Support For Labour Shrinks As Faith In Recovery Grows, Icm Poll Finds

[The Knimbies who say No]

There is no message if you get no seats. The LDs get enough seats to be relevant in coalition situations.

UKIP GE vote will be down on last GE. They're an EU election / right wing protest vehicle - they have no relevance in a GE.

I would rather that wasn't the case - but that's the reality of FPTP.

What happens when things are not broken, as will be the position at 2015 GE, is that the opposition has no motivation to vote. So even though Labour are polling close now - a lot of those just won't bother to vote on the day (benefits have not been cut for this reason).

Whereas the threat of the not-broken position we have now becoming broken under Balls is enough to motivate people to vote T/LD.

As someone else just mentioned this all lines up to a pre-election Labour meltdown reshuffle.

Also - to the guy who doesn't think IR will get to 9% in next parliament - watch it - it might go to -1% first but it has to get to 5%+ and won't stop there - long term averages guarantee it - there is no 'this time is different' in economics.

Of all the things you've stated on this thread, this is the most likely to be wrong imo (out of a few strong contenders...). UKIP's membership is up strongly and they are polling over 3 times the share they achieved in 2010. It seems somewhat dismissive to say that this will all evaporate in the next 16 months.

Edited January 14, 2014 by The B.L.T.

[slacker]

It seems somewhat dismissive to say that this will all evaporate in the next 16 months.

The Tories and Labour will spend next 12 months over-compensating for the lack of UKIPy policies previously - answering a lot of the grievances.

The next election will come down to do you want Labour running the economy for next 5 years?

If the new UKIP-inspired election promises from Tories and Labour are not enough - the remaining hardcore will mostly abstain for fear of a return to Brownism or worse Cablism.

People vote in GEs with their pockets - always have.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

More at the Guardian here: UK recovery hits Labour support

Is the next election going to be closer than has been thought? Will UKIP still scupper the Tory's hopes??

(links in the article are from the original source)

No, Labour will win by a country mile. Who would be so stupid as not to vote for free cash forever?

[Guest TheBlueCat]

(1) Voting for a minor party such as UKIP means the major parties get less of the % of votes, sending a MESSAGE to them.

(2) The 2010 election. Lib Dems will probably never get into sole power in our "First Past The Post" system (making them a "minor party" in that regard), yet they now have an influence over Government policy, being in a Coalition.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, since minor parties apparently have "no impact", people should perpetually vote Red or Blue, or perhaps not vote at all. That's exactly WHY we're in this mess in the first place!

I'm not suggesting UKIP are some kind of magic bullet (I'm actually not massively bothered about Europe to be honest)... BUT by voting for them, it WILL shake things up a bit, and force the two major parties to re-position themselves and actually address their concerns in a serious manner.

For example, I *do* think the people of Britain should be given a say in whether we want to be part of an increasingly federalised Europe... don't you?

If Scotland gets a say in whether to be part of the UK, shouldn't the British people get the same say when it comes to the EU, especially now it's very different from the EEC voted for in the 1970's?

Yet the two major parties have, until recently, been doing everything they can to put this off... with the Lib Dems actively opposed to it.

The more votes UKIP get at the next general election, the more the two parties will be FORCED to address this issue.

Very well put, I couldn't agree more, but please stop with the CAPITALS, it comes across as the internet equivalent of green ink!

[Goat]

They'll have my vote!

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

[Bruce Banner]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Kippers?

[tomandlu]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Kippers = UKIP supporters

Apart from the EU, not sure myself. Bankster-supporting NIMBYs afaict.

edit to add: I did consider voting for them myself at one point, merely as the most effective protest vote, and a semi-alignment with my conviction that governments should be more modest in their aims. However, a quick skim of their manifesto soon put paid to that idea.

Edited January 14, 2014 by tomandlu

[The Knimbies who say No]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Dave can't work it out either else he might have dealt with the threat long before now.

[The Knimbies who say No]

The Tories and Labour will spend next 12 months over-compensating for the lack of UKIPy policies previously - answering a lot of the grievances.

The next election will come down to do you want Labour running the economy for next 5 years?

If the new UKIP-inspired election promises from Tories and Labour are not enough - the remaining hardcore will mostly abstain for fear of a return to Brownism or worse Cablism.

People vote in GEs with their pockets - always have.

