Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing a new tracker: the 2010 LD switchers to LAB – t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited April 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing a new tracker: the 2010 LD switchers to LAB – the voters who form Labour’s “crutch”

On Friday there was a lot of discussion on the thread about the detail from the latest Populus online poll which seemed to point to a big reduction in the proportion of 2010 LDs who are now saying they’ll vote LAB. Was this this just a sampling issue or were we seeing a trend that could change our whole view of the GE2015 outcome?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    First?
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    None of these people will vote Labour in 2015. They won't vote Labour in 2015, for the same reason they didn't vote Labour in 2010: they don't want a Labour government.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    In the previous thread, a hysterically demented booliak (I don't remember who it was) was repeatedly referring to Nigel Farage as "College", as if he thought it was some sort of brilliant joke that we would all smile at in great appreciation.

    Why?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    JohnLoony said:

    In the previous thread, a hysterically demented booliak (I don't remember who it was) was repeatedly referring to Nigel Farage as "College", as if he thought it was some sort of brilliant joke that we would all smile at in great appreciation.

    Why?

    He attended Dulwich College so the person in question may have thought this notable.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    In the previous thread, Innocent Abroad said

    So you are happy for the Party machines to sack Euro-MPs one day and appoint another the next? No? Thought not.

    I think that people who

    (a) ask a question
    (b) don't give the person an opportunity to answer the question
    (c) assume that the person is going to give a particular answer
    (d) state the answer which they assume the other person is going to give
    (e) and then write "thought not" as if they think it makes them clever

    are the scum of internet forums and should be summarily executed. And their children and grandchildren should be sold into slavery. Such people are the lowest of the low.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    edited April 2014
    JohnLoony said:

    None of these people will vote Labour in 2015. They won't vote Labour in 2015, for the same reason they didn't vote Labour in 2010: they don't want a Labour government.

    As one of those who moves in and out of the group under discussion my personal, one-off, n=1, just me view is that by voting Labour I might just see the local Tory MP displaced, although I concede that's unlikely, and I might just see a Lab/LD government.
    John L is right when he says I don't particularly want a Labour government, but I sure as hell don't want a Tory one. The present Tory/LD coalition is bad enough, but the idea of a single party govt dominated by Cameron, Osborne and IDS makes me shudder.

    Oh, and by the way I agree with John about people who post like IA did! Apart from the slavery bit, of course!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    JohnLoony said:

    None of these people will vote Labour in 2015. They won't vote Labour in 2015, for the same reason they didn't vote Labour in 2010: they don't want a Labour government.

    As one of those who moves in and out of the group under discussion my personal, one-off, n=1, just me view is that by voting Labour I might just see the local Tory MP displaced, although I concede that's unlikely, and I might just see a Lab/LD government.
    John L is right when he says I don't particularly want a Labour government, but I sure as hell don't want a Tory one. The present Tory/LD coalition is bad enough, but the idea of a single party govt dominated by Cameron, Osborne and IDS makes me shudder.

    Oh, and by the way I agree with John about people who post like IA did! Apart from the slavery bit, of course!
    Do you mean that a Tory government would be worse for you personally or would be worse for the country than a Labour one - if possible can you illustrate this with policies you want and do not want.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    edited April 2014
    Financier, this answer is in somewhat random order, although I've tried to summarise at the end.

    I don't like the (apparent at any rate) effect of the NHS reforms especially as they seem to apply to my local GP practice, although I agree with Dr Foxinsox that some of that is due to the Labour reforms to medical education.

    I am very unhappy at continued privatisation; where can it end? There's surely nothing else that can be sold off, and I don't see a signifcant improvement in services that can't be accounted for by technology. Which would have come in anyway!

    I think the constant negativity about Europe from the Tories is counter-productive. I cannot imagine that our prtners will not soon be tired (if they are not already) of our constant "will we stay, won't we stay" attitude. If the EU Parliament passed a "Make your minds up or Eff Off" resolution I wouldn't blame them!

    Having said all that, I think the Labour policy on energy prices is daft; freezing prices simply holds back investment.

    I don't like the Tory schools policies, although Labour's aren't much better; while I wouldn't necessarily do away with all fee paying schools immediately I would insist that all schools with any degree of Government funding are open to all. I would get rid of state supported faith schools.

    Oh, and I want to see a fair electoral system, with a rationally selected second chamber.

    When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all. "We're all in this together" was the most hypocritical slogan ever.

    That do for a start? I'm sure you will agree with one or two points and disagree with others. Or should that be the other way round.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier, this answer is in somewhat random order, although I've tried to summarise at the end.

    I don't like the (apparent at any rate) effect of the NHS reforms especially as they seem to apply to my local GP practice, although I agree with Dr Foxinsox that some of that is due to the Labour reforms to medical education.

    I am very unhappy at continued privatisation; where can it end? There's surely nothing else that can be sold off, and I don't see a signifcant improvement in services that can't be accounted for by technology. Which would have come in anyway!

    I think the constant negativity about Europe from the Tories is counter-productive. I cannot imagine that our prtners will not soon be tired (if they are not already) of our constant "will we stay, won't we stay" attitude. If the EU Parliament passed a "Make your minds up or Eff Off" resolution I wouldn't blame them!

    Having said all that, I think the Labour policy on energy prices is daft; freezing prices simply holds back investment.

    I don't like the Tory schools policies, although Labour's aren't much better; while I wouldn't necessarily do away with all fee paying schools immediately I would insist that all schools with any degree of Government funding are open to all. I would get rid of state supported faith schools.

    Oh, and I want to see a fair electoral system, with a rationally selected second chamber.

    When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all. "We're all in this together" was the most hypocritical slogan ever.

    That do for a start? I'm sure you will agree with one or two points and disagree with others. Or should that be the other way round.

    OKC

    Thank you for your full reply - I am on my way into work and will give you a full response in about 45mins where the internet will be more reliable.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all. I gave up on PB yesterday when it simply would not load up and instead of the thread I kept getting a list of threads over the past month or so.

    So when did a lead of 7% to form a majority become a lead of 9% to form a majority. Many of us have often said that many of the so called switchers are 2005 Labour voters who loaned their votes to the LibDems in 2010, probably to keep out the Tories. It may therefore prove to be the case many of these 2010 switchers are in fact in Tory-LibDem battlegrounds and if they return to Labour 1) their change of vote will greatly help the Tories hold marginals against the LibDems and take marginals from the LibDems and 2) make little or no difference in the Tory-Labour battlegrounds. I also fully expect many of them simply not to bother voting regardless of what they are saying now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    I think Easterross has it right. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of these left orientated voters who no longer see a difference between the tories and the Lib Dems thanks to the Coalition are going to be "wasted" votes so far as Labour is concerned. If those who were willing to vote tactically to keep the tory out are no longer willing to do so the tories may enjoy a net gain.

    Such a result would hardly be surprising. As I have pointed out before the efficiency of seats for votes by Labour at the last election was freakishly high, far higher than they have managed before. They got their votes where they needed them and their vote collapsed where they didn't. Having more wasted voters will simply mean that they are trending back towards the mean. Their vote will still be more efficient than the tories but not by as much.

    The consequence of this will be that the prospects of Labour getting a majority while losing the popular vote will be much diminished. There will still be a window for them to be the largest party in that scenario though which is what I would predict at the moment. This segment also probably means the extent of any tory lead required for a majority will have gone down not up.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    This is the second time recently that PB has had the most dubious honour of having the opportunity to comment on a "Labour crutch"

    I'm sorry but the notion of the nether regions of a sweaty Ed Balls finishing the London Marathon is simply too much to endure ....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    The LibDem vote in 2010 was almost the same as that in 2005, which suggests that some at least Lab voters shifted tactically and some as a result of the Iraq war. I suggest that if voters vote tactically they are thinking about the effect of their vote, rather than voting whichever "because they've always done" and some at least of those in Tory/LibDem marginals will "hold their noses and vote LibDem" to keep the Tory out, much as some Libs did in Lab/Tory marginals, even after Iraq, and for the same reason.
    As for the second group, the non-internvention in Syria will have re-affirmed their support for Labour, although again they might be prepared to support a LibDem as the lesser of two evils.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited April 2014
    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.








