Labour 14 point lead in latest opinion poll.

[Silent Bob]

not a commander in chief.

This is why he's doing so badly in his attempts to be president.

You win again Obama.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I stand to be corrected,however it has often been said that Ken Clark left the incoming Labour Govt a healthy 'set of books' so much so that Brown had little or no room to move (?) thus meaning by 2001 'Joe Public' voted back in Labour. Teflon Tony was talking himself out of a room with no doors,while piling up debt. Money was not the problem new schools and hospitals were built at a cost that has to be repaid back that would be ok however most of this was done under foreign labour whilst at the same time pouring billions into 'the benefit culture'. Effectively we were/are paying others to do what we as a nation should be doing ourselves.

 

[peterward]

I stand to be corrected,however it has often been said that Ken Clark left the incoming Labour Govt a healthy 'set of books' so much so that Brown had little or no room to move (?) thus meaning by 2001 'Joe Public' voted back in Labour. Teflon Tony was talking himself out of a room with no doors,while piling up debt. Money was not the problem new schools and hospitals were built at a cost that has to be repaid back that would be ok however most of this was done under foreign labour whilst at the same time pouring billions into 'the benefit culture'. Effectively we were/are paying others to do what we as a nation should be doing ourselves.

it was 97 but youre right, Labour inherited a sound economy with low deficit and debt....... they had a massive opportunity, but took to employing positive PR spin doctors whilst building a credit/borrowing bubble.... "no more boom and bust"!! we had huge reserves of gold, they flogged them and went on a credit spending gorge that left us on our knees. I'm not a Ukip voter but Nigel Farage is spot on with Brown in this assessment. from 2.09 (though thank f*ck Brown stopped Blair from dragging us in the euro )



I am all for spending and social concience and I like many labour policies, but just throwing borrowed money at things is not the answer. In many of the areas like the NHS there was no streamline purchasing policies and providers were fleecing tax payers money, with big disparities of how much different areas were paying for the same thing. Much of what money was being thrown at was leaking and massively inefficient.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

this....... but what the hell lets make our policy to just keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in the midst of the worst financial credit crisis in history.

no person would be able to run their personal finances in the way the last government ran the countries. Labour are better at social policy imho but a f*cking disaster with the economy who have left power the last 2 times leaving the country virtually bankrupt.

Great post and spot on....

 

[Albion Rob]

Not a comment on the poll results but I hope one of the brighter sparks on here can explain the following to me and reassure me.

I don't understand how a policy of deep (ish) cuts which is costing thousands of people their jobs can be good for the country either economically or socially. Surely these people who have lost their jobs will not be spending on the high street and might end up defaulting on debts - either way hurting the private sector. Presumably if people aren't spending in the shops then they close down (like Tie Rack etc) then thoser people are out of a job too and the cycle continues. And, of course, these people are then economically useless for an undefined amount of time and they are then looked after by the very state that is supposed to be shrinking.

Socially, will this policy not lead to more unemployment, some of it possibly long term, and my understanding is that umemployment figures are being massively masked by the number of people who were in full time jobs having to take on part time work (nothing wrong with that, I'd do it but shouldn't we be measuring the number of people who are in work but whose income has fallen substantially?).

I guess it's a small part of a very big and complicated system but it does seem a bit odd to try to say you're promoting growth while taking decisions which mean people have less money in their pockets to spend in shops and on services that kep other people in jobs.

 

[peterward]

Not a comment on the poll results but I hope one of the brighter sparks on here can explain the following to me and reassure me.

I don't understand how a policy of deep (ish) cuts which is costing thousands of people their jobs can be good for the country either economically or socially. Surely these people who have lost their jobs will not be spending on the high street and might end up defaulting on debts - either way hurting the private sector. Presumably if people aren't spending in the shops then they close down (like Tie Rack etc) then thoser people are out of a job too and the cycle continues. And, of course, these people are then economically useless for an undefined amount of time and they are then looked after by the very state that is supposed to be shrinking.

Socially, will this policy not lead to more unemployment, some of it possibly long term, and my understanding is that umemployment figures are being massively masked by the number of people who were in full time jobs having to take on part time work (nothing wrong with that, I'd do it but shouldn't we be measuring the number of people who are in work but whose income has fallen substantially?).

I guess it's a small part of a very big and complicated system but it does seem a bit odd to try to say you're promoting growth while taking decisions which mean people have less money in their pockets to spend in shops and on services that kep other people in jobs.

the current economic climate regardless of who was in power would make trading conditions and thus employment tough. People who are being stung by rising costs and 0 inflation, so no wage rises are not spending, and thus your tie racks, whose costs for many things like transportation are still increasing, simply go to the wall.

