This would be a fascinating approach. I know you aren't the biggest fan of Labour Fiiish, but surely the argument against them putting their 'pathological hatred for the Tories' aside works both ways.
As you mention, people from both sides share central views/approaches on some issues. Both sides are (so they say) committed to cutting the deficit (how may differ). The biggest hurdle is surely the attitudes toward tax and public spend. Could they ever reach a compromise on such issues?
1) I don't think it swings both ways. The Tories have been more than happy to work with Labour MPs when they didn't need to. Frank Field was invited to advise the Government, for example. There are also several Tory MPs who will never get anywhere in their own party because of how close they are to Labour MPs. John Bercow was very left-wing by Tory standards and if he ever stepped down as Speaker and remained an MP, it is likely he would stand as a Labour candidate (not that this will ever happen). The language on the road by Labour, both during the Scottish referendum and today, is a different tune - Tories are evil, Tories hate you, Tories will destroy the NHS is the general narrative. They speak of 'eradicating' the Tories north of the border. There's hardly any useful criticism of Tory policies, they just rely on polemic regarding the Tory boogeyman to scare voters. If they jump in bed with the Tories, half of Labour's voters will abandon them for the smaller parties. I can't imagine nearly as many Tory voters doing the same if they worked with Labour, since probably any Tory voter who would has already gone to UKIP.
2) I would hope that if they sat around a table they could at least put forward a convincing argument for their case on tax and spending. Most posters on here agree that both parties are saying the same thing in public - cut the deficit whilst minimising the damage on essential public services. The IFS have come out today and said that Labour's manifesto would leave a £90bn hole in public finances by 2020 if they won. This shows that their manifesto is not feasible and they need to compromise on cuts. Likewise the Tories, whilst having been praised for a sound manifesto and for committing to the £8bn the NHS needs, are not being candid about where the savings would come from. I imagine they're counting a lot of it to come from extra tax revenue as the economy continues to grow, but they're still several billion pounds wide of the mark on the basis of their current manifesto. Something somewhere will need to either be taxed or cut. With Labour in government, there could at least be an anchoring voice for those in Labour constituencies to ensure that any cuts are evenly spread.
Nigel was doing relatively ok but attacking the audience is making him coming across like a right nobber.
As a UKIP supporter I emailed Nigel to point out that all the crap being dumped on him by the other Parties seemed to have rattled him. I told him that had he remained calm, he would have been the only Statesman on the stage. I suggested that attacking the audience, however justified, was a mistake, and I had a pleasant response from him. I felt that overall, the three ladies did very well, and I continue to think that if women ruled the World it would probably be a much nicer place.
Labour have not set an exact date on when the deficit will be eliminated - instead saying it will be sometime in the next parliament. It isn't easy to cost it because there are so many other factors that can affect positively or negatively. Things that the IFS cannot possibly cost. The conservatives broke their promises from 2010 in relation to cutting the deficit, partly because they were too specific about things they had no control over. What you need to take from the manifestos is intention and direction. Labour have said to cut the deficit they will make cuts in public spending outside protected areas. Th eSNP have called them Tory Lite!!! But they know they have to govern and govern responsibly. This could generate more growth than the conservative's slash and burn approach which is more idealogical than anything else.
But you agree that if the SNP withdrew all their candidates the Labour Party would win all those seats?
That's like saying if the 9 teams above us in the Championship folded we would be heading for the Prem.
I note that you won't back SNP involvement in a UK government. What do you think is the most stable outcome?
Out of interest (I could come out of this post and check on google I suppose but I am feeling lazy) do the Tories put up candidates in the Northern Ireland seats?
They would probably look to rely on the backing of the DUP - but they are a completely different kettle of fish as they want to maintain the Union:
Bbc website - Mr Dodds also said his party would find it "difficult" to support a government that included the SNP. "They are fundamentally out to break the United Kingdom, break up the UK, and we are very very staunch in our belief that the union should be maintained."
My issue with the SNP is that there involvement in a union they want no part of his frankly loopy (at a government level).
In terms of stability - Lib Dem and Labour wouldn't get a majority. Same as Tories and Lib Dems. UKIP won't get enough seats to make any difference to anyone.
I think it will end up being a minority government - and one that nobody really wants. Least of all the parties. Just imagine - a few months of chaos before another election. A lower turnout second time around would suit a Tory party that has stepped into opposition for 6 months with a new leader at the helm.