  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.

    You accept that the LibDems are likely to suffer net losses to the Tories in 2015, don't you?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    DavidL said:

    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.

    But real wages haven't increased for some time, so it will take a while for people to get back to where they were before. "if it goes on at this rate we'll be able to afford a holiday again next year" isn't really "feelgood"!
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    JohnLoony said:

    None of these people will vote Labour in 2015. They won't vote Labour in 2015, for the same reason they didn't vote Labour in 2010: they don't want a Labour government.

    They didn't like Gordon Brown, and Labour was tired. But I can assure you they now hate Cameron and the chumocracy just as much.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Knocks the perceptions that any UK recovery is solely based in the South of the UK.

    BBC News - Aberdeen 'top place in UK' for spare cash

    "Aberdeen has seen the largest increase in disposable income in the UK since the credit crunch, according to a study of economic figures.

    The analysis suggests households in the city are now better off by 19%, £2,285, compared with before the recession.

    Brighton, Belfast and Blackpool also ranked well, with London seventh."
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    JohnO said:

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.

    You accept that the LibDems are likely to suffer net losses to the Tories in 2015, don't you?
    Of course I accept that but on nothing like the scale that the national swings suggest. Where the sitting MP is not standing again then there will be losses. The current Ladbrokes betting signals this best.

    Remember in 2010 the Tories would have come out with 317 seats if the UNS had worked fully in CON-LD marginals.

    Also expect one or two LD gains from CON.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.








    Mike, we will see but what you are describing is a continuation and accentuation of the trends in 2010 and 2005 where Labour's vote was reduced overall by their supporters being willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems in Con/Lib Dem seats and Lib Dems were willing to vote tactically for Labour in Con/Lab seats.

    I think the first of these will be greatly diminished which is one of the reasons the Lib Dems are polling so badly. Many of the 2010 Lib dem voters in these seats were never really Lib Dem voters, they were Labour voters in the first place. They will vote for the party they genuinely want, even if they recognise that will not help them locally.

    The Lib Dem vote in Con/Lab seats is clearly more of a risk for the tories and I would agree it is possible that it might be squeezed further but you should recognise it has already been squeezed very efficiently already in most cases. That said tory marginals with largish Lib Dem votes (such as Broxburne) are clearly going to be the most vulnerable.

    FWIW I also think Labour's vote will increase in their safe seats. Voting for Brown is something hardly anybody could do without a heavy heart and I suspect many Labour supporters will be more enthused with getting rid of a tory government than supporting a tired old Labour government. So I would expect the turnout to increase from the abysmal levels (under 60% in many cases) in those seats. This will also reduce the efficiency of the Labour vote.

  • JohnLoony said:

    In the previous thread, Innocent Abroad said

    So you are happy for the Party machines to sack Euro-MPs one day and appoint another the next? No? Thought not.

    I think that people who

    (a) ask a question
    (b) don't give the person an opportunity to answer the question
    (c) assume that the person is going to give a particular answer
    (d) state the answer which they assume the other person is going to give
    (e) and then write "thought not" as if they think it makes them clever

    are the scum of internet forums and should be summarily executed. And their children and grandchildren should be sold into slavery. Such people are the lowest of the low.
    Well done, John. Above even your usual high standard.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    the chumocracy

    This one?

    @TelePolitics: Blog: Euan Blair for Parliament? Labour is more inbred than the North Korean politburo http://t.co/Zv5zpTH5Ae
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.








    Clearly Mike your recent late night trips to the fleshpots of Bedford have invigorated your little grey cells and the groupings you feature are noteworthy. However we also have to factor into the overall mix four other important groupings.

    1. Coalition differential turnout voters - 1992 repeated.
    2. Labour soufflé voters - The Ed's not for me voters.
    3. Ukip-lite supporters - As 2 above. Tory reserves.
    4. Con>Lib gratitude voters - New non yellow peril averse in LibDem/Con marginals

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    What is interesting, especially from the point of view of future coalition makers, is that no-one suggests that there'll be any swtich of Tory voters in the likes of Rochdale from Tory to LibDem. All there seem to be on the part of the Tories is resentment at the LibDems stopping them doing what they want to do!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.

    But real wages haven't increased for some time, so it will take a while for people to get back to where they were before. "if it goes on at this rate we'll be able to afford a holiday again next year" isn't really "feelgood"!
    I certainly accept that there is a significant drag factor in peoples' perceptions in these matters. People are not very good at estimating whether they are 1 or 2% better off in real terms and peoples' actual rates of inflation can vary quite considerably from the national figure.

    But real wages have in fact been increasing for some time for most people. Those in work have been working more hours (the total hours worked has increased faster than employment), they have got promotions and those in self employment have had more to do.

    There will be very little "feelgood" factor but the "crisis" concept will only reasonate with a minority in my opinion.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all.

    OKC, I don't wish to barge into your discussion with Financier, I just would like to say that as a Tory, we are not just about governing in the interests of the fortunate. The big difference though with Labour is how to provide a sustainable economy that delivers for the less fortunate.

    Labour 1997-2010 had a policy of helping the less fortunate - from whichever country they might want to arrive - by gouging the private sector and by borrowing, each to support a public sector and always to unsustainable levels. Now to me, there is nothing more cruel than Labour holding out hope for the poorest in society that they can have a better quality of life, cynically knowing we can't afford it - and knowing that when the other lot come in they will have to return to reality. What really gets on my tits is Labour plugging the line that the Tories are heartless dream-crushers for implementing what Labour knows will ultimately have to be put in place because of their profligacy.

    Labour constantly peddles dangerous myths. Its business model is fundamentally broken. And the people who get hurt every time they implement it are ultimately not the rich. Not even the middle class. It is the poor.

    By having a sound basis to the economy since 2010, industry has taken the view that it was worth keeping people employed, waiting for an upturn that would not have happened under Labour but has been delivered by this Government. As a result, since 2010 many hundreds of thousands have kept their jobs, and all the security that provides. Better still, many new jobs have been created. (It is usually at this point that Labour supporters get snippy, moaning these are not "real jobs" - they should all have the "real jobs" like these SPAds hold.) The poorest workers have been taken out of tax altogether. And never forget, it is the supposed party of the working man - the Labour Party - that has always seen higher unemployment when it left office than when it arrived. A truly damning statistic.

    As a Tory, I feel my party does a damn sight more for the poorest in terms of a sustainable lifestyle than Labour ever does. The idea that we aim to keep the poorest poor is risible - and should be contested at every opportunity. And the rich are making a much greater contribution than they did across the life of the last Labour Govt. This Govt. is making far greater effort to redistribute wealth from rich to poor than the last Labour Govt. But ultimately, the aim is to have a bigger, more sustainable economy to be shared.

    Labour's core problem is it wants to be loved. It buys that love, with money it does not have, and could never sustain. And the poorest get hurt by this strategy every time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Mr MM, I would be happy to debate with you, but my grandchildren and I are about to go out to celebrate the Thai New Year. Can I just say that, with the exception of the LD policy of increasing the level at which tax is levied, the thrust of the Coalition policy seems to have been that government is in the interests of the fortunate. Witness, for example the increase in VAT, which bears harder on the poor than on the wealthy!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier, this answer is in somewhat random order, although I've tried to summarise at the end.

    snip

    Oh, and I want to see a fair electoral system, with a rationally selected second chamber.

    When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all. "We're all in this together" was the most hypocritical slogan ever.

    That do for a start? I'm sure you will agree with one or two points and disagree with others. Or should that be the other way round.

    @OldKingCole

    Now at my desk and dealt with the overnight problems.

    Fundamentally I believe in Equality of Opportunity and not Equality of Outcome - which is mainly Labour's philiosophy except for their leadership. Let me explain.

    I have lived and worked under both Totalitarian (Cuba, USSR, E. Germany) and Capitalist regimes and found both as equally corrupt and self-seeking (human nature) but Capitalist not as controlling as Totalitarian and more opportunistic for those who wish to seek opportunities. Thus I am in favour - generally - of a smaller state.

