That is the 'conventional wisdom'. That Labour are bad with the economy and that they spend too much. And the Conservatives are the ones who are sensible and build the economy.
However reality suggests the opposite is the case. During my lifetime we have had two occasions where the Conservatives have utterly destroyed the economy, public services and the public realm. And one period of Labour when things were managed well and there was good levels of investment.
I think the perception matters a lot, since Tories are perceived as economically responsible they can get away with quite a bit of irresponsibility, since Labour are perceived as irresponsible they make great efforts to be responsible.
I'd say "were" rather than "are" to be honest. The last few years seem to have completely shattered this perception. Liz Truss in particular really fucked up and claim they had to economic responsibility.
It comes from the 70s and the memories that older people have of power cuts, strikes and IMF loans, and was reinforced in the 80s as Thatcher created a short-term bubble of prosperity on the back of the sale of national assets against the background of social unrest (miners) which Labour was seen to support. The Murdoch press drove the message home very well. Now of course all these years later, it can be seen for what it was.
Since 2010, the UK economy has been healthy despite Brexit, the Ukraine war and the aftermath of the Great Recession. During external crises, Britain hasn't done that badly. that's one of the few positives of this Conservative government.
Remember when Liz Truss crashed the economy with her tax cuts plan? Her ill-thought out plan knocked billions off pension funds.
https://www.cityam.com/liz-truss-mini-budget-helped-knock-425bn-off-pension-funds-assets-in-2022/
There are obviously a lot of external factors that can impact the economy, but governments play a big role as well. Look at the immediate impact Liz Truss' policies had on the economy as an example.
It's impossible to say now which party will "grow the economy", that's a vague statement and every party would claim their policies will grow the economy. You need to look at how they aim to grow the economy, whether that aligns with your personal beliefs, and what will actually improve lives. It's possible to grow the economy whilst ordinary people's lives get worse.
By choosing which party's policies align most closely with your beliefs. Nobody has a crystal ball to predict which party will 100% perform the best, if we all knew objectively which party was best then there would be no need to vote. Instead, you choose based on your personal opinion on who you think will do best.
Ultimately, you only get to vote in your constituency for your local MP. If you find national politics overwhelming, take a look at your local candidates to see what they're proposing for your local area. It's likely to be much simpler with more concrete aims, and if you're confused you could contact them and you're very likely to get a reply.
Also, the economy is just one factor. There are many other things to consider when voting that you may have a stronger opinion on (healthcare, education, the environment, social policies, etc.) and through all of those it may lead you to a clearer choice.
Ok sorry a side question. So when I vote and it’s the local MPs name.. is that just the same as voting for like the main party? So if say a labour person won in my area, does that mean it’s like a bigger vote for whoever wins the whole election? Because I thought it was just individual votes being counted, but is it actually by which party wins the most councils?
Each area votes and the most votes for that area is the winning MP, and then the party that has the most MPs overall across the country becomes the winning party.
I really don't think it was a dig at you for asking. It's good you're asking, and it's important stuff to know. But it highlights how it's not being taught well enough in schools and homes, ie society is failing you/younger generations by not arming you with the knowledge
Councils and MPs are different
I believe some areas will vote for both council and MP this election, so that might apply to you or not
When you vote for an MP, you vote for an individual. That individual is usually affiliated to a party, what that means is that they are saying they agree with their parties manifesto and will generally vote with the party on most things
So e.g. if you vote for "Joe Bloggs, Labour", you are kind of voting for Joe Bloggs to represent your area and for labour to run the country
There's no overall vote tally, just whoever controls the majority of MPs, hence how labour can be projected to win a massive majority with only 42% of the votes
No party will ever exactly align with you, much as I hate the Tories for what they have become in the past I have agreed with some of the things they did.
You need to decide what's more important to you and what you are willing to compromise on and decide what you want to support for the next 5 years (assuming no early election).
When I went through one of these it brought SNP as the best fit for me. I've voted for them in the past but have a few reasons I'm going to not vote for them this time so my votes going elsewhere.
It's mostly the reverse. The economy is a frightfully complex series of interactions happening every single day, and while someone in Whitehall might write a new regulation or change a tax lever, fundamentally they cannot control the economy. All they can really do is claim credit and shift blame depending on whether things go well or poorly.
