying roles.

Added to that the reputations of the party leaders. Can Menzies Campbell make himself a bit more appealing? Can David Cameron move away from his sound bite image and get some solid policies outlined? Can whoever Tony Blair's successor restore the party's image in areas such as the NHS and immigration?

There's a lot to consider. As Sminkey said, it's a very inexact science.

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:31 PM
We know that either Labour or the Tories will win the next election. Is there that much of a difference between them. Having lived under both, I have seen little change for me between a Labour and a Tory Government.

During the last election, neither of the Labour or Tory candidates bothers to come to me door and ask for my vote. Only the Liberial candidate did, on his own. At least he gave me the opportunity to question him and guess what, I decided to vote for him based on the fact he could be bothered to knock on my door.

So does it really matter who wins?

top topics


log in