    I really begin to worry when the State legislates for thought and speech control (like N.Korea today and was in E Germany). Over the last 20 years (and especially since Blair, Mandelson and Campbell successfully nigh-muzzled the Press) a person can be tried in court for saying certain words or expressing certain opinions in public. This Political Correctness (a form of Groupspeak), brought in under Labour and encouraged by the LibDems, is going to be very difficult to reverse this slippery slope.

    Most people like to be led (and leave leadership and decision making to someone else) and desire personal and financial security for their future and that of their children. Thus some of my colleagues in Lithuania oft look back fondly to the days when their life was managed for them and they did not have to worry about tomorrow. However others are delighted in their new freedom to develop both cultural and business ideas.

    Labour's main defect is that they look for solutions to today's problems with past remedies- their track record shows this failure and explains their lack of coherent policies today.

    To continue



  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited April 2014

    Mr MM, I would be happy to debate with you, but my grandchildren and I are about to go out to celebrate the Thai New Year. Can I just say that, with the exception of the LD policy of increasing the level at which tax is levied, the thrust of the Coalition policy seems to have been that government is in the interests of the fortunate. Witness, for example the increase in VAT, which bears harder on the poor than on the wealthy!

    MM doesn't deny that Tories govern in the interests of the fortunate. Indeed, I read his post as an assertion that government can either be in the interests of the fortunate or else it is utterly irresponsible - there's no third way! To paraphrase: the pursuit of fairness is morally vicious.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Financier said:

    Fundamentally I believe in Equality of Opportunity and not Equality of Outcome - which is mainly Labour's philiosophy except for their leadership.

    Labour are entirely concerned with the redistribution of wealth. They have nothing (useful) to say about wealth creation.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Why would I, the director of a company and a top rate tax payer, not vote Tory? It's a tricky one to put into words, but I think it boils down to the fact that the basic Tory philosophy seems to be that if the wealthiest are looked after OK everything else will work itself out. I just don't buy into that. Neither do I buy into the idea that the state should just get out of the way and leave as much as possible to the private sector. And I also believe that Anglo-Saxon style capitalism needs fundamental reform; something which I don't think the Tories believe in.

    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good, as well as in a different kind of capitalism that is not obsessed with quarterly dividends, disproportionately high managerial wages and enables much greater long term thinking and investment. So I put myself to the left of centre. But, sadly, I don't see anything meaningful from Ed's Labour that appeals to me. Like OKC, I suspect, I am waiting for something to turn up. It's frustrating and worrying.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    Another factor is whether the Lib Dems will actually still exist in 2015 given the savlillesque scandal breaking over them courtesy of Mr Dacre. Appears the victims are gearing up to sue the party if the Mail is to be believed.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @OldKingCole

    continung

    The NHS was an excellent concept in its time, but it became overtaken by 'management' from the 1970s and its running needs to be returned to the professional surgeons and medical staff. Whether with advancing medical and surgical solutions it can continue to be free for all is a moot point. Perhaps when our genes are modified to inhibit disease (and aging?) then demand will be less?.

    Similarly, education also declined markedly since the 70s, and declining standards were masked by 'better results' which were gleefully accepted by politicians whilst ignoring what was happening in the rest of our globe. However, if people rush to pay for education in most of Africa - why do we employ truancy officers? Something wrong in the state of UK. Education went wrong when the 1944 Butler Education Act was not fully exploited. Grammar and Secondary schools were developed but the middle sector of Technical schools was nigh forgotten. Then it became political and the opportunity for advancement for all was much diminished.

    Re the second chamber, I believe than in having an unelected chamber - not being politically aligned - has served us well - as long as it stops being a home for failed politicians. It needs to be composed of a wide range of backgrounds of people who have the experience of running things and know what fails and what works. Almost a council of elders that can rein in any excesses coming from the Lower House.

    Re: Europe, I was and am happy at being a member of the common trade market, but giving away any form of self-determination was and is a step too far.

    to continue
  • To continue where I just left off: the usual phrase is "all boats rise on the incoming tide" (IIRC) which is clearly an ideological comparison since the boats rise equally, whilst an increase in a nation's wealth will increase the gap between rich and poor, absent appropriate state action.

    Those who wish to defend their unmerited privileges (health. wealth, white skin, whatever) will always display more energy than egalitarians of any description.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Scott_P said:

    Financier said:

    Fundamentally I believe in Equality of Opportunity and not Equality of Outcome - which is mainly Labour's philiosophy except for their leadership.

    Labour are entirely concerned with the redistribution of wealth. They have nothing (useful) to say about wealth creation.

    Sadly, that is a pretty fair critique of Labour currently.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good,

    That's the big problem.

    The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    Scott_P said:

    the chumocracy

    This one?

    @TelePolitics: Blog: Euan Blair for Parliament? Labour is more inbred than the North Korean politburo http://t.co/Zv5zpTH5Ae
    The only surprising thing about this Scott, is that he's stuck with his Dad's team; dynasties are nothing new in politics. It's being governed by a old-boy clique who appear to have enjoyed the same rather privileged life experience and are consequently unable to recognise issues that affect ordinary people that rankles with much of the public.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    I hope the Conservatives get a 9% lead. Then we'll whether it's what they needed or not.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    It's an important point downthread (sorry, can't find the author) that the Lib-Lab floating vote is to an unusual degree politically motivated and sophisticated. Most people don't give their vote that much thought - they vote as they always vote or they decide on fairly slight evidence that they prefer X to Y.

    The tactical voters have gone to the trouble of trying to work out who might win and adjusted accordingly - like immigrants who take the trouble to travel from Poland to Britain, they are keener and more alert than most. Many are more anti-Tory than they are pro-anyone - they simply dislike the Conservative Party and see them as having a largely destructive impact on British society, making it more divisive and weakening shared public services. (Whether we agree or not is irrelevant here.)

    Sometimes they get the tactical position wrong (in Broxtowe in 2010 there was a widespread perception that Labour was doomed and the LibDems might just win), but Mike is right that they are more likely than most to take account of the seat circumstances. I think MIke is right to identify them as one of the two main factors in 2015, the other of course being the UKIP vote.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Scott_P said:


    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good,

    That's the big problem.

    The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth

    What is the point of successful economies that only benefit a minority? The redistributive Nordic economies do pretty well, as do most of their citizens.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,789
    DavidL said:

    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.

    So real wage are predicted to have increased by 0.3%.

    Wow !!! We're saved.

    Now you have to take into account:

    1) That follows several years of falls in real wages.
    2) Historically real wages grew at over 2% every year.
    3) People have a sense of entitlement, see the extravagant earnings of bankers / politicians / footballers / celebrities etc and are filled with resentment.
    4) The government has been taking out over £100bn extra debt every year to feed the public's consumer spending addiction.
    5) People think 'austerity' is something which has happened and that they're entitled to 'start spending again'.
    6) The question I have been asking here for six years but have never received a viable answer not only continues but becomes ever more relevant namely:

    If in a globalised world economy we are competing against countries where the people are as intelligent and educated as ourselves but are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions how do we justify our higher earnings.






  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @OldKingCole

    The increase in VAT did not apply to most foods (except if you live on chocolate biscuits and take-aways), children's clothing and transport (except petrol). It was necessary as a result of Labour's mismanagement of the UK's economy. (not for the first time).

    However, much of the UK has a much more serious disease - the lack of pursuit of excellence - both for their personal life and for that of the community. Many are happy to live on hand-outs from the state and also suffer from obesity - we are being too kind for their own health to the healthy jobless.

    No political party has yet attempted to solve our major problems which have been brought about by the twin forces of globalisation and technology. This has left to the elimination of thousands of starter jobs - both blue and white collar, whilst Asia and Eastern Europe are better educating their lower-cost labour force.

    In the late 1990s/2000s we became satisfied to import the energy, food and material goods that we could obtain cheaper elsewhere, whilst at the same time paying ourselves over the market rate. This policy can lead only to two solutions either bankruptcy (which we are near) or a nation divided by the well-paid thinkers and the poorly paid manual dooers or minders).

    Over to you OKC



  • Scott_P said:


    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good,

    That's the big problem.

    The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth

    What is the point of successful economies that only benefit a minority? The redistributive Nordic economies do pretty well, as do most of their citizens.

