Lib Dems Getting Killed!

[Mega]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/100-Days-Of-Coalition-Sky-News-Panel-Brings-Bad-News-For-Nick-Clegg-As-Lib-Dem-Support-Slumps/Article/201008315691844?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15691844_100_Days_Of_Coalition%3A_Sky_News_Panel_Brings_Bad_News_For_Nick_Clegg_As_Lib_Dem_Support_Slumps

Mike

['Bart']

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/100-Days-Of-Coalition-Sky-News-Panel-Brings-Bad-News-For-Nick-Clegg-As-Lib-Dem-Support-Slumps/Article/201008315691844?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15691844_100_Days_Of_Coalition%3A_Sky_News_Panel_Brings_Bad_News_For_Nick_Clegg_As_Lib_Dem_Support_Slumps

Mike

Leading to a consolidation of support for the two main parties and, in all likelihood, a Labour victory at the next election.

Ed Balls as PM? One of the Milliband Twins? Only a matter of time it seems.

[Executive Sadman]

People prefer to be lied to, to be deluded than face the truth. As a country, we deserved NuLiebour. A shitty government for a shitty country.

Just look at what happened to Jimmy Carter when he spoke of americas unsustainable debt and energy usage. His support tumbled.

['Bart']

People prefer to be lied to, to be deluded than face the truth.

I must concur.

[pablopatito]

Leading to a consolidation of support for the two main parties and, in all likelihood, a Labour victory at the next election.

I'd have thought a Tory victory. Either way, it will be back to the old two party politics with Labour firmly on the left and the Tories firmly on the right, and all the talk about a new type of politics for the modern age will be shown to be a load of old bull. We're reliving the Eighties.

[pilchardthecat]

In 5 years time the Westminster elections will be about as important as the local council elections are now.

[fluffy666]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/100-Days-Of-Coalition-Sky-News-Panel-Brings-Bad-News-For-Nick-Clegg-As-Lib-Dem-Support-Slumps/Article/201008315691844?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15691844_100_Days_Of_Coalition%3A_Sky_News_Panel_Brings_Bad_News_For_Nick_Clegg_As_Lib_Dem_Support_Slumps

Mike

'Sky News Panel' Results:

Conservative 42.86%

Labour 23.81%

Liberal Democrat 8.43%

Other 11.33%

Don't know 9.46%

Would not vote 3.60%

Not eligible 0.51%

Hmmm. I'm not sure that this counts as a representative survey, especially given Rupert Murdoch's near-fanatical support for the Tories.

Although it is true that the Lib Dems appear to have been steamrollered in the coalition. Not many of us sandal wearers voted for a public sector bloodbath with no clampdown on tax-dodging by the rich to compensate..

So, we have the Labour Party - government by and for Consultants and Merchant Bankers, the Conservative Party - government by and for Merchant Bankers and Consultants, and the Liberal play-at-government party.

Who to vote for? Clearly, as a nearly-middle-aged wage-earning father-of-two mortgagee I can hardly expect any poitical party to appeal to me, as I must clearly be some sort of whacky minority.

[davidcameron]

Opinion polls are completely irrelevant at the moment. Dave has made it plain that the next election will be in May 2015 and he'll chuck the kitchen sink in in the first two years to give time to rebuild support afterwards.

I'm minded to support AV next year. It may break up the 2 party system but I'm coming round to think this is no bad thing. I would be prepared never to see a big Tory majority again if it meant we didn't get a loony lefty maniac in charge ever in my lifetime. It's going to take at least a decade to undo the damage.

[@contradevian]

I'd have thought a Tory victory. Either way, it will be back to the old two party politics with Labour firmly on the left and the Tories firmly on the right, and all the talk about a new type of politics for the modern age will be shown to be a load of old bull. We're reliving the Eighties.

I agree, I think the Tories will win by a good margin. I happen to think DC has played a blinder and done well, with a less than good hand.

It will be at least a decade or more before Labour repairs itself, enough time for Lib/Dems to recover. Indeed I wouldn't entirely rule out an electoral pact, to reduce Labour to third party status, especially when the boundaries get redrawn.

[fluffy666]

Opinion polls are completely irrelevant at the moment. Dave has made it plain that the next election will be in May 2015 and he'll chuck the kitchen sink in in the first two years to give time to rebuild support afterwards.

I'm minded to support AV next year. It may break up the 2 party system but I'm coming round to think this is no bad thing. I would be prepared never to see a big Tory majority again if it meant we didn't get a loony lefty maniac in charge ever in my lifetime. It's going to take at least a decade to undo the damage.