The right wing press would love you to believe that the Conservatives are a safe bet with the economy, but dig deeper and that's not really the case.
Things definitely felt better under the last Labour government, for a start things actually worked, you could get a GP appointment and the NHS wasn't on its knees!
Generally governments will have as little influence over the economy as possible, because even the smallest touch can cause massive ripples (liz truss effect), it's best to assume that most of the market isn't government owned and will likely keep going as it means to regardless of the tiny shifts the government can make, some things like zero-hour contracts are likely to be looked at under labor (conservative promotes it since it creates more total working hours, effectively squeezing out more potential growth, whereas labor want to limit it as it doesn't help the lower classes with upwards mobility, meaning lower innovation and lower market competition).
Honestly it's a good idea to assume both are going to do fairly similarly in actual economic growth since so much is out of their hands, it's worth looking at what their primary focuses are and what your local council want to achieve, that makes it a lot easier to grasp, also make sure to listen to all sides and independently check what they both say via multiple sources, otherwise you can easily fall into a bubble of media that is self-fulfilling and completely blinds you to other perspectives (no matter how confident you are that you can't have that happen, literally anyone can have it happen).
Anyhow best of luck.
The performance of the UK economy since 2010, as compared with other major European economies, would indicate otherwise. In particular, the Tory obsession with austerity and reluctance to invest has not served us well. It's voter apathy which leads to the idea that no government, through its policies, will have an impact on the economy, especially one in power for 14 years.
In 2010 France and the UK (the most similar economy from the EU to that of the UK) had France with a slightly larger GDP than the UK, in 2020 (just as the covid pandemic started) the UK was ahead of France slightly, in the end they're near identical despite all of the chaos, brexit, conservative lead ect ect. People like to imagine it's worse or better to suit their needs but ultimately it's a massive machine with millions of moving parts, adding a floating gear here and there isn't going to change how the machine works.
Again it's really not something that can be put down to government as easily as people say, geopolitics takes a WAY bigger hand in things, war in ukraine means higher food prices which means lower spending on non-essentials which leads to frugality which leads to lower economic activity which leads to slower growth ect ect. In cases like that it really doesn't matter what the government does, so long as it can't offset that imbalance itself (domestic food security + export tarrifs to prevent it being sold to better markets), then it'll just spiral along with everyone else in the same boat.
That's a fallacy. There have been growth and crises under both parties.
There was the IMF bailout under Labour in the 1970s but then the ERM fiasco under the Tories. The Great Recession happened under Labour but then they didn't cause it as it was a global phenomenon. But Liz Truss damaged the economy on her own accord. The economy grew somewhat under Thatcher and Major, and Blair inherited the Major era growth. But the economy was in relative global decline with increasing trade union unrest under Wilson, Heath and, Callaghan. There was a boom under Eden and Macmillan, but then it was clear Germany, Japan, and the USA were racing ahead whilst Britain was slow to adapt.
Saying that one party has grown or messed up the economy is simplistic. Both parties since Thatcher have broadly followed her economic model. The railways were re-nationalised out of pragmatism, and no party has re-nationalised the utilities (gas, water, electricity) yet. Blair had good economic growth but by following mostly the Thatcher and Major economic plans. Mandelson even said, "We're all Thatcherites now". So Labour can boast about that, but then it was following a Tory plan. The trade union disputes of the 1970s happened under both parties are showed the British economy had structural issues, which both parties until Thatcher didn't address.
As for Labour, who most likely will win, then it would be the same as what the Tories would need to do if they somehow retain office. To grow the economy, mitigate the cost of living crisis, increase defence spending, keep inflation down, improve infrastructure, keep taxes down or even raise them to fund infrastructure improvements, etc.
>but I don't want to vote for the party it said my views seem to line with.
Why? Digging into why you feel that way might be useful in terms of figuring out who you should vote for
Because the first time I did it it said conservatives which I didn’t think it would - which would be fine - but I don’t wanna vote for them bc I don’t think they’ve done great in recent years. But I redid the quiz and focused more and got a new result, so I’m gonna go with that instead :)
Well, you've got a choice between a host of parties that fundamentally believe in private-sector-led economies. So "not much".
BUT the Tories seem to have been taking that to genuinely insane "frictionless airless vacuum" scenarios not even the most rabid unregulated free market economist would advocate for outside of a textbook.