Wow that is not going to happen this time no way at all
This thread has thrown up a few comical lines and controversial statements but that's the most unrealistic post of all
Would like it to be the case but not a hope
Traditionally the Tories always gained on the opinion polls come election day and Labour lost out - the benefit seeking chav part of their support would not traditionally bother to vote. The 'traditional Tory' would head to the polling stations in numbers.
As such the patterns shown in the polls would not translate nationwide.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
I think a lot of UKIP supporters will go Blue when the moment comes
I'm reluctant to think there will be a clear swing between now and election unless something major occurs. Previous years the popular press could hold a fair weight in the direction of public opinion. That is simply not the case anymore; whether that be through the intelligence of the electorate, or the influence of social media, internet etc.
The Sun have been smashing Milliband and Labour for weeks. Historically that would have lead to a boost to the Conservative vote. That simply hasn't happened at all this time. People appear pretty set at this stage in what they will do, and as said, unless some major story takes prominence, i can't see that really changing.
This would be a fascinating approach. I know you aren't the biggest fan of Labour Fiiish, but surely the argument against them putting their 'pathological hatred for the Tories' aside works both ways.
As you mention, people from both sides share central views/approaches on some issues. Both sides are (so they say) committed to cutting the deficit (how may differ). The biggest hurdle is surely the attitudes toward tax and public spend. Could they ever reach a compromise on such issues?
1) I don't think it swings both ways. The Tories have been more than happy to work with Labour MPs when they didn't need to. Frank Field was invited to advise the Government, for example. There are also several Tory MPs who will never get anywhere in their own party because of how close they are to Labour MPs. John Bercow was very left-wing by Tory standards and if he ever stepped down as Speaker and remained an MP, it is likely he would stand as a Labour candidate (not that this will ever happen). The language on the road by Labour, both during the Scottish referendum and today, is a different tune - Tories are evil, Tories hate you, Tories will destroy the NHS is the general narrative. They speak of 'eradicating' the Tories north of the border. There's hardly any useful criticism of Tory policies, they just rely on polemic regarding the Tory boogeyman to scare voters. If they jump in bed with the Tories, half of Labour's voters will abandon them for the smaller parties. I can't imagine nearly as many Tory voters doing the same if they worked with Labour, since probably any Tory voter who would has already gone to UKIP.
2) I would hope that if they sat around a table they could at least put forward a convincing argument for their case on tax and spending. Most posters on here agree that both parties are saying the same thing in public - cut the deficit whilst minimising the damage on essential public services. The IFS have come out today and said that Labour's manifesto would leave a £90bn hole in public finances by 2020 if they won. This shows that their manifesto is not feasible and they need to compromise on cuts. Likewise the Tories, whilst having been praised for a sound manifesto and for committing to the £8bn the NHS needs, are not being candid about where the savings would come from. I imagine they're counting a lot of it to come from extra tax revenue as the economy continues to grow, but they're still several billion pounds wide of the mark on the basis of their current manifesto. Something somewhere will need to either be taxed or cut. With Labour in government, there could at least be an anchoring voice for those in Labour constituencies to ensure that any cuts are evenly spread.
Okay thanks. I think that around election time all parties play on attacking the image of the opponent rather than focus too much on critiquing policies to the extent they should. There's a lot of headline grabbing that parties rely on and as such use the tactics like the ones you mention Labour use above. Doesn't make it right though.
Good balanced point about a potential Labour govt there to ensure cuts are evenly spread.
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, with the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
Well, as a follow up to my post about the first electioneering leaflet (Labour) through my door many, many pages ago, here's the Latest Letterbox Lunacy.
Three leaflets arrived today:
First - UKIP - Beverley Acevedo - this candidate is not standing in my constituency - she's up for Maldon, not Chelmsford, so it seems that Beverley's claim to want "local services for local people" doesn't extend as far as including political representation!
Second - Independent - Ken Martin. Ken has sent me an A4 leaflet printed on both sides. (Although he didn't bother anywhere to tell me he is standing as an independent - I had to google him), he does use some of the space available to him to say he wants to restrict all pieces of legislation to a maximum of two sides of A4: thereby clearly indicating that he has no idea whatsoever about quite how complex UK legislation is or why it needs to be like that. He also says that people must come before conservation (the very opposite of my views on the matter) and that all tax receipts should be spent in the area where they were harvested. (So under Ken, Northern Ireland would be well and truly stuffed.) Fortunately Ken, too, is standing in Maldon so I won't have to worry about losing sleep over whether to vote for him or not.
