Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Labour Storm Past Tories in Polls watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To summarise this thread:

    1. Parties always get a poll boost during their Conference, particularly when they get a new leader, so it's not necessarily representative of anything.
    2. Teveth's clearly a troll, so the more you get all outraged, the more you stroke his ego.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My amateurish view of politics says labour would have had a decent chance with the older Miliband in the next general election, to me he seems to have more charisma than his little brother, Cameron and Clegg combined..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Pol..._A_YouGov_Poll

    Your days are numbered, Cameron and Clegg. Now that we have a new leader in the form of Ed Miliband, we'll be back in power quicker than Danny Alexander and the other ConDem scum can defraud the taxpayer by flipping their houses.

    And ha ha at the Lib Dems, languishing on a pathetic 12%....it doesn't surprise me one bit seeing as though I've seen literally hundreds of their members sign up to Labour over the past few weeks.

    Another 13 years of Labour is on the cards, as soon as we dispose of this filthy, disease-ridden ConDem.
    I’m sorry but the idiocy and blind, vile and putrid hatred of your post is really astounding.

    Firstly, the poll shows Labour on 40% and Conservatives on 39%. Labour have been hovering around 36-37% for months. Hardly “storming past the tories”. There is a 1% difference, nothing – indeed the margin of error in such polls. So basically, according to 1 poll, they are approximately equal.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but of the 5 or so MPs actually patently guilty of fraud, 4 of them were Labour. The other expenses claims were perfectly legal, but the public found the whole expenses system putrid and open to, what some might see as excessive, expenses claims. But the only people defrauding the tax-payers as such were acts such as claiming for a mortgage that didn’t exist etc – Labour MPs.
    As for “ha ha at the Lib Dems”...wow, you clearly have a lovely personality...
    The fact that you support a party that has previously acknowledged its economic beliefs, central to its agenda, has failed – hence ‘New Labour’, plus the fact that you are clearly completely ignorant of a decent understanding of Economics or the true desperation of Britain’s position in comparison to countries we are competing against, is a worrying testament to those who blindly vote Labour, with little understanding.
    I would suggest you start reading more and becoming more aware of the world around you. Read every issue of The Economist, The Week and Time. Read The Times, Telegraph, Independent. Read Private Eye. Have a look at some economic data from around the world, GDP growth rates, taxation, unemployment – and why these things are the case. Notice the trend of higher taxes and bigger state = more unemployment, slow growth and less wealth. Take some economics classes. Read Steven Levitt and some decent University of Chicago, Harvard, LSE, Oxford/Cambridge publications.
    Then come back, in around 2 year’s time, with some actual knowledge of the situation and make an informed decision.
    Anyone who thinks Britain went into recession and that was unavoidable because the world went into recession, then yes, that is a little true. However, the depth and length of Britain’s recession was far worse than other countries, because of Browns horrific economic policies...hence why the £ has lost so much of its value – if people thought Britain was in the same position as other countries, we wouldn’t have lost so much value against the $ and Euro – and every other world currency. We have lost around 30% of our value against the dollar in just 2 years! We have a deficit the same size as a % of GDP as Greece. The only reason we aren’t in as much trouble (ie bankrupt) is because we have a much lower initial debt, but in 5 years time, we will have the same debt, and bankrupt, if we don’t cut our spending.
    The fact that Lib Dems, who completely opposed the cuts, but the moment they came into power were in fact driving the cuts more than the Conservatives, should be patent evidence of this to any reasonable observer.
    Both Labour and Lib Dems lied to the public re cuts. Even Darling, the former Labour chancellor, accepts the need for huge cuts.
    Evidently, any serious person in the Labour party knows this (with the exception of a deluded Brown).
    For the record, Im not overly keen on Cameron. I think he’s a decent guy with good intentions, but I question whether he has the boldness and audacity this country so badly needs. However, Labour and the left of the Lib Dems are a disaster for this country, and the Conservatives offer the best option at the moment.
    I want to see a strong Labour party, but right now, we need around cuts, and then in 2015, an agenda of tax cuts to stimulate growth and employment and investment in infrastructure – exactly what the Cons will do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    1% is hardly a storm