Labour seems to have woken up to the level that they are now advocating for some intervention and public investment.
I remember at the 2010 election there was a lot of talk of Labour having ruined the economy. But there was a global economic crisis, so it kind of feels similar to people saying Biden made gas prices high in the USA.
They won’t. Neither of the parties have addressed the deep rooted issues we’re facing in the UK. High taxes, ageing population etc…
Nobody has mentioned the brexit shaped elephant in the room either. No matter who’s in the issues are still there.
Significantly make it worse, yes. Significantly make it better, obviously not, otherwise we would be doing so right now if it was possible.
If Labour was in charge for the last period COVID, Ukraine, the financial crash, all would've had the same response from our actual government.
Luckily, the rosette colour of your local popularity contest winner doesn't affect MI5, BOE, IA, MOD, DEFRA, HMRC etc. If we vote in 650 stuffed animals as MP's the running of the country will continue unchanged. Would you want YOUR local MP deciding UK energy security instead of the teams of experts?
Vote for whatever, our 'democracy' is a soap opera. MP's are whipped to vote against your interests, House of Lords overrules them, judiciary is unelected. Referendums are the only true democracy we get, see how Brexit disrupted the pantomime
To be fair I personally think it has very little to do with how the economy will perform (liz truss aside, but she wasn’t actually elected).
Little things here and there may change but in general life just goes on the same no matter who is in power.
That is the 'conventional wisdom'. That Labour are bad with the economy and that they spend too much. And the Conservatives are the ones who are sensible and build the economy. However reality suggests the opposite is the case. During my lifetime we have had two occasions where the Conservatives have utterly destroyed the economy, public services and the public realm. And one period of Labour when things were managed well and there was good levels of investment.
I think the perception matters a lot, since Tories are perceived as economically responsible they can get away with quite a bit of irresponsibility, since Labour are perceived as irresponsible they make great efforts to be responsible.
I'd say "were" rather than "are" to be honest. The last few years seem to have completely shattered this perception. Liz Truss in particular really fucked up and claim they had to economic responsibility.
Last few years? Osborne has to go down as one of the worst chancellors of modern times.
I feel this comes from the 60s, 70s and 80s as a view and it's stuck despite the last 14 years.
It comes from the 70s and the memories that older people have of power cuts, strikes and IMF loans, and was reinforced in the 80s as Thatcher created a short-term bubble of prosperity on the back of the sale of national assets against the background of social unrest (miners) which Labour was seen to support. The Murdoch press drove the message home very well. Now of course all these years later, it can be seen for what it was.
that period of labour was under insane global growth.
Wasn’t the old saying “Labour governments always run out of money and Tory ones always run out of jobs”?
Ah that’s interesting. I only really remember conservatives being in power so wasn’t too sure. Do you think Green would be good for it?
Search IFS manifesto analysis, they have a video that reviews the manifestos from an economic perspective. I'll try and find the link
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/general-election-2024-manifesto-analysis-presentations
They mostly go into labour and conservative manifestos, but if you search their site they share thoughts on all the manifestos
No. Green policies are wildly irresponsible and unfunded.
🤣🤣
Irrelevant - it won't happen. I think yes, but that's not a popular view round here.
Since 2010, the UK economy has been healthy despite Brexit, the Ukraine war and the aftermath of the Great Recession. During external crises, Britain hasn't done that badly. that's one of the few positives of this Conservative government.
Remember when Liz Truss crashed the economy with her tax cuts plan? Her ill-thought out plan knocked billions off pension funds. https://www.cityam.com/liz-truss-mini-budget-helped-knock-425bn-off-pension-funds-assets-in-2022/
There are obviously a lot of external factors that can impact the economy, but governments play a big role as well. Look at the immediate impact Liz Truss' policies had on the economy as an example. It's impossible to say now which party will "grow the economy", that's a vague statement and every party would claim their policies will grow the economy. You need to look at how they aim to grow the economy, whether that aligns with your personal beliefs, and what will actually improve lives. It's possible to grow the economy whilst ordinary people's lives get worse.
But then how is anyone supposed to know who to vote for 😟😟
By choosing which party's policies align most closely with your beliefs. Nobody has a crystal ball to predict which party will 100% perform the best, if we all knew objectively which party was best then there would be no need to vote. Instead, you choose based on your personal opinion on who you think will do best.
