Roman Abramovitch Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Courtesy of politicalbetting.com Tories move to 13% lead with YouGov January 17th, 2009 CONSERVATIVES 45% (+4) LABOUR 32% (-2) LIB DEMS 14% (-1) Is Cameron moving back to landslide territory After the Populus poll earlier in the week what had the Tories back with a double digit lead over Labour the latest YouGov survey, for the Sunday Times, is reporting a four point shift to the party in a week and a halh and a decline in the Labour share. This will be hugely disappointing for Labour who had thoughts that their “Do Nothing Tories” attack was resonating. There’ll be more later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 This will be hugely disappointing for Labour who had thoughts that their “Do Nothing Tories” attack was resonating. At least we should be spared the hubris of Gordon 'I saved the world' Brown for a while. Ironically if they're falling further behind in the poll they might be more likely to make long-term decisions rather than looking for a short-term political bounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Sooner or later i guess people will wise to the fact Gordon doesnt have a plan, other than presenting them with ever increasing bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 That appears to kibosh the latest round of snap election speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearGlas Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Tories versus Labour. It's a little like the Sterling versus Euro discussion: the lead one might have over the other at any given moment is not because of inherent strength but because of the opponent's greater weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Otherwise known as a two-party system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mattsta1964 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Tories versus Labour. It's a little like the Sterling versus Euro discussion: the lead one might have over the other at any given moment is not because of inherent strength but because of the opponent's greater weakness. A vote for the tories is just a vote for the lesser of 2 evils They are both rubbish parties. Cameron and Osborne are ghastly. I'd be happier if everyone just refused to vote. Then neither of them will have a mandate to rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear-curious Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 A vote for the tories is just a vote for the lesser of 2 evilsThey are both rubbish parties. Cameron and Osborne are ghastly. I'd be happier if everyone just refused to vote. Then neither of them will have a mandate to rule Her Majesty will take over! With help from her son. Who will get help from his two sons. Which really doesn't bear thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubberdude Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Its a bit more good news at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wires 74 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 13% given whats going on is nothing - at one stage in 1991 the Tories were 23% behind yet Major still won a 20-seat majority in 1992 - still all to play for I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 And the losses haven't even got going yet. This could see the annihilation of Labour. As they say, inside every cloud.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I won't believe it till the day after election day though , as said we still have millions of people who vote labour cus their parents voted labour , millions dependent on tax credits and millions on the public pay roll.... Hence we might well just have plenty of people who are going to vote labour but are too embarrassed to say they are going to vote labour.... Also remember Labour candidates around brum stole votes, same thing will happen here, posties will get rolled and their postal votes stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 A vote for the tories is just a vote for the lesser of 2 evilsThey are both rubbish parties. Cameron and Osborne are ghastly. I'd be happier if everyone just refused to vote. Then neither of them will have a mandate to rule Not true. If there is a tie at an election count, both parties receiving 0 votes each, the seat is allocated on the basis of the toss of a coin. So even if no one voted, there would still be a full quota of MPs going to Parliament and a government would be formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theboltonfury Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Her Majesty will take over!With help from her son. Who will get help from his two sons. Which really doesn't bear thinking about. in which case one of her grandkids will immediately put an end to the 'immigration' problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Bad news. I was hoping the sheeple would tell the pollers they were voting Labour in the hope the deluded twit in Number 10 would call an election and get booted out in disgrace. I can see desperate attempts at creating a "National Goverment" and fiddling with the electoral system to get the "desired" result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Stromba Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Just think if cameron acually got out of bed in the morning this could be a 25% lead. Brown losing to someone who doesnt even turn up, must make him feel like the most useless c0ck end in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theboltonfury Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Just think if cameron acually got out of bed in the morning this could be a 25% lead. Brown losing to someone who doesnt even turn up, must make him feel like the most useless c0ck end in the world. Cameron doesn't turn up as he doesn't want this pile of shite. Best off leaving one eye to deal with his own mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I worry about the Libs; they are being so badly sidelined that they might fall into some insane scheme of Crash's to "share" power. I doubt it as it would probably lead to some massive backlash against them both, but you never know - the Libs must fear a big backward step at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theboltonfury Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I worry about the Libs; they are being so badly sidelined that they might fall into some insane scheme of Crash's to "share" power. I doubt it as it would probably lead to some massive backlash against them both, but you never know - the Libs must fear a big backward step at the next election. I agree, but surely now, when it's got really tough, the Libs have shown themselves to more unelectable than ever. They really have demonstrated irrelavance of this highest order, even Vince 'Soundbite' Cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 13% given whats going on is nothing - at one stage in 1991 the Tories were 23% behind yet Major still won a 20-seat majority in 1992 - still all to play for I reckon. That election was very much the exception which proves the rule - and the exception was Kinnock. Granted, Cameron is no Churchill. But fundamentally, he's electable, even if nose-holding is needed for some people to vote for him. In Kinnock's case, not even a hermetically sealed gas mask would have done the trick. Major didn't win the '92 election - Kinnock lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Her Majesty will take over!With help from her son. Who will get help from his two sons. Which really doesn't bear thinking about. Actually, the royals strike me as civilised - not so horrible a prospect. But of course we need web-style freedom in our politics: the pattern of chaos as people speak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 That election was very much the exception which proves the rule - and the exception was Kinnock.Granted, Cameron is no Churchill. But fundamentally, he's electable, even if nose-holding is needed for some people to vote for him. In Kinnock's case, not even a hermetically sealed gas mask would have done the trick. Major didn't win the '92 election - Kinnock lost it. I think in a weird way that was probably the funniest election ever; Kinnochio, unassailable & triumphalist at the Sheffield rally and Major standing on boxes talking to people. A real suggestion that deep down, people are receptive to somebody who looks like he really means to talk to you. Sadly the current crop just pretend to, and despite all the fun dear old Major was holding the poisoned chalice of the fading Tory administration. My abiding memory was Dimbleby interviewing John Prescott when it was all going away from then, cutting to thatcher telling the cameras something like "they (the British public) couldn't let it go", and on returning to Dimblebore there was no Prescott. Dimbleby said "I think that was just too much for him". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Bad news. I was hoping the sheeple would tell the pollers they were voting Labour in the hope the deluded twit in Number 10 would call an election and get booted out in disgrace. I can see desperate attempts at creating a "National Goverment" and fiddling with the electoral system to get the "desired" result. How would anyone go about forming a National government? I cannot see the Tories being willing to serve under Brown, and that, from Brown's point of view, would be the whole point of any such exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the primitive Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 they might be more likely to make long-term decisions rather than looking for a short-term political bounce. Not a chance. Brown is consumed with hatred for tories, and is all short term tactics. Hence for example the "rabbit out of a hat" cut in income tax from 22% to 20% as the last sentence of his last budget. Sadly, he also had raise the 10% rate to 20% at the same time, and was made to look an absolute twunt, with massive forced expensive climbdowns. I am a very lukewarm Tory supporter, 90% of my vote will be against Brown though. Mainly I just don't see how Cameron could be worse, and a few things he says are vaguely encouraging. About as good as it gets I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillotine Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 How is Gordon Brown on 23%. Does this reveal some sort of stockholm syndrome or is this the percentage of chavs in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.