    and it would have been a surge had the taliban inspired unions not got involved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Cameron should call an election, in my opinion!
    not read the 5 or so pages of the thread so someone might have suggested it, possibly

    but isnt this basically what all the tory and libdem voters called for gordon brown to do, time and time again? dont really see how you can justify that opinion when you're own former leader clung on til the very end

    just my 2p though :holmes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artymess)
    not read the 5 or so pages of the thread so someone might have suggested it, possibly

    but isnt this basically what all the tory and libdem voters called for gordon brown to do, time and time again? dont really see how you can justify that opinion when you're own former leader clung on til the very end

    just my 2p though :holmes:
    Gordon Brown didn't need to call an election. Labour were given a 5 year mandate to govern in 2005 when we WON the election. That's right, WON, something the current crop of Tories wouldn't know anything about.

    The coalition is a sham and has no mandate. Given our political system, I am happy (perhaps not the right word) for the two parties to settle the boat, as it were until we get a new election sorted.....but it doesn't take 5 years to settle the boat!

    And for the poster who claimed I am autistic, well isn't that just typical of a Tory. It's no longer acceptable to go after gay people and ethnic minorities, so you're now looking towards differently abled people to poke fun at. It actually makes me sick. Thank God Labour brought in some robust equality laws so that you can't take your discrimination into the workplace.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Gordon Brown didn't need to call an election. Labour were given a 5 year mandate to govern in 2005 when we WON the election. That's right, WON, something the current crop of Tories wouldn't know anything about.
    Won on 35% of the vote. What did the Conservatives alone get at the 2010 election?

    The coalition is a sham and has no mandate. Given our political system, I am happy (perhaps not the right word) for the two parties to settle the boat, as it were until we get a new election sorted.....but it doesn't take 5 years to settle the boat!
    If Labour and the Lib Dems coalition in the near future, will you resign from the Labour party?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Won on 35% of the vote. What did the Conservatives alone get at the 2010 election?
    We don't have a popular vote system. We go by how many seats a party gets in the Commons. We got more than half of the seats, so therefore we won. Deal with it.


    If Labour and the Lib Dems coalition in the near future, will you resign from the Labour party?
    No. The Libs Dems are quite insignificant, so it would mostly be Labour policy, anyway. Any policy that the Lib Dems slip in to the coalition, I would probably agree with anyway. I am very socially liberal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Gordon Brown didn't need to call an election. Labour were given a 5 year mandate to govern in 2005 when we WON the election. That's right, WON, something the current crop of Tories wouldn't know anything about.

    The coalition is a sham and has no mandate. Given our political system, I am happy (perhaps not the right word) for the two parties to settle the boat, as it were until we get a new election sorted.....but it doesn't take 5 years to settle the boat!

    And for the poster who claimed I am autistic, well isn't that just typical of a Tory. It's no longer acceptable to go after gay people and ethnic minorities, so you're now looking towards differently abled people to poke fun at. It actually makes me sick. Thank God Labour brought in some robust equality laws so that you can't take your discrimination into the workplace.
    Somebody is pissed off about losing the election. You have to face the facts, you can call the coalition a "sham" but Labour lost, end of. The IMF are backing the coalition's spending plan, not the plan of Labour. "We are the party of investment", "boom and bust is over" and after 5 or so months "cuts are vital in a recession"... the words of who?

    Congrats, Labour are in first.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1F2R3)
    Somebody is pissed off about losing the election. You have to face the facts, you can call the coalition a "sham" but Labour lost, end of. The IMF are backing the coalition's spending plan, not the plan of Labour. "We are the party of investment", "boom and bust is over" and after 5 or so months "cuts are vital in a recession"... the words of who?

    Congrats, Labour are in first.
    We did lose the election, but so did the Tories. That's why we need another one within the next 2 years.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    We don't have a popular vote system. We go by how many seats a party gets in the Commons. We got more than half of the seats, so therefore we won. Deal with it.

    There's no need to take such an aggressive stance, Teveth.