    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    DavidL said:



    But real wages have in fact been increasing for some time for most people. Those in work have been working more hours (the total hours worked has increased faster than employment), they have got promotions and those in self employment have had more to do.


    Not for anyone working in the public sector they haven't. As a result, a constituency of middle class, highly educated voters is being lost to the Tories permanently. I would judge that my workplace (80% graduates; high proportion of doctorates) is substantially less likely to vote Tory now than it was in 1997.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    DavidL said:

    Mike, we will see but what you are describing is a continuation and accentuation of the trends in 2010 and 2005 where Labour's vote was reduced overall by their supporters being willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems in Con/Lib Dem seats and Lib Dems were willing to vote tactically for Labour in Con/Lab seats.

    I think the first of these will be greatly diminished which is one of the reasons the Lib Dems are polling so badly. Many of the 2010 Lib dem voters in these seats were never really Lib Dem voters, they were Labour voters in the first place. They will vote for the party they genuinely want, even if they recognise that will not help them locally.

    The Lib Dem vote in Con/Lab seats is clearly more of a risk for the tories and I would agree it is possible that it might be squeezed further but you should recognise it has already been squeezed very efficiently already in most cases. That said tory marginals with largish Lib Dem votes (such as Broxburne) are clearly going to be the most vulnerable.

    FWIW I also think Labour's vote will increase in their safe seats. Voting for Brown is something hardly anybody could do without a heavy heart and I suspect many Labour supporters will be more enthused with getting rid of a tory government than supporting a tired old Labour government. So I would expect the turnout to increase from the abysmal levels (under 60% in many cases) in those seats. This will also reduce the efficiency of the Labour vote.

    DavidL: it's worth remembering the LibDems did disproportionately well in 2010 in seats where it didn't matter to them (i.e. Lab/Con marginals). If these Libs return to their historic home (i.e. Labour) then that will be very bad for the Conservatives.

    It's also worth remembering that the Ashcroft polling showed the Libs holding on very well in Lib/Con marginals. And while I'd expect that to have diminished somewhat in the last few weeks, it does suggest that anti-Tory tactical voting still exists.

    Finally: I think in a few areas (like South West London), the Libs might find it easier to pick up 'soft Tory' voters than before, as they can position themselves as a break on 'more extreme' Tories, rather than merely as 'Labour Lite'.

    We shall get some very interesting clues in about three weeks :-)

    As an aside, we have received exactly zero (none / nada) campaign literature from any of the political parties ahead of the council elections. And while my ward is very strongly Conservative, I would have expected a token leaflet at least. (As an aside, I would expect the Libs to outpoll UKIP in Hampstead.)
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    DavidL said:

    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.

    So real wage are predicted to have increased by 0.3%.

    Wow !!! We're saved.

    Now you have to take into account:

    1) That follows several years of falls in real wages.
    2) Historically real wages grew at over 2% every year.
    3) People have a sense of entitlement, see the extravagant earnings of bankers / politicians / footballers / celebrities etc and are filled with resentment.
    4) The government has been taking out over £100bn extra debt every year to feed the public's consumer spending addiction.
    5) People think 'austerity' is something which has happened and that they're entitled to 'start spending again'.
    6) The question I have been asking here for six years but have never received a viable answer not only continues but becomes ever more relevant namely:

    If in a globalised world economy we are competing against countries where the people are as intelligent and educated as ourselves but are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions how do we justify our higher earnings.

    @Another_richard

    The simple answer is that we cannot if we fail to take a lead in technology. However, to state this simple fact is a no-no for most politicians and especially those in the protectionist EU.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Problem with this analysis, though, Mike, is that it zeros in on a relatively small group of people who aren't really thinking about politics.

    They don't like the coalition (although this seems to be an emotional rather than a practical analysis). So they are kicking the LibDems. Until they are faced with the stark reality of do they won't to vote for EdM to be PM there is no reason for them to revisit this decision.

    As a result - if they swing back to the LibDems - it will come fast and late. Possibly not until the second half of the campaign.

    IMHO, this is the group the pollsters need to be most worried about in terms of getting their numbers right. While it's relatively easy to make judgements about what percentage of soft Kippers will vote Tory, I suspect this group could be binary.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Good morning, everyone.

    I hope the Conservatives get a 9% lead. Then we'll whether it's what they needed or not.

    There's always hope .... but then there's always reality too.

    A 9% lead is too much. A 4-6% lead is the narrow band that looks more likely for the Conservatives.

    .......................................

    BTW the current monthly McARSE Scottish referendum projection that I normally publish on the 18th of the month will, on account of Good Friday, be issued a day early on Thursday of this week.

    The current fortnightly ARSE 2015 General Election projection will be issued on Tuesday 25th April.



  • Financier said:

    @OldKingCole

    The increase in VAT did not apply to most foods (except if you live on chocolate biscuits and take-aways), children's clothing and transport (except petrol). It was necessary as a result of Labour's mismanagement of the UK's economy. (not for the first time).

    However, much of the UK has a much more serious disease - the lack of pursuit of excellence - both for their personal life and for that of the community. Many are happy to live on hand-outs from the state and also suffer from obesity - we are being too kind for their own health to the healthy jobless.

    No political party has yet attempted to solve our major problems which have been brought about by the twin forces of globalisation and technology. This has left to the elimination of thousands of starter jobs - both blue and white collar, whilst Asia and Eastern Europe are better educating their lower-cost labour force.

    In the late 1990s/2000s we became satisfied to import the energy, food and material goods that we could obtain cheaper elsewhere, whilst at the same time paying ourselves over the market rate. This policy can lead only to two solutions either bankruptcy (which we are near) or a nation divided by the well-paid thinkers and the poorly paid manual dooers or minders).

    Over to you OKC

    Funny how the satisfaction only started under Blair and stopped the moment the Coalition got in.

    Secondly, if freedom is to mean anything, it has to mean the freedom not to pursue excellence. And who is to judge excellence anyway? Oh, silly me, the market will do that. Or it would if it weren't for governments and irresponsible individuals like Sir Tim Berners-Lee giving away immensely valuable ideas like html.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Why would I, the director of a company and a top rate tax payer, not vote Tory? It's a tricky one to put into words, but I think it boils down to the fact that the basic Tory philosophy seems to be that if the wealthiest are looked after OK everything else will work itself out. I just don't buy into that. Neither do I buy into the idea that the state should just get out of the way and leave as much as possible to the private sector. And I also believe that Anglo-Saxon style capitalism needs fundamental reform; something which I don't think the Tories believe in.

    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good, as well as in a different kind of capitalism that is not obsessed with quarterly dividends, disproportionately high managerial wages and enables much greater long term thinking and investment. So I put myself to the left of centre. But, sadly, I don't see anything meaningful from Ed's Labour that appeals to me. Like OKC, I suspect, I am waiting for something to turn up. It's frustrating and worrying.

    So are you happy that on your retirement/death that all the assets you have developed during your lifetime are taken over by the state and not left to any member of your family or anyone/thing else?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Financier, this answer is in somewhat random order, although I've tried to summarise at the end.

    I don't like the (apparent at any rate) effect of the NHS reforms especially as they seem to apply to my local GP practice, although I agree with Dr Foxinsox that some of that is due to the Labour reforms to medical education.

    I am very unhappy at continued privatisation; where can it end? There's surely nothing else that can be sold off, and I don't see a signifcant improvement in services that can't be accounted for by technology. Which would have come in anyway!

    I think the constant negativity about Europe from the Tories is counter-productive. I cannot imagine that our prtners will not soon be tired (if they are not already) of our constant "will we stay, won't we stay" attitude. If the EU Parliament passed a "Make your minds up or Eff Off" resolution I wouldn't blame them!

    Having said all that, I think the Labour policy on energy prices is daft; freezing prices simply holds back investment.

    I don't like the Tory schools policies, although Labour's aren't much better; while I wouldn't necessarily do away with all fee paying schools immediately I would insist that all schools with any degree of Government funding are open to all. I would get rid of state supported faith schools.

    Oh, and I want to see a fair electoral system, with a rationally selected second chamber.