You seem very certain but again I think you underestimate the depth of feeling amongst UKIP supporters.

[ZeroSumGame]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Cameron :"I don't want Britain to leave the EU," he told parliament later. "I want Britain to reform the EU."

Polar opposite to UKIP. Opposing their fundamental raison d'etre.

Whether Cameron believes in the EU or not, I'm certain the City will have instructed him to remain in.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

I think this may have something to do with it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-are-closet-racists-says-cameron-472769.html

Edited January 14, 2014 by TheBlueCat

[Liquid Goldfish]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Same as everyone else I would imagine.

[Liquid Goldfish]

I've always thought the Tories would win in 2015.

With Balls as shadow Chancellor, Labour could get thumped. With someone else it might be closer.

[Goat]

I've never quite worked out what the Kippers have against the current Conservative leadership.

Noticable that no-one seems able to answer this question except, perhaps, in relation to the EU.

I agree that the EU is an important issue but the current policy of attempted reform followed by a referendum seems not unreasonable to me.

[Tonkers]

You read that bollerks in the paper and you lose the will to ever bother voting again. I fart in their general direction, which ain't hard.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Noticable that no-one seems able to answer this question except, perhaps, in relation to the EU.

I agree that the EU is an important issue but the current policy of attempted reform followed by a referendum seems not unreasonable to me.

Doubling the national debt, stealing savings, using taxes to subsidise another house price bubble.

I'm not a Kipper, but I would imagine these would be some of their top reasons

Plus they seem to think planning's been freed up too much

[alexw]

Noticable that no-one seems able to answer this question except, perhaps, in relation to the EU.

I agree that the EU is an important issue but the current policy of attempted reform followed by a referendum seems not unreasonable to me.

As far as i can tell its that they have not screwed the younger generations enough to protect the old.

For example -

Housing policy is to consult current home owners so is basically don't build anything anywhere.

Energy policy is to go nuclear instead of renewables, so completely reverses the policy of reducing costs to unborn generations via reducing global warming, to loading them up with the costs of dealing nuclear waste. shale gas ditto. Any environmental costs and the young will be paying for them in the long term.

Flat tax which is a transfer from younger lower earners to older higher earners.

Etc, etc.

Edited January 14, 2014 by alexw

[plummet expert]

More at the Guardian here: UK recovery hits Labour support

Is the next election going to be closer than has been thought? Will UKIP still scupper the Tory's hopes??

(links in the article are from the original source)

I suspect the next election will produce another hung Parliament. There will be less Liberals, Labour as the biggest Party but no majority, Cons will be lose a handful of seats and UKIP will probably get a few seats in specific areas which they could win from any party actually looking at their local results.

The tories will scupper their own hopes. Whilst they have ignited yet another DEBT FUELLED BOOM BASED ON HOUSE PRICES, the cost of living in this country is so high that people cannot reconcile their experience with the announcements that things are improving. In fact - Manufacturing dropped by 4% in the last qtr, the balance of payments is in trouble and worst for 25 yrs AND savings have fallen to a 40 yr low. All the signs of a forthcoming crisis then, just as Carswell says and I have been stating is the way of UK govts for over 50yrs now. That is why we have no manufacturing base to speak of...endless pump priming and price rises which cause wage rises and no actual rise in wealth except for a very few. Even 'right to buy' council houses are falling into the hands of LL's. A third of them in London already! FOOL BRITTANIA

[zugzwang]

I suspect the next election will produce another hung Parliament. There will be less Liberals, Labour as the biggest Party but no majority, Cons will be lose a handful of seats and UKIP will probably get a few seats in specific areas which they could win from any party actually looking at their local results.

The tories will scupper their own hopes. Whilst they have ignited yet another DEBT FUELLED BOOM BASED ON HOUSE PRICES, the cost of living in this country is so high that people cannot reconcile their experience with the announcements that things are improving. In fact - Manufacturing dropped by 4% in the last qtr, the balance of payments is in trouble and worst for 25 yrs AND savings have fallen to a 40 yr low. All the signs of a forthcoming crisis then, just as Carswell says and I have been stating is the way of UK govts for over 50yrs now. That is why we have no manufacturing base to speak of...endless pump priming and price rises which cause wage rises and no actual rise in wealth except for a very few. Even 'right to buy' council houses are falling into the hands of LL's. A third of them in London already! FOOL BRITTANIA

You might be on to something. Given the economic ruins they're set to inherit, makes you wonder why either party would want to win an outright majority in 2015?