    The fact is that the public elected a hung parliament in May 2010, in which no party could have governed alone. You can't claim that the Lib/Con coalition is illegitimate simply because it contains one (or two) parties that you dislike. That's subjective.

    Basically, any government which enjoys a majority in the Commons is legitimate. As you say, deal with it.

    No. The Libs Dems are quite insignificant, so it would mostly be Labour policy, anyway. Any policy that the Lib Dems slip in to the coalition, I would probably agree with anyway. I am very socially liberal.
    That doesn't answer my question.

    May 2015: the next general election is over. It's another hung parliament, with the Labour party the second largest. They can only govern with the Lib Dems.

    If you say the coalition is illegitimate because nobody voted for it, then you should resign from the Labour party when it coalesces with the Lib Dems - as nobody voted for it.

    You can't simply say it's legitimate if it's to your own political tastes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    We did lose the election, but so did the Tories. That's why we need another one within the next 2 years.
    The Tories gained more support compared to their 2005 election campaign. Brown lost a % of the margain Labour had in 2005, thus losing support where the Tories gained and the Lib Dems also lost support.

    I can't see Cameron calling an election until his time is up, the coalition has planned a strategy to attempt to sort out our debts [of which £182m per day goes on interest alone]. One of the recent YG polls had the Tories on a +7 lead. The Tories haven't been behind on a political poll since last year, a poll which is actually recognised by UKPR.

    Still, I shall allow Labour this victory.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    We did lose the election, but so did the Tories. That's why we need another one within the next 2 years.
    Everybody lost. Right now, Labour is one point ahead, in one poll (from what I can see), and is likely to rise throughout this week because it's conference season.

    It's also likely to rise once the Spending Review is out. But two years down the line is really impossible to predict.

    If the public return another hung parliament in 2012, would you resign if the Liberals and Labour teamed up?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Teveth)
    We did lose the election, but so did the Tories. That's why we need another one within the next 2 years.
    Bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was a labour/libdem coalition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I definitely think a 1% lead is 'storming ahead'.

    Yes, I definitely think that the Lib Dems are polling worse with Yougov than they did for extended periods during the last parliament.

    Yes, I definitely think the Tories and Lib Dems are more likely to dissolve the coalition causing a general election when they are behind in the polls.

    Yes, I definitely think that this poll bounce was caused by Ed Miliband's election to the leadership.

    Yes, I definitely think that a coalition with 59% of the vote at a general election has less of a mandate than a party with a 1% lead in one poll.

    Yes, I definitely think that everyone who voted Liberal Democrat just ticked the wrong box and actually wanted Labour all along.

    Yes, I definitely think that Nick Clegg failed to warn of the "savage cuts" that were necessary.

    Yes, I definitely think the Lib Dem manifesto committed themselves only to a coalition with Labour.

    Yes, I definitely think that Nick Clegg failed to warn people that his first preference was for a coalition with the party with the largest mandate.

    Yes, I definitely think the Lib Dem manifesto didn't say their economic policy would adapt with changing economic conditions.

    Yes, I definitely think Labour have a credible economic policy.

    So all in all, OP has produced some excellent political analysis.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamesr30)
    I’m sorry but the idiocy and blind, vile and putrid hatred of your post is really astounding.