    When it all comes down to it though, I see a Tory run Britain as being governed in the interests of the fortunate, and I would rather see my country governed in the interests of all. "We're all in this together" was the most hypocritical slogan ever.

    That do for a start? I'm sure you will agree with one or two points and disagree with others. Or should that be the other way round.

    Honestly speaking, having read that list, I'm not sure why you are wavering. Seems to me that you are really on the left of the Labour Party. Not really Tribune left, but certainly soft left.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    OT for users of British bookmakers' websites, some of which I've heard are a bit rubbish: If anybody could hook me up with a screenshot showing an obvious WTF - something where you can tell at a glance that they're Doing It Wrong, or something that just looks hilariously bad - I'd much appreciate it. I'm working on some presentation slides.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    JohnLoony said:

    None of these people will vote Labour in 2015. They won't vote Labour in 2015, for the same reason they didn't vote Labour in 2010: they don't want a Labour government.

    They didn't like Gordon Brown, and Labour was tired. But I can assure you they now hate Cameron and the chumocracy just as much.
    Why hate?

    I didn't think Gordon Brown was a good Prime Minister. But I didn't hate him.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    Financier said:

    Why would I, the director of a company and a top rate tax payer, not vote Tory? It's a tricky one to put into words, but I think it boils down to the fact that the basic Tory philosophy seems to be that if the wealthiest are looked after OK everything else will work itself out. I just don't buy into that. Neither do I buy into the idea that the state should just get out of the way and leave as much as possible to the private sector. And I also believe that Anglo-Saxon style capitalism needs fundamental reform; something which I don't think the Tories believe in.

    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good, as well as in a different kind of capitalism that is not obsessed with quarterly dividends, disproportionately high managerial wages and enables much greater long term thinking and investment. So I put myself to the left of centre. But, sadly, I don't see anything meaningful from Ed's Labour that appeals to me. Like OKC, I suspect, I am waiting for something to turn up. It's frustrating and worrying.

    So are you happy that on your retirement/death that all the assets you have developed during your lifetime are taken over by the state and not left to any member of your family or anyone/thing else?
    So do you believe that the old and infirm should have to pay for their own care, from the proceeds of their assets? That seems unpopular with those middle classes who expect to inherit, and indeed their moaning in the Wail has resulted in policy intervention. You can't have it both ways.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    OT for users of British bookmakers' websites, some of which I've heard are a bit rubbish: If anybody could hook me up with a screenshot showing an obvious WTF - something where you can tell at a glance that they're Doing It Wrong, or something that just looks hilariously bad - I'd much appreciate it. I'm working on some presentation slides.

    Go to the Ladbrokes website and play around for 60 seconds, you should find something to your satisfaction. If that doesn't work, I seem to recall that the constituency betting markets have every constituency up there twice for some reason.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As even the official statistics show real wages now growing again (in reality household incomes have been growing overall for some time as people worked more hours etc) where now for Labour?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10764351/Wage-rises-to-outstrip-inflation-as-strain-eases.html

    I suspect whatever the official stats show many people will still think they are worse off. Surveys show that is the case even when there is strongly growing real wages and we are some way off that. But the number of people with whom the "cost of living crisis" reasonates will be an ever diminishing number from now to the election. Ed needs a new bandwaggon and fairly quickly at that.

    But real wages haven't increased for some time, so it will take a while for people to get back to where they were before. "if it goes on at this rate we'll be able to afford a holiday again next year" isn't really "feelgood"!
    I certainly accept that there is a significant drag factor in peoples' perceptions in these matters. People are not very good at estimating whether they are 1 or 2% better off in real terms and peoples' actual rates of inflation can vary quite considerably from the national figure.

    But real wages have in fact been increasing for some time for most people. Those in work have been working more hours (the total hours worked has increased faster than employment), they have got promotions and those in self employment have had more to do.

    There will be very little "feelgood" factor but the "crisis" concept will only reasonate with a minority in my opinion.

    You're also forgetting the impact of tax cuts for the low paid, so the take home pay normal people see is higher than the basic stats that the desk jockeys on here think about
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Another factor is whether the Lib Dems will actually still exist in 2015 given the savlillesque scandal breaking over them courtesy of Mr Dacre. Appears the victims are gearing up to sue the party if the Mail is to be believed.

    The Libs survived their leader being on trial for conspiracy to murder. The Libs survived Lembit Opik. The Libs survived blowing themselves up over the SDP merger.

    There is a 'market' for a liberal party (albeit one that doesn't share any values with you), so I would thought that some form of liberal party will exist in the future.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Why would I, the director of a company and a top rate tax payer, not vote Tory? It's a tricky one to put into words, but I think it boils down to the fact that the basic Tory philosophy seems to be that if the wealthiest are looked after OK everything else will work itself out. I just don't buy into that. Neither do I buy into the idea that the state should just get out of the way and leave as much as possible to the private sector. And I also believe that Anglo-Saxon style capitalism needs fundamental reform; something which I don't think the Tories believe in.

    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good, as well as in a different kind of capitalism that is not obsessed with quarterly dividends, disproportionately high managerial wages and enables much greater long term thinking and investment. So I put myself to the left of centre. But, sadly, I don't see anything meaningful from Ed's Labour that appeals to me. Like OKC, I suspect, I am waiting for something to turn up. It's frustrating and worrying.

    No, the fundamental Tory philosophy is that: you should give people the tools to make the best of their own lives; provide a safety net for those who fall, for whatever reason, so they have the time to stand back up; and provide long-term support for those who have made their contribution to society but are now retired or for that small group who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves on a long-term basis.

    The state has the theoretical potential to be a force for good. But it is a huge organisation and it can only operate by forcing people into specific categories. (You see this a huge amount when the state takes over charitable activities carried out by small groups - the impact becomes miniscule). As a result it doesn't provide effective solutions for people - but it doesn't allow them to seek their own solutions.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.


    Polling vs PB Conservative anecdote. Thanks Mike.





  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    rcs1000 said:

    Another factor is whether the Lib Dems will actually still exist in 2015 given the savlillesque scandal breaking over them courtesy of Mr Dacre. Appears the victims are gearing up to sue the party if the Mail is to be believed.

    The Libs survived their leader being on trial for conspiracy to murder. The Libs survived Lembit Opik. The Libs survived blowing themselves up over the SDP merger.

    There is a 'market' for a liberal party (albeit one that doesn't share any values with you), so I would thought that some form of liberal party will exist in the future.
    Led by Jeremy Browne ?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Monksfield, the government is screwed either way on funding care for the elderly (due to rising life expectancy and, even worse, dementia rates). If the state tries to fund everything it'd be absolutely unaffordable, and clearly mad to have taxpayers paying for the care of those who have millions of pounds sitting in the bank.

    If the state required the individual to pay for themselves, the majority would run out of money fairly quickly. And then what?

    Requiring people to whittle down their savings to fund their own care, and having the state only step in when funds are very low, is not great. But the alternatives would seem to be even worse.

    We also need the parties to try and sort out power of attorney to make it easier in cases where the children of those suffering dementia are looking after them. As mentioned previously by others, the view of euthanasia may be affected by the rise of dementia.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_P said:


    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good,

    That's the big problem.

    The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth

    What is the point of successful economies that only benefit a minority? The redistributive Nordic economies do pretty well, as do most of their citizens.

    Sweden, in particular, is much less redistributive than you might think.

    They also - for instance - have fully private healthcare, long term care and schools. Now these haven't necessarily worked out entirely to plan - I'm sure Stuart_Dickson could talk about Ambea - but it's not some kind of socialist paradise.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. 1000, I think a Liberal Party would be a good thing. It'd be nice if we had one.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:

    @OldKingCole

    The increase in VAT did not apply to most foods (except if you live on chocolate biscuits and take-aways), children's clothing and transport (except petrol). It was necessary as a result of Labour's mismanagement of the UK's economy. (not for the first time).

    However, much of the UK has a much more serious disease - the lack of pursuit of excellence - both for their personal life and for that of the community. Many are happy to live on hand-outs from the state and also suffer from obesity - we are being too kind for their own health to the healthy jobless.