Third - The Liberal Party - Henry Boyle. Now this leaflet has deeply shamed me. While it's relevant - he's up for election in my constituency unlike the other two - I actually had no idea that the Liberal Party still existed as an entity separate from the LibDems. I really should have known that - why haven't we heard anything about them in this thread as a viable voting option? Anyway, Henry doesn't get my vote I'm afraid. He tells me that all the other parties say there is no alternative to further cuts and goes on to tell me that is simply not true. But he then fails to set out his alternative policy, which is a shame as I was looking forward to reading it. On page two though, he gets really silly saying that the Liberals (who are a Clegg Free Zone apparently) are totally opposed to imprisonment unless the crime involves a victim who has been at risk of injury. So, if anyone out there is a serious serial fraudster, hiving off millions in dodgy VAT shenanigans, the Liberals look like a shoe-in for you.
AFKA, the big issue for the Tories is how did they not win a majority government on their own at the last election. Obviously their "brand" is toxic across vast swathes of the country.
Given the difficulties this government faced it was unlikely either party would gain seats this time. However, they currently have a large majority and many of the LD MPs are popular locally (eg Ed Davey iin Surbiton). Is a repeat of the current government definitely off the cards??
To those suggesting deals with NI parties, the NI parties would be much more expensive coalition partners than the SNP (ie with less return from investment)
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, with the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
I agree 100%. I think the biggest reason, is that a large amount of people in this country rely on benefits for one reason or another.
Many for instance, are working and have income top ups.
Child benefit, tax credits, all sort of benefits.
Generally, people vote for what is best for them and not what is best "for the nation".
So, to many, it doesn't matter a jot, that the country may head backwards again, as long as they personally get more money in their pockets and higher benefits are more likely under Labour than The Tories.
It reminds me of, when I worked in Welling about 7 years ago.
I used to have a lunchtime pint occasionally. Let's say once a week.
Everytime and I mean everytime, I went into The Weatherspoons, there was a family of 5 in there.
Presumably, husband, wife and 3 grown up sons (men).
They were always there. If I popped in at 11.45, 12.45, 1.30 or 2.30.
They never looked like they were about to leave.
At a guess and it is a guess (obviously), I would say they must have had a minimum of 3 alcoholic drinks each & lunch in there. So possibly £75 a day/£1500 per month. Considerably more, if they were in there weekends as well.
They may have had jobs, but I feel it is unlikely. They may have been rich, but once again, it seems unlikely.
I know I was somewhat peeved, as there is no way, most working people, could afford to sit in a pub each and every day, for hours upon hours, spending more in a month, than many take home.
If they vote, I doubt they will be voting Tory, being pleased with the economic upturn.
Their biggest political concern is more likely the amount of benefit they receive. (If they do of course).
Not sure how I could live on £50 odd pounds a week. Very easy to pick off individual cases- they may work and have unsocial hours or work cash in hand defrauding us. But to use these examples to show how easy it is to live on benefits has to be wrong. Some people play the system and probably do so under any government, but for the majority it is a struggle. Not saying people should be better off out of work - just saying that most aren't and most people on benefits do have jobs - a point that is also often missed by those looking for people to blame. I don't support shysters or scroungers, and neither does any political party.
But Labour did support them financially. They allowed them a far better lifestyle, than any worker I know, who could not afford to spend £1500 each and every month in the pub.
After a few years, the mother (if she was), became so fat, she ended up in a wheelchair, as she could barely walk, due to her size. (It appeared that way, as she grew bigger and bigger).
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
If i was in charge of the Tories i would be completely scratching my head at how the hell this election won't be delivering a majority second term.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, with the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
all of what you write is true, though some would disagree about much of it .. MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
But Labour did support them financially. They allowed them a far better lifestyle, than any worker I know, who could not afford to spend £1500 each and every month in the pub.
After a few years, the mother (if she was), became so fat, she ended up in a wheelchair, as she could barely walk, due to her size. (It appeared that way, as she grew bigger and bigger).
I think you're basing your entire opinion on one media focused family.
The main difficulty people had getting off of benefits was paying rent because housing benefit could pay the rent on expensive private rented properties that they would need a bloody good paying job to possibly stay in otherwise.