Yeah that’s true. It’s just all very complicated to understand
Ultimately, you only get to vote in your constituency for your local MP. If you find national politics overwhelming, take a look at your local candidates to see what they're proposing for your local area. It's likely to be much simpler with more concrete aims, and if you're confused you could contact them and you're very likely to get a reply. Also, the economy is just one factor. There are many other things to consider when voting that you may have a stronger opinion on (healthcare, education, the environment, social policies, etc.) and through all of those it may lead you to a clearer choice.
Ok sorry a side question. So when I vote and it’s the local MPs name.. is that just the same as voting for like the main party? So if say a labour person won in my area, does that mean it’s like a bigger vote for whoever wins the whole election? Because I thought it was just individual votes being counted, but is it actually by which party wins the most councils?
Each area votes and the most votes for that area is the winning MP, and then the party that has the most MPs overall across the country becomes the winning party.
This should be taught in schools. We're failing the next generation
Well sorry for asking.. 😒
I really don't think it was a dig at you for asking. It's good you're asking, and it's important stuff to know. But it highlights how it's not being taught well enough in schools and homes, ie society is failing you/younger generations by not arming you with the knowledge
It's not a criticism of you. It's a criticism of the school system that failed you by not teaching you things like this.
Oh lol, it just felt like a read
Councils and MPs are different I believe some areas will vote for both council and MP this election, so that might apply to you or not When you vote for an MP, you vote for an individual. That individual is usually affiliated to a party, what that means is that they are saying they agree with their parties manifesto and will generally vote with the party on most things So e.g. if you vote for "Joe Bloggs, Labour", you are kind of voting for Joe Bloggs to represent your area and for labour to run the country There's no overall vote tally, just whoever controls the majority of MPs, hence how labour can be projected to win a massive majority with only 42% of the votes
That makes sense. Thank you 😊
There might be a couple of local by-elections (as there seem to be one most weeks) but the council elections were all done at the start of May.
No party will ever exactly align with you, much as I hate the Tories for what they have become in the past I have agreed with some of the things they did. You need to decide what's more important to you and what you are willing to compromise on and decide what you want to support for the next 5 years (assuming no early election). When I went through one of these it brought SNP as the best fit for me. I've voted for them in the past but have a few reasons I'm going to not vote for them this time so my votes going elsewhere.
It's mostly the reverse. The economy is a frightfully complex series of interactions happening every single day, and while someone in Whitehall might write a new regulation or change a tax lever, fundamentally they cannot control the economy. All they can really do is claim credit and shift blame depending on whether things go well or poorly.
The right wing press would love you to believe that the Conservatives are a safe bet with the economy, but dig deeper and that's not really the case. Things definitely felt better under the last Labour government, for a start things actually worked, you could get a GP appointment and the NHS wasn't on its knees!
Generally governments will have as little influence over the economy as possible, because even the smallest touch can cause massive ripples (liz truss effect), it's best to assume that most of the market isn't government owned and will likely keep going as it means to regardless of the tiny shifts the government can make, some things like zero-hour contracts are likely to be looked at under labor (conservative promotes it since it creates more total working hours, effectively squeezing out more potential growth, whereas labor want to limit it as it doesn't help the lower classes with upwards mobility, meaning lower innovation and lower market competition). Honestly it's a good idea to assume both are going to do fairly similarly in actual economic growth since so much is out of their hands, it's worth looking at what their primary focuses are and what your local council want to achieve, that makes it a lot easier to grasp, also make sure to listen to all sides and independently check what they both say via multiple sources, otherwise you can easily fall into a bubble of media that is self-fulfilling and completely blinds you to other perspectives (no matter how confident you are that you can't have that happen, literally anyone can have it happen). Anyhow best of luck.
The performance of the UK economy since 2010, as compared with other major European economies, would indicate otherwise. In particular, the Tory obsession with austerity and reluctance to invest has not served us well. It's voter apathy which leads to the idea that no government, through its policies, will have an impact on the economy, especially one in power for 14 years.