    No political party has yet attempted to solve our major problems which have been brought about by the twin forces of globalisation and technology. This has left to the elimination of thousands of starter jobs - both blue and white collar, whilst Asia and Eastern Europe are better educating their lower-cost labour force.

    In the late 1990s/2000s we became satisfied to import the energy, food and material goods that we could obtain cheaper elsewhere, whilst at the same time paying ourselves over the market rate. This policy can lead only to two solutions either bankruptcy (which we are near) or a nation divided by the well-paid thinkers and the poorly paid manual dooers or minders).

    Over to you OKC

    Funny how the satisfaction only started under Blair and stopped the moment the Coalition got in.

    Secondly, if freedom is to mean anything, it has to mean the freedom not to pursue excellence. And who is to judge excellence anyway? Oh, silly me, the market will do that. Or it would if it weren't for governments and irresponsible individuals like Sir Tim Berners-Lee giving away immensely valuable ideas like html.

    IA

    You are reading too much into my words. That satisfaction for many is still with us.

    Yes, if personally you do not wish to pursue excellence or encourage you children to do so, then generally the world is a poorer place and also if we all did that then there would be no Sir Tim etc. We do not need the market to tell us what we are doing - in reality we know it ourselves but may wish to put that realisation out of our thoughts environ.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    6) The question I have been asking here for six years but have never received a viable answer not only continues but becomes ever more relevant namely:

    If in a globalised world economy we are competing against countries where the people are as intelligent and educated as ourselves but are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions how do we justify our higher earnings.

    I don't recall you asking it before, but simply put (obviously it's a lot more complex than this in reality) you can only justify higher earnings on a long-term basis if it is paid for.

    This can only come from 2 sources:

    (1) government redistribution (either through tax or through borrowing - which is really just deferred tax)

    (2) High value added for customers. It's not just about education and willingness to work hard: these are the basic tools that enable you to pay in the game. Britain has a creative culture, and good at problem solving (you might call them tinkerers). It's only through intellectual property and solutions that you are going to create sufficient long-term value.

    I'm not trying to say that manufacturing should cease in the UK - there is definitely scope for it. But basic, limited value added, metal bashing is a mug's game. We should be focusing on those areas where there is complexity, design value added, high levels of precision/accuracy, etc. But that's a difficult game - you need to keep running as other countries catch up over time.

    On the bright side, though, wages are fast increasing in China et al. In fact jobs are being offshored from China to the Philippines, which is causing issues for the Chinese. We just need to keep ahead for long-enough until things stabilise.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Looking at some of the posts from our Conservative friends this morning, perhaps it's time for Mike to do a thread on Tory crutches - forecasts of psephological shifts that will save the Blues but for which thus far we have no polling evidence.

    Once written, Mike could save himself some ink by just linking back to it whenever presented with these fantastical scenarios.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_P said:


    I believe passionately in redistribution, in the potential of the state to be a powerful force for good,

    That's the big problem.

    The most successful economies are those in which the state agrees not to confiscate personal wealth

    What is the point of successful economies that only benefit a minority? The redistributive Nordic economies do pretty well, as do most of their citizens.

    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    Not in Denmark, and I don't believe in Sweden either
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    The ongoing problem for the Tories is that everything is relative. Even if wages grew 1% more than prices for ll five years, the general public would see some groups do so much better. The "it's not fair" mantra is powerful and it's why the "Bankers tax reduction" was so toxic. Gordon's well-labelled landmine was jumped on with enthusiasm.

    Labour labour (sorry) under the reputation of being spendthrifts but that's easier to manage if the economy is seen to be growing. Their main problem is Ed.

    Logic is only one factor in politics and not a particularly strong one.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    edited April 2014
    Interesting discussions on the thread today - thanks to all concerned for putting forward their views without undue bile.
    Charles said:

    Problem with this analysis, though, Mike, is that it zeros in on a relatively small group of people who aren't really thinking about politics.

    That's an assertion which completely contradicts my experience, and I wonder on what you base it? - the Lib-Lab tactical vote are by and large MUCH more politically aware that any other group in British politics outside the strongly committed left and right. I can certainly imagine either Labour or Tories having difficulty getting some of their traditional vote out (as we may well find on May 22). I'm much less concerned about the Lib->Lab vote drifting off.
    rcs1000 said:



    As an aside, we have received exactly zero (none / nada) campaign literature from any of the political parties ahead of the council elections. And while my ward is very strongly Conservative, I would have expected a token leaflet at least. (As an aside, I would expect the Libs to outpoll UKIP in Hampstead.)

    Yes, my Holloway ward is a Lab/Lib marginal with a strong Green interest (UKIP er not really). Nobody has leafleted me yet either. (I suppose I should be leafleting myself but Broxtowe is eating my political time.) I expect there will be some stuff next month, though.

    EDIT: duh, where did that centre adjustment come from??

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    My original point was that the "most successful" economies are those where the state does not confiscate wealth. The counter examples of countries doing OK are Nordic, but the answer to your question is which countries are members of the G8? The OK Nordics, or the full on capitalists?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    Norway's social democracy is funded on oil.* The rest of Scandinavia has no oil.

    It matters not whether the oil was privately owned. All states around the world own the oil. The absolute fundamental you miss is that private wealth UNLOCKS all of this oil wealth, by using risk capital to explore for and develop discoveries. If it was left to the state, it would still be several miles underground.

    The state has a role, by providing tax breaks and (even more important) a stable economic environment to justify the risk private capital takes.

    *Much of Norway's oil wealth comes from a very advantageous settlement of where the Norwegian/UK maritime border should be. Many huge North Sea fields straddle this boundary, or are just inside Norwegian waters. The story I was told was that, after many months of wrangling by an international committee, the Norwegians took the UK delegation out for a slap-up lunch, after which they became much more amenable to the Norwegian position. Which mattered little, until years later when the oil started being discovered...and Norway got hundreds of billions back for that lunch...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Interesting discussions on the thread today - thanks to all concerned for putting forward their views without undue bile.

    Charles said:

    Problem with this analysis, though, Mike, is that it zeros in on a relatively small group of people who aren't really thinking about politics.

    That's an assertion which completely contradicts my experience, and I wonder on what you base it? - the Lib-Lab tactical vote are by and large MUCH more politically aware that any other group in British politics outside the strongly committed left and right. I can certainly imagine either Labour or Tories having difficulty getting some of their traditional vote out (as we may well find on May 22). I'm much less concerned about the Lib->Lab vote drifting off.
    rcs1000 said:



    As an aside, we have received exactly zero (none / nada) campaign literature from any of the political parties ahead of the council elections. And while my ward is very strongly Conservative, I would have expected a token leaflet at least. (As an aside, I would expect the Libs to outpoll UKIP in Hampstead.)

    Yes, my Holloway ward is a Lab/Lib marginal with a strong Green interest (UKIP er not really). Nobody has leafleted me yet either. (I suppose I should be leafleting myself but Broxtowe is eating my political time.) I expect there will be some stuff next month, though.

    EDIT: duh, where did that centre adjustment come from??

    Nick,

    As a matter of interest, what is the optimum time for leafleting before an election and how frequently should you ;leaflet during that time before it becomes annoying to the recipient. Also how many (%age) political leaflets are read instead of just being binned and has this inclination changed with time.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2014
    JohnLoony said:

    In the previous thread, a hysterically demented booliak (I don't remember who it was) was repeatedly referring to Nigel Farage as "College", as if he thought it was some sort of brilliant joke that we would all smile at in great appreciation.

    Why?

    The "hystericaly demented booliak" was me, Mr. Loony.

    The term is an affectionate reference to the eponymous Dick Emery character called College.

    Emery's College was a tramp whose defining outward features were a bowler hat, an old school tie (either Old Harrovian or Old Etonian) and a withered rose for a button-hole. He lives in 'reduced circumstances'.

    Dick Emery on College: "His very name suggests that he has had some kind of education, and he seems to have enjoyed a rather different background from the usual down-and-out tramp. He remains a gentleman with cultural pretensions while slumming it with his friend, Droopy. He retains the vestiges of his former life. with his old school tie, battered bowler hat and crumpled buttonhole. And if he met a fellow 'old boy' from his school taking a stroll through the park where College sleeps every night, he would act as though their stations in life were equal, and his misfortunes would become even less real to him."