The vast majority of people on benefits would rather be working and it's not fair that a few of those that are on benefits and proud give the others that are genuine a bad name.
No one on benefits unless they are committing some sort of benefit fraud or stealing can afford to spend £1500 a month on alcohol!
when it's put like that afka I can't see why, people can really fault what they have done, the historic tory are for the rich has veered it's head over and over again in the build up and no matter what the sun does to counter it, their damage to the brand and what that paper stands for won't change anything, anyone who thinks labour are for the working class (I hate that statement as it's not the 1940 or 50s anymore) are stuck in an allegiance to a party that has managed to somehow move away from that ethos without people realising, they did that by gaining the trust of people who once would have fallen into that bracket by making it worthwhile them not to work, we have atleast 2 generations of people who at first were severely damaged by the last tory government, and then found the benefits system so favorable that now the cuts have hit, it has reinforced that view of tory for the toffs, where if they got off the benefits system and earned and had it subsidised to assist they may well feel differently,
Even if I was still employed and not doing what I am now I wouldn't vote labour until that changed and they actually started representing those that support the country with the contribution they make not take
On another note I am chairing a hustings meeting this evening in the MyPlace centre in Harold Hill Essex. The parliamentary candidates for the five main parties are to be present and the audience will all be young people or people who work with young people. I am an eternal optimist and am hoping I can persuade the politicians to do the decent thing and answer the questions put to them as opposed to the usual anodyne responses the party machine wish them to push.
A coalition or minority government won't be as good to judge any changes to the country as it won't help people understand who made the decision or stopped it,
If any party gets in I hope it's alone then atleast you can actually gauge the difference or damage done
One thing is forsure there can be no blame placed on the financial situation anymore as it's on the up any negative change to that can only be attributed to those in charge over the next 4 yrs
It is more likely Labour would be able to form a minority than the Conservatives. This is simply because the SNP will probably get in excess of 40 seats. Labour would not go into coalition with them, but may rely on them not voting against them. The Conservatives are going to need a surge to bring the 25 odd Lib Dem seats into play so they beat Labour and SNP numbers. The polls suggests the percentage of the vote is the same so this is going to be hard. I think a likely scenario which people have not latched on to fully is Labour forming a minority coalition with the Lib Dems. This would give them a comfortable majority over the right leaning parties, but they would have to risk the SNP not getting in a huff and voting them down. A factor in this may be a reluctance in the SNP to make a Conservative government more likely. They would actually prefer one I think as it makes their cause easier to fight at home, but they know they would also lose a lot of support if seen as responsible for it. If they don’t try to scupper a Labour , Lib Denm coalition, they are unlikely to vote with the Conservatives on anything so a workable – although vulnerable government would be the outcome. Because of the lack of natural partners, the Conservatives really need an unprecedented surge to keep hold of power.
This is a fair unbiased reflection of what the polls are currently telling us.
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
The last administration has shown that one party in a coalition will have more to lose than gain. The good stuff got attributed to the government (Tories) and the bad stuff got blamed on the LibDems for colluding with the enemy.
Labour cannot contemplate a coalition with SNP, that would be collusion with the enemy before anything was decided, whereas the SNP would have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is why Nicola is brazenly waving her fanny at Ed all the time. He is just pretending he's a gentleman and doesn't like a bit on the side, but now he knows she is a tart he can arrange the odd quicky behind the House for a few quid without anyone suspecting.
I think a minority government is a nailed on certainty if no overall majority.
Comments
2) I would hope that if they sat around a table they could at least put forward a convincing argument for their case on tax and spending. Most posters on here agree that both parties are saying the same thing in public - cut the deficit whilst minimising the damage on essential public services. The IFS have come out today and said that Labour's manifesto would leave a £90bn hole in public finances by 2020 if they won. This shows that their manifesto is not feasible and they need to compromise on cuts. Likewise the Tories, whilst having been praised for a sound manifesto and for committing to the £8bn the NHS needs, are not being candid about where the savings would come from. I imagine they're counting a lot of it to come from extra tax revenue as the economy continues to grow, but they're still several billion pounds wide of the mark on the basis of their current manifesto. Something somewhere will need to either be taxed or cut. With Labour in government, there could at least be an anchoring voice for those in Labour constituencies to ensure that any cuts are evenly spread.