In 2010 France and the UK (the most similar economy from the EU to that of the UK) had France with a slightly larger GDP than the UK, in 2020 (just as the covid pandemic started) the UK was ahead of France slightly, in the end they're near identical despite all of the chaos, brexit, conservative lead ect ect. People like to imagine it's worse or better to suit their needs but ultimately it's a massive machine with millions of moving parts, adding a floating gear here and there isn't going to change how the machine works. Again it's really not something that can be put down to government as easily as people say, geopolitics takes a WAY bigger hand in things, war in ukraine means higher food prices which means lower spending on non-essentials which leads to frugality which leads to lower economic activity which leads to slower growth ect ect. In cases like that it really doesn't matter what the government does, so long as it can't offset that imbalance itself (domestic food security + export tarrifs to prevent it being sold to better markets), then it'll just spiral along with everyone else in the same boat.
That's a fallacy. There have been growth and crises under both parties. There was the IMF bailout under Labour in the 1970s but then the ERM fiasco under the Tories. The Great Recession happened under Labour but then they didn't cause it as it was a global phenomenon. But Liz Truss damaged the economy on her own accord. The economy grew somewhat under Thatcher and Major, and Blair inherited the Major era growth. But the economy was in relative global decline with increasing trade union unrest under Wilson, Heath and, Callaghan. There was a boom under Eden and Macmillan, but then it was clear Germany, Japan, and the USA were racing ahead whilst Britain was slow to adapt. Saying that one party has grown or messed up the economy is simplistic. Both parties since Thatcher have broadly followed her economic model. The railways were re-nationalised out of pragmatism, and no party has re-nationalised the utilities (gas, water, electricity) yet. Blair had good economic growth but by following mostly the Thatcher and Major economic plans. Mandelson even said, "We're all Thatcherites now". So Labour can boast about that, but then it was following a Tory plan. The trade union disputes of the 1970s happened under both parties are showed the British economy had structural issues, which both parties until Thatcher didn't address. As for Labour, who most likely will win, then it would be the same as what the Tories would need to do if they somehow retain office. To grow the economy, mitigate the cost of living crisis, increase defence spending, keep inflation down, improve infrastructure, keep taxes down or even raise them to fund infrastructure improvements, etc.
>but I don't want to vote for the party it said my views seem to line with. Why? Digging into why you feel that way might be useful in terms of figuring out who you should vote for
Because the first time I did it it said conservatives which I didn’t think it would - which would be fine - but I don’t wanna vote for them bc I don’t think they’ve done great in recent years. But I redid the quiz and focused more and got a new result, so I’m gonna go with that instead :)
whatever you do choose, well done for exercising your right to vote!
Thanks 🥰
Well, you've got a choice between a host of parties that fundamentally believe in private-sector-led economies. So "not much". BUT the Tories seem to have been taking that to genuinely insane "frictionless airless vacuum" scenarios not even the most rabid unregulated free market economist would advocate for outside of a textbook. Labour seems to have woken up to the level that they are now advocating for some intervention and public investment.
Do you think I vote for Lib Dem it’ll be pointless? Bc it’s likely labour will win?
I remember at the 2010 election there was a lot of talk of Labour having ruined the economy. But there was a global economic crisis, so it kind of feels similar to people saying Biden made gas prices high in the USA.
They won’t. Neither of the parties have addressed the deep rooted issues we’re facing in the UK. High taxes, ageing population etc… Nobody has mentioned the brexit shaped elephant in the room either. No matter who’s in the issues are still there.
So just in terms of a better economy, it’s unlikely either main party can do anything significant?
Significantly make it worse, yes. Significantly make it better, obviously not, otherwise we would be doing so right now if it was possible. If Labour was in charge for the last period COVID, Ukraine, the financial crash, all would've had the same response from our actual government. Luckily, the rosette colour of your local popularity contest winner doesn't affect MI5, BOE, IA, MOD, DEFRA, HMRC etc. If we vote in 650 stuffed animals as MP's the running of the country will continue unchanged. Would you want YOUR local MP deciding UK energy security instead of the teams of experts? Vote for whatever, our 'democracy' is a soap opera. MP's are whipped to vote against your interests, House of Lords overrules them, judiciary is unelected. Referendums are the only true democracy we get, see how Brexit disrupted the pantomime
To be fair I personally think it has very little to do with how the economy will perform (liz truss aside, but she wasn’t actually elected). Little things here and there may change but in general life just goes on the same no matter who is in power.