    It was College's wearing of an OE tie in his debate with Nick Clegg that occasioned the reference.

    Here is College in all his glory (but minus the buttonhole) after taking an old-fashioned 'selfie' from a Photo-Me booth. The tie on this occasion is Old Harrovian.

    http://www.saintvespaluus.com/emerr1.jpg
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited April 2014
    Interesting piece Mike.

    It might be useful to compare this with the monthly Populus Mega Poll.

    Pretty much this crutch switched the moment the Lib Dems went into coalition.

    I don't think anything or anyone can entice them back to the Lib Dems.

    The best Nick and Dave can hope is this crutch stays at home at The General Election.
  • Scott_P said:


    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    My original point was that the "most successful" economies are those where the state does not confiscate wealth. The counter examples of countries doing OK are Nordic, but the answer to your question is which countries are members of the G8? The OK Nordics, or the full on capitalists?
    AFAIK the State "confiscates" wealth in every single country in the world. The Coalition does it, every American government does it &c. I've no idea why the G8 is the "answer" to my question.

    But we are never going to agree, or, I fear, have the slightest respect for each other.

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.


    Mike you have been very consistent with your view that in LD/Tory marginals the LDs will do much better than national polling but I think there could be a flaw which will be exposed in the upcoming local elections.
    In areas where Labour supporters felt they had no chance of a Lab MP you are correct in that they tactically gave their support to the LDs. Yet in the local elections where the seat/ward sizes are considerably smaller Labour are telling their supporters to vote Labour not LD as you could get Lab cllrs.
    I have seen the deactivation of the local Labour Party in Sutton for example where the LDs have squeezed the Lab vote mercilessly for the last 16 years. That squeeze is unwinding and on May 22 we will see how much.
    Also in many Lib Dem councils,Sutton ,Kingston and Richmond for example nearly 50% of incumbent LD cllrs are standing down. If that is coupled with a rise in Labours vote then the LD activist base could be decimated..I say could not will.
    If that occurs then in 2015 things will be much harder for them than the Ashcroft poll of last year suggested..a lot has happened in the last 12 months..





  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    timmo said:

    @DavidL @Easteross The polling simply does not support you. How do I convince you?

    There is a massive difference between 2010 LDs in seats where they are in contention and seats where they are not as we have seen in repeated in polls of marginals over the past three years.

    2010 LDs will disproportionately move to LAB in CON-LAB marginals but are more likely to stay with yellows in LD-CON marginals. LAB inclined voters in the latter seats are likely to vote tactically.

    In CON-LAB battlegrounds 2010 LD are much more likely to switch to LAB than those not in battlegrounds.


    Mike you have been very consistent with your view that in LD/Tory marginals the LDs will do much better than national polling but I think there could be a flaw which will be exposed in the upcoming local elections.
    In areas where Labour supporters felt they had no chance of a Lab MP you are correct in that they tactically gave their support to the LDs. Yet in the local elections where the seat/ward sizes are considerably smaller Labour are telling their supporters to vote Labour not LD as you could get Lab cllrs.
    I have seen the deactivation of the local Labour Party in Sutton for example where the LDs have squeezed the Lab vote mercilessly for the last 16 years. That squeeze is unwinding and on May 22 we will see how much.
    Also in many Lib Dem councils,Sutton ,Kingston and Richmond for example nearly 50% of incumbent LD cllrs are standing down. If that is coupled with a rise in Labours vote then the LD activist base could be decimated..I say could not will.
    If that occurs then in 2015 things will be much harder for them than the Ashcroft poll of last year suggested..a lot has happened in the last 12 months..


    I meant reactivation of Labour Party of course rather than deactivation


  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    Norway's social democracy is funded on oil.* The rest of Scandinavia has no oil.

    It matters not whether the oil was privately owned. All states around the world own the oil. The absolute fundamental you miss is that private wealth UNLOCKS all of this oil wealth, by using risk capital to explore for and develop discoveries. If it was left to the state, it would still be several miles underground.

    The state has a role, by providing tax breaks and (even more important) a stable economic environment to justify the risk private capital takes.

    *Much of Norway's oil wealth comes from a very advantageous settlement of where the Norwegian/UK maritime border should be. Many huge North Sea fields straddle this boundary, or are just inside Norwegian waters. The story I was told was that, after many months of wrangling by an international committee, the Norwegians took the UK delegation out for a slap-up lunch, after which they became much more amenable to the Norwegian position. Which mattered little, until years later when the oil started being discovered...and Norway got hundreds of billions back for that lunch...
    Hah!

    Story I heard was there was an agreed line on the map, but the Norwegians (a) got George Brown drunk and then (b) moved the line. And he signed it without noticing...

  • To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    Norway's social democracy is funded on oil.* The rest of Scandinavia has no oil.

    It matters not whether the oil was privately owned. All states around the world own the oil. The absolute fundamental you miss is that private wealth UNLOCKS all of this oil wealth, by using risk capital to explore for and develop discoveries. If it was left to the state, it would still be several miles underground.

    Oh silly me. Keys good, locks bad.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    edited April 2014


    To be fair, SO, Scandinavian social democracy is funded on oil, which was the State's to begin with. Our right-wing adversaries, if they are to get beyond public-school debating points, need to show why it would have been better for the embedded oil to have privately owned ab initio.

    Norway's social democracy is funded on oil.* The rest of Scandinavia has no oil.

    It matters not whether the oil was privately owned. All states around the world own the oil. The absolute fundamental you miss is that private wealth UNLOCKS all of this oil wealth, by using risk capital to explore for and develop discoveries. If it was left to the state, it would still be several miles underground.

    The state has a role, by providing tax breaks and (even more important) a stable economic environment to justify the risk private capital takes.

    *Much of Norway's oil wealth comes from a very advantageous settlement of where the Norwegian/UK maritime border should be. Many huge North Sea fields straddle this boundary, or are just inside Norwegian waters. The story I was told was that, after many months of wrangling by an international committee, the Norwegians took the UK delegation out for a slap-up lunch, after which they became much more amenable to the Norwegian position. Which mattered little, until years later when the oil started being discovered...and Norway got hundreds of billions back for that lunch...
    Norwegian oil is in part extracted by the state de facto, if perhaps not de jure, through Statoil (67% state owned). And we had BNOC till Mrs T sold it off as with much else. [Edit: but please do correct me if I am wrong!]

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    My son lives and works in Copenhagen and I find Scandinavian attitudes are interesting. They are left wing economically (high tax, high spend) and it's generally accepted.

    But they have an interesting sexual equality attitude too. The women regard the battle as won and don't get upset by what we would perceive to be sexist attitudes. They are equal but different.They are, on the whole (or whatever statistical test you want to use) better at some things and men are naturally better at others.

    They are becoming more edgy about immigration though, and their antics at the local zoo show their practical natures. They're proud to be rated number one for happiness and I can see why. But they do speak their mind and I could see Ukip gaining votes there. It's not a socialist nirvana in the Ed sense.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BobaFett said:

    Looking at some of the posts from our Conservative friends this morning, perhaps it's time for Mike to do a thread on Tory crutches - forecasts of psephological shifts that will save the Blues but for which thus far we have no polling evidence.

    Once written, Mike could save himself some ink by just linking back to it whenever presented with these fantastical scenarios.

    Chortle ....

    But wait awhile ....

    With Labour a few points ahead in the polls 13 months before the general election, may I ask when since WWII has Labour increased its share of the vote first time out after having just relinquished office ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    MM doesn't deny that Tories govern in the interests of the fortunate. Indeed, I read his post as an assertion that government can either be in the interests of the fortunate or else it is utterly irresponsible - there's no third way! To paraphrase: the pursuit of fairness is morally vicious.

    MM doesn't deny that the world economy is run by the lizard people or that the moon is made of cheese.

    Neither does he deny your super-human powers of extrapolation.

    Leaving aside the Blairite "third way" (did he ever actually believe in that? Or anything, for that matter...?), the issue we have is - what is fairness? Is it "fairness" to bugger up the economy for all if in the process you temporarily help a select few of the most unfortunate in society?