As a UKIP supporter I emailed Nigel to point out that all the crap being dumped on him by the other Parties seemed to have rattled him. I told him that had he remained calm, he would have been the only Statesman on the stage. I suggested that attacking the audience, however justified, was a mistake, and I had a pleasant response from him. I felt that overall, the three ladies did very well, and I continue to think that if women ruled the World it would probably be a much nicer place.
Bbc website - Mr Dodds also said his party would find it "difficult" to support a government that included the SNP.
"They are fundamentally out to break the United Kingdom, break up the UK, and we are very very staunch in our belief that the union should be maintained."
My issue with the SNP is that there involvement in a union they want no part of his frankly loopy (at a government level).
In terms of stability - Lib Dem and Labour wouldn't get a majority. Same as Tories and Lib Dems. UKIP won't get enough seats to make any difference to anyone.
I think it will end up being a minority government - and one that nobody really wants. Least of all the parties. Just imagine - a few months of chaos before another election. A lower turnout second time around would suit a Tory party that has stepped into opposition for 6 months with a new leader at the helm.
This thread has thrown up a few comical lines and controversial statements but that's the most unrealistic post of all
Would like it to be the case but not a hope
As such the patterns shown in the polls would not translate nationwide.
Not sure if that's the case nowadays.
The Sun have been smashing Milliband and Labour for weeks. Historically that would have lead to a boost to the Conservative vote. That simply hasn't happened at all this time. People appear pretty set at this stage in what they will do, and as said, unless some major story takes prominence, i can't see that really changing.
Good balanced point about a potential Labour govt there to ensure cuts are evenly spread.
They came into power at a time of severe financial uncertainty, with the electorate largely agreeing that the deficit (let alone the debt) was spiralling out of control and needed addressing, and that was likely to be done by a reduction in public spending. That has what has occurred. During their time in power it has been a period of economic stability and a huge rise in employment (2m in five years). House prices have continued to rise, but at the same time, mortgage rates have been at their lowest ever levels.
Their chancellor has been widely praised (also independently and internationally) for implementing a sensible, balanced plan (i thought Osbourne would be a disaster, happy to admit i was wrong), their Home Secretary has tightened immigration where it can and expelled a number of hate-preachers, which appeal to the popular vote. And their prime minister has consistently rated higher that the leader of the opposition in virtually every single poll over the last few years.
At no stage has their been any aggressive public backlash, co-ordinated campaigning demanding change on pretty much anything. Yet the fact is there is a lazy river-style growing momentum and acceptance for change.
Financial markets and general country governance thrive on stability, unless there is a point that something is materially failing to such an extent that change is required.
The most pertinent question should not whether Labour are ready for governance, but whether the Tory (and LibDem input) government structure have failed materially enough to instigate change.
It seems to me the nation is saying yes to that question, but i'm not sure they are convinced in any way on their reasons for saying it.
Three leaflets arrived today:
First - UKIP - Beverley Acevedo - this candidate is not standing in my constituency - she's up for Maldon, not Chelmsford, so it seems that Beverley's claim to want "local services for local people" doesn't extend as far as including political representation!
Second - Independent - Ken Martin. Ken has sent me an A4 leaflet printed on both sides. (Although he didn't bother anywhere to tell me he is standing as an independent - I had to google him), he does use some of the space available to him to say he wants to restrict all pieces of legislation to a maximum of two sides of A4: thereby clearly indicating that he has no idea whatsoever about quite how complex UK legislation is or why it needs to be like that. He also says that people must come before conservation (the very opposite of my views on the matter) and that all tax receipts should be spent in the area where they were harvested. (So under Ken, Northern Ireland would be well and truly stuffed.) Fortunately Ken, too, is standing in Maldon so I won't have to worry about losing sleep over whether to vote for him or not.
Third - The Liberal Party - Henry Boyle. Now this leaflet has deeply shamed me. While it's relevant - he's up for election in my constituency unlike the other two - I actually had no idea that the Liberal Party still existed as an entity separate from the LibDems. I really should have known that - why haven't we heard anything about them in this thread as a viable voting option? Anyway, Henry doesn't get my vote I'm afraid. He tells me that all the other parties say there is no alternative to further cuts and goes on to tell me that is simply not true. But he then fails to set out his alternative policy, which is a shame as I was looking forward to reading it. On page two though, he gets really silly saying that the Liberals (who are a Clegg Free Zone apparently) are totally opposed to imprisonment unless the crime involves a victim who has been at risk of injury. So, if anyone out there is a serious serial fraudster, hiving off millions in dodgy VAT shenanigans, the Liberals look like a shoe-in for you.