Look at it this way - in 2005, Labour got 5 year's government, which in this country is practically elected dictatorship, with something like 36% of the popular vote or 22% of eligible voters. Those tories who are anti-AV should really think about that.

[R K]

"Our survey suggests that if there was an election tomorrow, David Cameron would romp home and be back in No 10 with a big majority,"

Might Dave decided (or be pushed into) going for it early?

Before the pain from the cuts starts to really be felt, and to avoid the AV vote promise to the libdems?

Labour are in disarray at least until they've sorted out a new leader and all the candidates are rubbish.

Is this similar to Gordon's chance when he bottled it?

High risk/high reward strategy?

[EUBanana]

I feel sorry for the LibDems and I like the liberal influence they seem to have exerted on the coalition - diluting the hangers and floggers in the Tories. Not much financial influence I suppose re. the cutting going on but I agree with the Tories on that anyway. Looks like if you add yellow to blue you get classical liberal - very nice!

Probably will vote for them next time out of thanks, though I am not a natural LibDem voter.

Not that it'll help them much.

[jonb]

http://news.sky.com/..._Support_Slumps

Mike

Or maybe not

http://richardwillisuk.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/breaking-news-sky-news-poll/

[Timak]

Opinion polls are completely irrelevant at the moment. Dave has made it plain that the next election will be in May 2015 and he'll chuck the kitchen sink in in the first two years to give time to rebuild support afterwards.

I'm minded to support AV next year. It may break up the 2 party system but I'm coming round to think this is no bad thing. I would be prepared never to see a big Tory majority again if it meant we didn't get a loony lefty maniac in charge ever in my lifetime. It's going to take at least a decade to undo the damage.

How are New Labour in any way a loony lefty party?

Their public spending levels as a percentage of GDP were similar to John Major's and it was hardly stifiling regulation that lead to the financial crisis.

['Bart']

I'd have thought a Tory victory. Either way, it will be back to the old two party politics with Labour firmly on the left and the Tories firmly on the right, and all the talk about a new type of politics for the modern age will be shown to be a load of old bull. We're reliving the Eighties.

I'm wondering if we'll return to the way things were in the mid-1960s to late 70s. One party gets in, economy not doing too well, becomes unpopular and is replaced by the other main party, which similarly becomes unpopular and is voted out, rinse and repeat.

The situation where one party remains in power for 3 or 4 terms may not return for a good while.

This leads me to conclude that Labour will win the next election, or rather that the Tories, if they do take real steps to tackle the deficit, will become so unpopular that they will lose the election (rather than Labour winning).

Things may pan out differently of course, Mrs. Thatcher was enormously unpopular prior to the Falklands War, although she may have won the 1983 election anyway, due to the poor state of the opposition.

[hilltop]

These survey results are pretty unreliable. Outside of an election campaign most respondents are pleased if they can remember the party names.

In the absence of a leader, Labour has been absent from the media. A new leader will have an automatic upward effect on polls.

The LibDem support has always been quite volatile. Clegg did have a positive result from the pre-election debates, just like the old SDLP had a honeymoon because they were fresh and new.

The Tories must start to worry about what LibDem rank and file want. The Coalition could have the rug pulled at any time if LibDem activists see no future in being the whipping boys for Tory policy.

The Coalition could be all over by Christmas, just as the cuts start to really hurt.

[billybong]

The LibDems just come across these days as junior tories in the background and they also come across as having jettisoned their more honourable stances on things like pension unfairness etc - as the price of being partly in power.

It's quite possible that they have exerted a "good" influence behind the scenes but that perception doesn't come across in the news and so on.

[davidcameron]

How are New Labour in any way a loony lefty party?

Their public spending levels as a percentage of GDP were similar to John Major's and it was hardly stifiling regulation that lead to the financial crisis.

All Labour governments run out of money. They just can't stop spending other people's. The banking crisis is a sideshow.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

I keep trying to point out one simple fact: New Labour were just Old Otry.

We've had 30 years of tory government.

The people thinking "yay the tories will save us" are complete morons.

The wealthy have manipulated the populace.

Public opinion towards the "labour voting benefits scum" has gone so negative that previously sensible adults on here are actually suggesting they should be moved into camps.

Feudalism is triumphant. The population are cheering as they march into slavery.

All hail chairman Cameron, everyone turn your TV to the picture of Bin Laden on BBC3 for the 5 minute hate.

[pablopatito]

The banking crisis is a sideshow.

That's a pretty big sideshow.