    Unlike most here, I was brought up in what would pass today for very real poverty. I don't need to take lessons on what it means to be "the unfortunate poor". But I can give out lessons on how making the most of opportunity allowed me to rise above those circumstances. And how very good that feels. The more that can share my experience, the happier I will be. What I will say is that Government can take very little credit.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    BobaFett said:

    Looking at some of the posts from our Conservative friends this morning, perhaps it's time for Mike to do a thread on Tory crutches - forecasts of psephological shifts that will save the Blues but for which thus far we have no polling evidence.

    Once written, Mike could save himself some ink by just linking back to it whenever presented with these fantastical scenarios.

    There are, of course, historic cases to be made for what happens to governments as an election approaches, the public attitude towards reelecting failed Labour administrations within a decade of their being booted out, decline of UKIP from euros to GEs etc etc.
    It's quite natural for the party of government and it's supporters to have a crutch, it's what keeps you walking on whilst the constant chatter of protest is afoot.
    Otherwise Labour would have given up in 2009 when it was polling 20%.

    There WILL, for example, be a proportion of 'never Labour again' voters going blue in 2015, the same way there was (in a hopeless cause) in 1997 - compare Tory votes in 97 vs 2001.

    Maybe Mike also needs a tracker on Labour's triumphalism and Unhatched chicken counting crutch?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    ALP,

    I got your "college" reference, but in my humble opinion, Dick Emery was one of the worst comedians ever. Charlie Drake was the worst though.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @JackW

    No governing party has held on to its share either, yet you are forecasting Tories largest party. Go figure.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    ICM today?
    Con need to start seeing a bottoming out of the Miller affair backlash, and a continuation of the gradual erosion of the Labour lead, it's looking Lab largest party to me at the moment, 6 is bad a year out, 3-4 better.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Feet (and others), the weird nature of politics now could mean the eventual result being most unexpected.

    We've got:
    possibly separation of Scotland
    general loathing of the 'Establishment' leading to UKIP's significant rise
    a coalition

    If Scotland votes Yes would Cameron really need a 9% lead for a majority of 1?
  • Populus ‏@PopulusPolls 5m

    New Populus VI: Lab 35 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 11 (=); UKIP 13 (+1); Oth 8 (=) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi140414
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    For those wishing we were more like those lovely Scandinavian countries with their social democracy (and questioning what else could be privatised), perhaps we ought to privatise the fire and ambulance services like Denmark?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falck_(Denmark)
  • Yeah, Populus are the new gold standard.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Mr. Feet (and others), the weird nature of politics now could mean the eventual result being most unexpected.

    We've got:
    possibly separation of Scotland
    general loathing of the 'Establishment' leading to UKIP's significant rise
    a coalition

    If Scotland votes Yes would Cameron really need a 9% lead for a majority of 1?

    Even with Scotland, with incumbency he could probably manage neck and neck/1 ahead on a 1.5 to 2% lead
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457
    We got our first (non-election) specific leaflet through the door at the weekend, from the Conservatives.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    edited April 2014
    CD13 said:

    My son lives and works in Copenhagen and I find Scandinavian attitudes are interesting. They are left wing economically (high tax, high spend) and it's generally accepted.

    But they have an interesting sexual equality attitude too. The women regard the battle as won and don't get upset by what we would perceive to be sexist attitudes. They are equal but different.They are, on the whole (or whatever statistical test you want to use) better at some things and men are naturally better at others.

    They are becoming more edgy about immigration though, and their antics at the local zoo show their practical natures. They're proud to be rated number one for happiness and I can see why. But they do speak their mind and I could see Ukip gaining votes there. It's not a socialist nirvana in the Ed sense.

    Interesting and I think correct post. The tax/spend consensus is important and growing up there shaped my own attitudes. And I agree that Denmark (rather more than Sweden) has a fairly contemptuous attitude to what the right would call political correctness and i might call discreet courtesy - it's a very down to earth country, not especially worried about "saying the right thing". The Danish UKIP is polling at 20%.
    Financier said:



    Nick,

    As a matter of interest, what is the optimum time for leafleting before an election and how frequently should you ;leaflet during that time before it becomes annoying to the recipient. Also how many (%age) political leaflets are read instead of just being binned and has this inclination changed with time.

    I don't think there's any reliable research (and if there is I'd love to be pointed to it). Anecedotally I think that "plenty but useful rather than partisan" is what works best - the LibDem Focuses work because they come along every two months like clockwork and tell you what's happening in your area. Even people like me who don't much care whether the local road is being resurfaced or a lamp standard is being shifted have a look at them just to stay abreast, and at election time people think hey, that's a useful councillor, I'll vote to keep him.

    It's generally believed that most people only glance at leaflets and agonising over wording is largely a waste of time so long as you avoid saying anything that will haunt you forever. But they do like to see you're making an effort, and if they never hear from you it influences the tactical vote as they assume you've given up.

    At election time there are clearly diminishing returns and by the final week you see notices saying "Have mercy! No more election leaflets!"

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BobaFett said:

    @JackW

    No governing party has held on to its share either, yet you are forecasting Tories largest party. Go figure.

    You need to "go figure" the figures.

    Look at the ICM poll ratings for Labour and Conservatives a year or so out during the Thatcher and Major years up to 1992.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2014
    IF this subset of the 2010 lib dem vote really are a "crutch" and "switchers" that are just waiting to go back to the lib dems, then why on earth wouldn't you just look at the lib dem VI to see any evidence whatsoever of them going back??

    Gavin Edwards ‏@GavinEdwards77 13h

    Two polls out in last 24 hours show Lib Dem support dropping to 7%.
    The more people see & hear Nick Clegg the worse it gets for them.

    Oh, right! Calamity Clegg and his ostrich faction certainly wouldn't want anyone focusing on that. ;)

    Well how about the historic record of the lib dem VI trend since 2010 then?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

    Flatlining on 10% since late 2010 with nothing shifting them. Not the omnishambles, not anything little Ed says or does, nothing.

    Maybe, just maybe, the lib dems have a toxic leader in Clegg? Too far fetched?

    *chortle*

  • MM doesn't deny that Tories govern in the interests of the fortunate. Indeed, I read his post as an assertion that government can either be in the interests of the fortunate or else it is utterly irresponsible - there's no third way! To paraphrase: the pursuit of fairness is morally vicious.

    MM doesn't deny that the world economy is run by the lizard people or that the moon is made of cheese.

    Neither does he deny your super-human powers of extrapolation.

    Unlike most here, I was brought up in what would pass today for very real poverty. I don't need to take lessons on what it means to be "the unfortunate poor". But I can give out lessons on how making the most of opportunity allowed me to rise above those circumstances. And how very good that feels. The more that can share my experience, the happier I will be. What I will say is that Government can take very little credit.
    And what I will say is that 98%+ of those who drag themselves up from "very real poverty" do so by trampling on other peoples' heads. I'm happy to allow that you're in the tiny minority, though.

    "Competition" means just that: a ritualised fight between individuals. "Perfect competition" is a fantasy which entrepreneurs (98% of whom are just crooks, of course) invoke to justify their behaviour. And yes, I do prefer my children to other people's, but I don't delude myself into thinking that that is anything other than extremely sinful behaviour.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    32% of 2010LDs in today's Populus poll say they are now voting LAB. Including DKs and WNVs it is 25%.

    It looks as though the poll last Friday was an outlier on this point.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT

    "Abu Azmi, the Socialist Party’s Maharashtra unit chief, says that women who have sex before marriage should be hanged, while the Party's leader says he will scrap a law giving the death penalty to rapists if he’s elected prime minister.

    “If rape happens with or without consent, it should be punished as prescribed in Islam”, Mr Azmi told the Mid-Day website.

    “The solution is this: any woman, whether married or unmarried, who goes along with a man, with or without her consent, should be hanged. Both should be hanged. It shouldn’t be allowed even if a woman goes by consent.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10762531/Women-who-have-sex-before-marriage-should-be-hanged-says-senior-politician-in-Indias-Socialist-Party.htm

    Does the UK still give aid to India?
This discussion has been closed.