There has been a large scaling back of public sector jobs (civil servants) which were increased massively under the last government. which in turn, perceived to show less unemployment. It is horrible for sure to those without work, public sector workers however are in what is deemed, the non productive part of the economy that is funded by the taxpayer and not private enterprise.

I am not sure if the governments current policy of very deep cuts isnt a bit to much of a shock to the system, but the deficit we were running was the highest of any G20 nation, which in turn meant every new child born to future generations would owe 20,000 quid at birth to pay it back. The interest on our debt alone is a lot more than we spend on the entire Education budget of those kids.

There simply is no easy or pain free option, our national spending exceeds our income resulting in increased borrowing, which cannot go on increasing indefinitley and has to be addressed somehow. If we can get to the point where we are spending less than our national income, then and only then can the actual debt be bought down. We still have a structual deficit, so every year the huge debt mountain is still increasing.

You can only stop the deficit (debt) growing by either cutting your expenditure, or by growth, but where we are placed in the World tied to the EU for most of our trade, in an EU that has no money to buy. False growth will be the result of spending more borrowed money (we spend more than we earn) and is a massive gamble in a stagnant eurozone, when we are already way past our necks in it. Luckily we still have a triple A credit rating at least, which means in our borrowing cycle our interest rates are relatively low, if that changes as in Italy, France and the US who have lost theres, the economy is still in exactly the same position but with massively highly interest costs on the new borrowing which will always be required with a deficit.

F*ck knows what the best way is, Germany which has the best economy in Europe still only has very low growth, and no growth built on spending more borrowed money is the answer imho.

If you earn 20K a year but have been spending £30K a year for years by taking out loans and maxing out every credit card, there has to come a point where you cut your spending to £20k a year before you can even begin to tackle your debts.

 

[gazingdown]

Who do you think they poll, cats or something?

Polls sample a very, relatively, small number. A few hundred, maybe a few thousands, nothing compared to the millions that vote on polling day. The polls said Major would not win the election back 20odd years ago and what happened.......!

But that's not my point.

My point was that they don't change who is in power, it's people's opinion on polling day that actually changes who is in power. Governments always tries to do the unpopular stuff mid-term as there's less repercussions. Polls are thus always poor for the incumbents, who ever they are.

 

[peterward]

Polls sample a very, relatively, small number. A few hundred, maybe a few thousands, nothing compared to the millions that vote on polling day. The polls said Major would not win the election back 20odd years ago and what happened.......!

But that's not my point.

My point was that they don't change who is in power, it's people's opinion on polling day that actually changes who is in power. Governments always tries to do the unpopular stuff mid-term as there's less repercussions. Polls are thus always poor for the incumbents, who ever they are.

On of the single biggest factors in the next election will be whether the Scottish vote yes or No to independence.in 2014.

As much as the Tories say they are against it (maybe they are?) electorally nearly all their seats are in the South South/East and Scotland is nearly all Labour. I read an article that said if the scottish vote yes, by losing the scottish electoral seats, (nearly all Labour) it would guarantee a Tory government for generations.

Cameron said if the Scottish wanted the vote they must do it by 2014, which the SNP are pursuing. No coincidence its the year before the general election in 2015.

It could be the deathknell to Labour if they vote Yes

 

[clapham_gull]

I read an article that said if the scottish vote yes, by losing the scottish electoral seats, (nearly all Labour) it would guarantee a Tory government for generations.

A myth I'm afraid.

Without Scottish votes, Labour would have still won every election they won under Tony Blair.

The Tories would now be in power (alone) though, just.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Have to say not surprised,but come election time it wll be a different matter,sure the economy is flat,but when you look at europe we are doing better than many of them are,keep the markets on our side by being serious on deficit reduction. The best thing that Cameron and Co can do is keep Miliband & Balls as the Labour leaders.

This

 

[Leekbrookgull]

the current economic climate regardless of who was in power would make trading conditions and thus employment tough. People who are being stung by rising costs and 0 inflation, so no wage rises are not spending, and thus your tie racks, whose costs for many things like transportation are still increasing, simply go to the wall.

There has been a large scaling back of public sector jobs (civil servants) which were increased massively under the last government. which in turn, perceived to show less unemployment. It is horrible for sure to those without work, public sector workers however are in what is deemed, the non productive part of the economy that is funded by the taxpayer and not private enterprise.

I am not sure if the governments current policy of very deep cuts isnt a bit to much of a shock to the system, but the deficit we were running was the highest of any G20 nation, which in turn meant every new child born to future generations would owe 20,000 quid at birth to pay it back. The interest on our debt alone is a lot more than we spend on the entire Education budget of those kids.

There simply is no easy or pain free option, our national spending exceeds our income resulting in increased borrowing, which cannot go on increasing indefinitley and has to be addressed somehow. If we can get to the point where we are spending less than our national income, then and only then can the actual debt be bought down. We still have a structual deficit, so every year the huge debt mountain is still increasing.

