So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

Money talks, politicians lie

AS THE General Election campaigns continue to roll on in Britain it is become clear that politicians are willing to forgo economic sense in favour of votes.

Even the simplest concept, don't spend money you don't have, seems to have been forgotten as the number of unfunded manifesto pledges increases.

It is common knowledge that manifestos are wish lists which should be viewed with a sceptical lense. This doesn't mean however that parties can put anything in them in the hope that no-one notices that it is fiscally irresponsible.

Governments do have the option to borrow if necessary to fund policies if they feel it is worth increasing the national debt to push them through, so perhaps it is unfair to write off policies which appear unsustainable at this point.

What is most worrying is the way in which policies appear so focused on grabbing votes that they have ignored the potential long term harm that they will cause. Possibly the most noticeable of these is the minimum wage. For many people seeing that a party is prepared to offer a £10 minimum wage sounds like a winning idea, after all who doesn't like the idea of more money in their pocket. The problem is that it won't actually mean more money for individuals. 

Firstly many small businesses already struggle with minimum wages as it is. An increase, particularly such a dramatic one, does not mean the companies sales will increase so income is unlikely to change immediately. This means that to pay the new wage the business needs to increase prices, or lay off staff. 

Where prices stay static, lack of willingness by customers to pay increased prices for example, then unemployment will rise. As unemployment rises there are less people willing to pay increased prices, and so the cycle goes on. The argument that minimum wages should meet cost of living is likewise limiting the scope. If minimum wages are increased then people earning above the minimum wage, quite logically, will want an increase in pay, after all why work in one job if you can earn the same money doing something which requires less skill or stress. As these wages increase the cycle begins again driving up prices as larger and larger firms raise prices to meet the new wage costs and maintain profit margins.

Then there is the toxic issue of the foreign age budget. One party in particular seems to determined to develop the argument of "why are we giving money to foreigners?"  The simple answer is that you spend money to make money.

No matter how it is wrapped up and packaged foreign aid is aimed at stabilising the international system, allowing for development, and gradually through many steps leading to a flowing import export market. It is not a purely philanthropic matter no matter what some people may think. Quite simply the foreign aid budget brings more money into the country than goes out, it just does it in a roundabout and not always clear manner.

When parties try and explain how they are going to fund a policy they think only of the short five year effects on the treasury. The danger is that they forget that in a market economy the knock on effect for inflows and outflows will linger for many more years than this.

Time to talk about a problem like Ed

LABOUR's recent boost in the polls may not be enough to counteract the "Ed Miliband problem" according to political analysts.

In the latest survey conducted by polling agency YouGov Labour had a six point lead with 38 per cent of the vote, compared the the Tories 32 per cent.

While this is being hailed as a sign of support for the party's policies there are fears that if Ed Miliband remains as leader the results will not translate into a General Election victory.

Mr Miliband is currently at his lowest point in ratings according to the alternative Guardian ICM poll at the weekend, which saw his satisfaction rating drop from -25 to -39, lower than Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg at -37.

Despite the results Mr Miliband still appears to have the support of party stalwarts to keep threats of a leadership contest at bay.

Rachael Reeves, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, told the Guardian: "I am incredibly proud to serve under Ed. It would be with huge pride that I would serve in a Labour government under his leadership. When Ed is prime minister, we will see change we haven't seen for a generation. That change will profoundly change the lives of people who, for too long under governments of all colours, have been really struggling and left behind."

Also weighing in to defend his party's leader Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was reported in Huffington Post as saying: "He is the only man and he is the only man because he is our leader. Nobody is going to challenge him, he is in a unique position, actually because Tony Blair was bedevilled and in the latter days so was Gordon Brown. Ed is free of that," he said.

Mr Miliband's poor ratings may not be affecting the Labour leader now but as the election draws closer it could start to be a different matter.

According to research conducted by the Centre for Research in Elections and Social Trends: "Leaders have become the human face of election campaigns, while electorates have become dealigned. This has lead to the suggestion that in parliamentary elections many voters now vote for the party leader they like best in much the same way that in presidential elections they vote for the candidate they like best."

With 60 per cent of those polled by YouGov thinking that Mr Miliband would not be up to the job of Prime Minister and 56 per cent believing that he is out of touch with voters he could find that he becomes more of a hindrance than asset for the party in May.

Speaking in Wales on Saturday Mr Miliband told reporters: "I am not only determined, but I am confident that we can win the next election. We need to because the stakes are incredibly high for the country."

If the polls stay as they are though Mr Miliband might be leading the party to a catastrophic defeat in the next General Election. One which Mr Blunkett has warned could see Labour relegated to the political wilderness for the next 15 years.