Edited August 17, 2010 by pablopatito

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

When the Lib Dems say things like they are against a cap on immigration from non-EU countries when we already have such a huge amount of unemployed in this country, I think I can understand why support for them is falling. Liberalism is all well and good in theory but in practice we need to get out of this mess and being fluffy and bleeding hearted won't help reduce the deficit.

Yes, People hate the Labservative party, the problem with the lib dems is some of their policies are plain ridiculous, including their stance on immigration and property taxes.

The Lib-dems want to scrap council tax, he only remaining property tax, and replace it with a local income tax instead. The lib dems are more pro-property-ramping the the labservatives.

We are in a ridiculous situation where the only party that in any way represents the interests and wishes of the populace is the BNP, and they've still not managed to kick out all the racists yet.

[lets get it right]

Oh God No! Please, please No! Please let us not have polls for the next 5 years.

Who cares? The only poll that counts will be in May 2015.

What a surprise. 1500 self-selected pollsters who read the Sun do not rate the LibDems. Fancy that.

[copydude]

No, the Lib Dems are not on 8%

Not a properly conducted poll

Conducted on their own panel it has voting intentions of Conservative 43%, Labour 24%, Liberal Democrats 8% – repercentaged to exclude don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, it works out at CON 50%, LAB 28%, LDEM 10%, Others 18% – so while reputable pollsters are showing a Conservative lead of between 2 and 6 points, Sky’s panel are showing a lead of 22 points. That rings alarm bells to say the least.

This isn’t actually a voodoo poll in the purest sense, it was conducted using a panel, rather than an open access “red button” poll (although there is no indication of whether there was an attempt to draw a representative sample from within the wider panel) – but the sample looks very ropey and there is no apparent attempt at proper political weighting. There are sparse demographic details in the results, but the 2010 recalled vote break shows 44% of the sample voted Tory, compared to 17% Labour and 18% Lib Dem. For context, established polling companies like ICM weight their polls so that 25% of the sample is people who voted Tory in 2010, 21% Labour and 16% Lib Dem.

You sometimes get fun little red button polls on media websites, but they normally come with disclaimers that they are not properly represenative polls. In contrast, Sky have it as the headline on their website, liberally sprinkled with quotes from their Chief Political Correspondent Jon Craig about what it would mean if repeated at a general election. Sigh.

Edited August 17, 2010 by copydude

[fluffy666]

I keep trying to point out one simple fact: New Labour were just Old Tory.

I think you mean 'Thatcherite Tory'. A Tory of the 1950s to early 1970s would have thought of New Labour as being to his/her right, economically at least.

Public opinion towards the "labour voting benefits scum" has gone so negative that previously sensible adults on here are actually suggesting they should be moved into camps.

I particularly like thy way that the MPs expenses scandal broke right at the moment that people were getting upset at the Banker's excesses. Nice card to play...

Feudalism is triumphant. The population are cheering as they march into slavery.

It was much better (for the average UK citizen) when we have the Soviet Union around, since it was a creditable threat to the ruling classes - play fair or we'll go red and march you lot off to the gulags.

All hail chairman Cameron, everyone turn your TV to the picture of Bin Laden on BBC3 for the 5 minute hate.

BBC? That's practically swearing, you know. We need to get rid of the BBC so that we are free to watch whatever Murdoch tells us to.

[dissident junk]

How are New Labour in any way a loony lefty party?

Their public spending levels as a percentage of GDP were similar to John Major's and it was hardly stifiling regulation that lead to the financial crisis.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Timak, I expected more from you. :angry: If you do this again, I will give you lines AND a detention.

New Labour hid behind credit boom inflated GDP figures and PFI to mask their insane public spending -- and it was insane. £billions of off balance sheet PFI liabilities prior to 2001, and then over £100 billion OVER already inflated receipts from 2001 to 2007 PRIOR to the credit crash.

The reason why they managed to blag it was they continually pointed to spend as a percentage of GDP, not mentioning that GDP was being artifically swelled by demand bolstered by "future money" created by the credit boom on both an institutional and personal level -- in my view, some £400 billion of 2007 GDP could be credit boom "funny" GDP, which would resonate with the level of private sector GDP collapse since 2007.

Labour essentially attempted to run the public sector of a £1.5 trillion economy on a £1.1 trillion "real base" -- if you want to take a look, try total GDP and private sector GDP, plus public and private debt levels, plus tax revenues and spend from 1997 to 2009.

I do agree with you that it wasn't loony left ... in so far as I think it was more Wizard of Oz with the commandment that everyone should wear their special "spectacles" to make everything look like it is made of emeralds when it is really crap crumbling concrete, while a grumpy, weird bloke frantically pulls levers behind the curtain.