You can only stop the deficit (debt) growing by either cutting your expenditure, or by growth, but where we are placed in the World tied to the EU for most of our trade, in an EU that has no money to buy. False growth will be the result of spending more borrowed money (we spend more than we earn) and is a massive gamble in a stagnant eurozone, when we are already way past our necks in it. Luckily we still have a triple A credit rating at least, which means in our borrowing cycle our interest rates are relatively low, if that changes as in Italy, France and the US who have lost theres, the economy is still in exactly the same position but with massively highly interest costs on the new borrowing which will always be required with a deficit.

F*ck knows what the best way is, Germany which has the best economy in Europe still only has very low growth, and no growth built on spending more borrowed money is the answer imho.

If you earn 20K a year but have been spending £30K a year for years by taking out loans and maxing out every credit card, there has to come a point where you cut your spending to £20k a year before you can even begin to tackle your debts.

And that is where we are.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Without Scottish votes, Labour would have still won every election they won under Tony Blair.

The party would move further to the centre / right to attract English votes.

Not sure about that, it all depends on boundary changes. Maggie's massive majority of 100 seats in '82 would only scrape a 20 seat majority today. I'm no Tory, but even I see the odds are stacked against the Tory vote. Our electoral system needs huge reform but relying on the moaning liberals to push it is a false dawn. It needs to be an independent group of political lecturers and professors to come up with a fair boundary system and then go from there. PR in an unfair boundary system doesn't work either.

 

[ALBION28]

Not a comment on the poll results but I hope one of the brighter sparks on here can explain the following to me and reassure me.

I don't understand how a policy of deep (ish) cuts which is costing thousands of people their jobs can be good for the country either economically or socially. Surely these people who have lost their jobs will not be spending on the high street and might end up defaulting on debts - either way hurting the private sector. Presumably if people aren't spending in the shops then they close down (like Tie Rack etc) then thoser people are out of a job too and the cycle continues. And, of course, these people are then economically useless for an undefined amount of time and they are then looked after by the very state that is supposed to be shrinking.

Socially, will this policy not lead to more unemployment, some of it possibly long term, and my understanding is that umemployment figures are being massively masked by the number of people who were in full time jobs having to take on part time work (nothing wrong with that, I'd do it but shouldn't we be measuring the number of people who are in work but whose income has fallen substantially?).

I guess it's a small part of a very big and complicated system but it does seem a bit odd to try to say you're promoting growth while taking decisions which mean people have less money in their pockets to spend in shops and on services that kep other people in jobs.

This is exactly the problem. Cuts never work. Tory party obsession with them puts the country on its heels (1920/30's) The spiral leads to deflation and poverty,financial collapse. All get dragged down except those that store their wealth (Property,Gold Silver Antiques etc ). Spend and inflate works better, Labours obsession. The solution in the nineteen thirties was a national government bringing together the talents of all sides. Can we do that again? Can they get past the egos? They managed the economy to get to grips with many of the issues of the time. WW2 forced the issue to spend and borrow. An awful time in some ways but also a time when the country came together as one and put aside the bullshit. They set up controls on the financial sector, developed education and housing policies gave us nationalised industry to help the nation, not the few. The agenda was followed and we slowly climbed out of the hole. Then we hit the sixties and the lesson began to be forgot. The consensus got lost and slowly the well thought out ways were demolished. Roll back the state. As the wonderful Sussex gent Harold Macmillan put it we 'sold the family silver' . The consequence is where we are now! Repeating history. So rather than throw mud and blame one or the other, how about pulling together.

 

[pastafarian]

Not a comment on the poll results but I hope one of the brighter sparks on here can explain the following to me and reassure me.

I don't understand how a policy of deep (ish) cuts which is costing thousands of people their jobs can be good for the country either economically or socially. Surely these people who have lost their jobs will not be spending on the high street and might end up defaulting on debts - either way hurting the private sector. Presumably if people aren't spending in the shops then they close down (like Tie Rack etc) then thoser people are out of a job too and the cycle continues. And, of course, these people are then economically useless for an undefined amount of time and they are then looked after by the very state that is supposed to be shrinking.

Socially, will this policy not lead to more unemployment, some of it possibly long term, and my understanding is that umemployment figures are being massively masked by the number of people who were in full time jobs having to take on part time work (nothing wrong with that, I'd do it but shouldn't we be measuring the number of people who are in work but whose income has fallen substantially?).

I guess it's a small part of a very big and complicated system but it does seem a bit odd to try to say you're promoting growth while taking decisions which mean people have less money in their pockets to spend in shops and on services that kep other people in jobs.

the current economic climate regardless of who was in power would make trading conditions and thus employment tough. People who are being stung by rising costs and 0 inflation, so no wage rises are not spending, and thus your tie racks, whose costs for many things like transportation are still increasing, simply go to the wall.