Given the difficulties this government faced it was unlikely either party would gain seats this time. However, they currently have a large majority and many of the LD MPs are popular locally (eg Ed Davey iin Surbiton). Is a repeat of the current government definitely off the cards??
To those suggesting deals with NI parties, the NI parties would be much more expensive coalition partners than the SNP (ie with less return from investment)
Many for instance, are working and have income top ups.
Child benefit, tax credits, all sort of benefits.
Generally, people vote for what is best for them and not what is best "for the nation".
So, to many, it doesn't matter a jot, that the country may head backwards again, as long as they personally get more money in their pockets and higher benefits are more likely under Labour than The Tories.
It reminds me of, when I worked in Welling about 7 years ago.
I used to have a lunchtime pint occasionally. Let's say once a week.
Everytime and I mean everytime, I went into The Weatherspoons, there was a family of 5 in there.
Presumably, husband, wife and 3 grown up sons (men).
They were always there. If I popped in at 11.45, 12.45, 1.30 or 2.30.
They never looked like they were about to leave.
At a guess and it is a guess (obviously), I would say they must have had a minimum of 3 alcoholic drinks each & lunch in there. So possibly £75 a day/£1500 per month. Considerably more, if they were in there weekends as well.
They may have had jobs, but I feel it is unlikely. They may have been rich, but once again, it seems unlikely.
I know I was somewhat peeved, as there is no way, most working people, could afford to sit in a pub each and every day, for hours upon hours, spending more in a month, than many take home.
If they vote, I doubt they will be voting Tory, being pleased with the economic upturn.
Their biggest political concern is more likely the amount of benefit they receive. (If they do of course).
A 'better the devil you know' mentality on the day. Highly likely in my opinion.
After a few years, the mother (if she was), became so fat, she ended up in a wheelchair, as she could barely walk, due to her size. (It appeared that way, as she grew bigger and bigger).
Point 21 26,041
Point 22 27,090
Point 23 28,180
Point 24 29,043
Point 25 30,057
Point 26 31,072
Point 27 32,086
Point 28 33,227
Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
MY intention to vote labour is simply that there needs to be a LOT more done for the young of this country, and it needs doing NOW, both in terms of education and job prospects .. Labour has better plans for the young, not so good as UKIP's, but UKIP is not getting anywhere near the seats of power @ Westminster .. Had the Tories advocated reduced education fees, guaranteed apprenticeships and a preference for British people getting jobs before any foreigners, they would have my vote. I repeat, Labour, though not promising the earth, are promising more to the young than any other party .. One caveat, if Miliband forms an alliance, declared or subversive with the SNP, I know, here in 'the north' there will be hell to pay .. Lastly, a lot of 18 year olds are voting for the first time .. Labour is overwhelmingly more popular with this age group than the Tories especially amongst 'ethnic minorities'
The main difficulty people had getting off of benefits was paying rent because housing benefit could pay the rent on expensive private rented properties that they would need a bloody good paying job to possibly stay in otherwise.
The vast majority of people on benefits would rather be working and it's not fair that a few of those that are on benefits and proud give the others that are genuine a bad name.
No one on benefits unless they are committing some sort of benefit fraud or stealing can afford to spend £1500 a month on alcohol!
Even if I was still employed and not doing what I am now I wouldn't vote labour until that changed and they actually started representing those that support the country with the contribution they make not take
Maybe Tories with a loose agreement of support with DUP and Lib Dems rather than an official coalition.
Here's Hoping !!!
If any party gets in I hope it's alone then atleast you can actually gauge the difference or damage done
One thing is forsure there can be no blame placed on the financial situation anymore as it's on the up any negative change to that can only be attributed to those in charge over the next 4 yrs
This is a fair unbiased reflection of what the polls are currently telling us.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
Labour cannot contemplate a coalition with SNP, that would be collusion with the enemy before anything was decided, whereas the SNP would have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is why Nicola is brazenly waving her fanny at Ed all the time. He is just pretending he's a gentleman and doesn't like a bit on the side, but now he knows she is a tart he can arrange the odd quicky behind the House for a few quid without anyone suspecting.
I think a minority government is a nailed on certainty if no overall majority.