    Firstly, the poll shows Labour on 40% and Conservatives on 39%. Labour have been hovering around 36-37% for months. Hardly “storming past the tories”. There is a 1% difference, nothing – indeed the margin of error in such polls. So basically, according to 1 poll, they are approximately equal.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but of the 5 or so MPs actually patently guilty of fraud, 4 of them were Labour. The other expenses claims were perfectly legal, but the public found the whole expenses system putrid and open to, what some might see as excessive, expenses claims. But the only people defrauding the tax-payers as such were acts such as claiming for a mortgage that didn’t exist etc – Labour MPs.
    As for “ha ha at the Lib Dems”...wow, you clearly have a lovely personality...
    The fact that you support a party that has previously acknowledged its economic beliefs, central to its agenda, has failed – hence ‘New Labour’, plus the fact that you are clearly completely ignorant of a decent understanding of Economics or the true desperation of Britain’s position in comparison to countries we are competing against, is a worrying testament to those who blindly vote Labour, with little understanding.
    I would suggest you start reading more and becoming more aware of the world around you. Read every issue of The Economist, The Week and Time. Read The Times, Telegraph, Independent. Read Private Eye. Have a look at some economic data from around the world, GDP growth rates, taxation, unemployment – and why these things are the case. Notice the trend of higher taxes and bigger state = more unemployment, slow growth and less wealth. Take some economics classes. Read Steven Levitt and some decent University of Chicago, Harvard, LSE, Oxford/Cambridge publications.
    Then come back, in around 2 year’s time, with some actual knowledge of the situation and make an informed decision.
    Anyone who thinks Britain went into recession and that was unavoidable because the world went into recession, then yes, that is a little true. However, the depth and length of Britain’s recession was far worse than other countries, because of Browns horrific economic policies...hence why the £ has lost so much of its value – if people thought Britain was in the same position as other countries, we wouldn’t have lost so much value against the $ and Euro – and every other world currency. We have lost around 30% of our value against the dollar in just 2 years! We have a deficit the same size as a % of GDP as Greece. The only reason we aren’t in as much trouble (ie bankrupt) is because we have a much lower initial debt, but in 5 years time, we will have the same debt, and bankrupt, if we don’t cut our spending.
    The fact that Lib Dems, who completely opposed the cuts, but the moment they came into power were in fact driving the cuts more than the Conservatives, should be patent evidence of this to any reasonable observer.
    Both Labour and Lib Dems lied to the public re cuts. Even Darling, the former Labour chancellor, accepts the need for huge cuts.
    Evidently, any serious person in the Labour party knows this (with the exception of a deluded Brown).
    For the record, Im not overly keen on Cameron. I think he’s a decent guy with good intentions, but I question whether he has the boldness and audacity this country so badly needs. However, Labour and the left of the Lib Dems are a disaster for this country, and the Conservatives offer the best option at the moment.
    I want to see a strong Labour party, but right now, we need around cuts, and then in 2015, an agenda of tax cuts to stimulate growth and employment and investment in infrastructure – exactly what the Cons will do.
    How dare you bring some sense and intelligence into this thread.

    Its a shame Tevith will not reply to your post I would like to seehim try as it is ver well thought out. Rep when I can
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Considering Gordon Brown had a 10 point bounce in 2007 when he became Labour leader, Ed's 1% lead doesn't exactly bode well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Cameron should call an election, in my opinion. It's the right thing to do. He and his scum coalition have no mandate to govern. The Lib Dem voters were betrayed by Clegg.

    Now that Labour are up and running, let's go to the country, Mr Cameron, so that we can finish you off once and for all!
    I'd argue that your beloved Ed Miliband doesn't have a moral mandate to run the Labour party. The ordinary members and MPs of the Labour party both wanted someone else, it's just the affiliates (who are pretty much meant to represent people like the ordinary labour voter) that overuled them.

    That being said, moral mandates don't really matter; real ones do.

    Be gone, troll.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silly Goose)
    I'd argue that your beloved Ed Miliband doesn't have a moral mandate to run the Labour party. The ordinary members and MPs of the Labour party both wanted someone else, it's just the affiliates (who are pretty much meant to represent people like the ordinary labour voter) that overuled them.

    That being said, moral mandates don't really matter; real ones do.

    Be gone, troll.
    Ed has the political mandate to run the Labour Party and he has the moral mandate to run the entire country, never mind the party. The argument that Ed's victory is illegitimate because it is down to the Trade Unions is absolute drivel....nothing less than what I would expect from the Tory media. The Labour Party was founded by the Trade Unions. The Trade Union form part of the Labour Party. A TU vote is just as valid as a member's vote or an MP's vote, as set out in the Labour Party constitution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labour supporters are all pretending to like Ed, but he is more Adams family than electable prime minister. Let's face it, he is the unacceptable face of the unions in this country - people have had enough of paying idiots doing jobs 12 year olds could do twice the salary they get in private employment. When the Tories change the boundaries for seats Labour will become a distant bad memory.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.