There has been a large scaling back of public sector jobs (civil servants) which were increased massively under the last government. which in turn, perceived to show less unemployment. It is horrible for sure to those without work, public sector workers however are in what is deemed, the non productive part of the economy that is funded by the taxpayer and not private enterprise.

I am not sure if the governments current policy of very deep cuts isnt a bit to much of a shock to the system, but the deficit we were running was the highest of any G20 nation, which in turn meant every new child born to future generations would owe 20,000 quid at birth to pay it back. The interest on our debt alone is a lot more than we spend on the entire Education budget of those kids.

There simply is no easy or pain free option, our national spending exceeds our income resulting in increased borrowing, which cannot go on increasing indefinitley and has to be addressed somehow. If we can get to the point where we are spending less than our national income, then and only then can the actual debt be bought down. We still have a structual deficit, so every year the huge debt mountain is still increasing.

You can only stop the deficit (debt) growing by either cutting your expenditure, or by growth, but where we are placed in the World tied to the EU for most of our trade, in an EU that has no money to buy. False growth will be the result of spending more borrowed money (we spend more than we earn) and is a massive gamble in a stagnant eurozone, when we are already way past our necks in it. Luckily we still have a triple A credit rating at least, which means in our borrowing cycle our interest rates are relatively low, if that changes as in Italy, France and the US who have lost theres, the economy is still in exactly the same position but with massively highly interest costs on the new borrowing which will always be required with a deficit.

F*ck knows what the best way is, Germany which has the best economy in Europe still only has very low growth, and no growth built on spending more borrowed money is the answer imho.

If you earn 20K a year but have been spending £30K a year for years by taking out loans and maxing out every credit card, there has to come a point where you cut your spending to £20k a year before you can even begin to tackle your debts.

and here lies the problem,everyone puts in good arguments and we could argue until my balls turn blue.
it seems to me however these are sideline domestic issues to keep us all away from talking about the bigger problem,namely Europe is f***ed!there is no way of getting around it,it doesnt matter if you are for or against europe and the eurozone what will happen over the next few months is going to right royaley screw up everyone.i cant even claim that you heard it here first im just surprised millions are burying their head in the sand over this issue.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Tories have been an absolute shambles. Ok Labour had to rack up debt to steer us through the GLOBAL financial crisis and could have made more hay whilst the sun was shining but the tories havent got a bloody clue. They cant even do a budget without u turning every policy. They are the ultimate ostrich. Not one policy to create the growth required to get us out this mess.

very much this. they have been far too soft a touch on policy change, lacking real strategy. the tie in with Liberals looked good to start, tempering the Tories natural tendencies, but now it making government hamstrung - whether you like a policy or not, you at least expect it to be applied not constantly rowed back. we can only hope IDS gets to follow through on his policies then we might actually see some reduction in budget expediture.

Surprised if only because Milliband doesn't command the most respect in his own family let alone in the Labour Party or the country?
Shows how badly "Call Me Dave" has misjudged the electorate with his unseemly focus on getting the billionaires' club on board.

voting for the party and voting for the leader are not the same, polls have been very poor for Miliband.

 

[Gwylan]

voting for the party and voting for the leader are not the same, polls have been very poor for Miliband.

While that's true, you could have said the same thing about Thatcher in 1979. While the Tories won comfortably, according to the opinion polls, Thatcher was some distance behind Callaghan (IIRC, about 12 to 15%)when it came to choosing the best PM. Thatcher did OK in the end

 

[crasher]

It's hard to see that it would make any difference which party we vote for right now. Real power resides with the markets these days and politicans have to more or less do what they demand.

What we need is politicians willing to reshape the entire global system - but they're too enmeshed in that system to be able even to attempt it.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

It is a myth to think that politicians run our country and have the power it is the banks that run our country, ironically, more so now, than ever.

 

[Brovion]

I'm getting more and more impressed with Ed Milliband, he's growing into the role. Hopefully he'll get the chance to follow Harold Wilson and Tony Blair and save the country from the usual mess that incompetent Tory governments inevitably leave. And yes I know the Tories on the board won't agree with that statement - despite the fact it's true! (Don't bother replying!)

 

[JetsetJimbo]

The Lib Dems have been found out for what they probably were all along: a right-wing vehicle for siphoning away left-of-centre votes from Labour. It's worked well for a long time, but those voters will not vote LD again. Coupled with rising disdain for the Bullingdon Boys' arrogant, high-handed way of doing things (everything from Murdoch to the Dave Slave programme has caused this, take your pick), and I don't think the British right realise just how much trouble they're in. Their best ruse of the last 50 years- the existence of the Lib Dems- has been rumbled.