Polls and Poll of Polls

Have you noticed how inconsistent the polls are? Some show Labour with a lead by a point or two, then we hear about a poll showing Conservatives with a lead of up to four points.

There's a pattern behind this apparent inconsistency and it comes down to selling newspapers. Editors love a close election, people get interested, they follow developments more closely and buy more newspapers. This year there appears to be a deliberate attempt to play down a favored party's prospects of winning. The Sun, a Conservative supporting paper (in one which always likes to back the winner), has consistently been releasing polls which show the Conservatives behind. The Guardian on the other hand, a left leaning publication, has been showing polling that indicates the Conservatives has leading.

In truth it looks like nothing more than method to sell more newspapers and rally the core support ahead of the election. Nothing gets people interested more than suggesting it's on a knife edge.

Did Miliband go there?

Ed Miliband's accusation that David Cameron is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of migrants leaving Libya in search of a better life in Europe is a well time political stunt. It tells us more about the desperation of the Labour election campaign than British foreign policy.

Miliband may well be right, there may well have been a lack of planning on what to do with Libya after intervention. The debate however was never going to be about that, and Miliband knows it.

The problem with Miliband's stance is Labour voted in favour of intervention in Libya. Whether they questioned the Tories on post intervention planning is irrelevant because they voted in favour. This is the clearest indication that they supported the plans (or lack of).

Miliband didn't raise concerns about Libya for years afterwards. Then two weeks before a general election, with 800 drowning in the past week alone, he seizes it as an opportunity for personal gain and to smear David Cameron.

Its a dirty tactic to play politics with the deaths of desperate people merely seeking a better life. No one comes out of this looking good.

The IFS is wrong

The suggestion today by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that voters have been left in the dark regarding each parties spending plans for a future government is based on one unfounded assumption. That being, people need or want to know the gritty detail. For most there is already enough detail to differentiate the parties and to make an educated decision.
Here's what we know:

There is a clear difference between the centre-right conservatives and the center-left and left leaning Lib Dems, Labour and SNP in the overall spending plans.

When have the vasty majority of voters ever selected their candidate of choice based on nitty gritty details? Clear assumptions can be made from the information we have above. Spending falls under ALL parties, therefore expect cuts in public services or increase in taxes from whoever forms a government.

The choice therefore comes down to a trade off between short and long term. Anyone who have a mortgage or outstanding credit card bill knows that the sooner you pay of the debt the less you pay in total. With debt decreased or removed you then need less income to maintain the same standard of living (all other things being equal).

So with the Conservatives we have the option of either deeper cuts and/or higher taxes now, but a clear opportunity in 2018 and onward to have no need for further taxes or cuts to take place.

With SNP, Labour and Lib Dems, the cuts will still happen but be less deep and/or taxes will still rise but potentially by less...the catch though is under this option the nation in 2018 and beyond will still be facing a need for further spending cuts and tax rises.