[FallingAwake]

Really? Can you explain how or why Labour will ever address the Europe issue after UKIP voters put them into office? Europe is the gift that keeps on giving for Labour. It continually splits votes on the right and gives them an easy win. They will NEVER resolve something that gives them such an electoral edge. The immigrants, public sector troughers, and welfare scroungers who make up the Labour Party do not care about the EU (they don't pay for it and it doesn't affect their welfare payments) so Labour is perfectly happy to continue ceding more and more sovereignty to an unelected super-state.

But you're assuming that UKIP is only taking votes off the so-called "right". What about the many millions of people who don't fall into your categories of "immigrants, public sector troughers, and welfare scroungers", and yet who voted Labour in the past?

Do you think they have no opinion on the EU, or that they're perfectly happy with the levels of immigration? Which category did Labour supporting Sue, the one who Gordon Brown famously spoke to, and who was concerned about immigration, fall into?

Anyway, even if you're right in your assumptions and that Labour will *never* address that issue ... the Tories certainly must if they want to win an election again.

There is a simple way for them to resolve it... guarantee a referendum on the issue. They're going some way towards enshrining that into law, which is a good start - but let's see if they will see it through.

[FallingAwake]

There is no message if you get no seats. The LDs get enough seats to be relevant in coalition situations.

UKIP GE vote will be down on last GE. They're an EU election / right wing protest vehicle - they have no relevance in a GE.

I would rather that wasn't the case - but that's the reality of FPTP.

I agree, in that POWER comes from "seats"... but I'd still say that INFLUENCE can come from getting a decent % share of the votes, both overall, and locally.

A good % share can make or break MPs, especially in marginal seats.

If the Tories lose the next election, and it's partly because UKIP took enough voters off them, then that *is* a message. How can it not be?

Yes, it may be a protest vehicle, but I think their relevance will be in that they could make or break the Tories. If not power, then that's certainly influence.

Also - to the guy who doesn't think IR will get to 9% in next parliament - watch it - it might go to -1% first but it has to get to 5%+ and won't stop there - long term averages guarantee it - there is no 'this time is different' in economics.

That was me again

You might be right, but then again... it's been at 0.5% for pretty much 5 or 6 years now... I still think they may have several years left to play this Super-Low Interest Rates game, but I just don't know. I don't think you'd actually stake your life savings on it being 9% in the next parliament, would you?

[The Knimbies who say No]

Noticable that no-one seems able to answer this question except, perhaps, in relation to the EU.

I agree that the EU is an important issue but the current policy of attempted reform followed by a referendum seems not unreasonable to me.

Which is presumably why you are so hostile to those expressing support to UKIP- they threaten the Tories' reelection aspirations.

The big one is the EU referendum, and even the most dyed in the wool Tory cannot deny that Cameron has 'form' given the debacle last time around. If it were a priority for Dave, he would have set out a referendum timetable within this parliament and settle the matter. If he did it early on he may have won it too. The current plan is pretty much the same as it was in the run up to the last election, "vote for us and we'll have a referendum", as the private member's bill by James Wharton may not be assured to pass the hurdles to become law prior to the election.

But now, through inaction, he has created a bigger problem as UKIP have acquired members and more legitimacy.

Loyal Tories who can't see the clear potential threat from UKIP have their heads in the sand imo. That said, I think they are pretty much the last thing HPCers should be voting for if they want more houses built and cheaper ones but none of the other parties are offering much either on that front.

[FallingAwake]

Noticable that no-one seems able to answer this question except, perhaps, in relation to the EU.

Well, that's perhaps because of how you framed the question. The EU (and getting out of it) is primarily what UKIP is all about, so the question can't be answered except "in relation to the EU".

The leadership of the Conservative party want to keep us in the EU, while UKIP want us out.

I agree that the EU is an important issue but the current policy of attempted reform followed by a referendum seems not unreasonable to me.

I don't think it's unreasonable either. It's also not unreasonable to be sceptical. After all, politicans are always talking about reforming this or that, and we're supposed to believe they're going to pull off reforming something like the EU?

Besides, what reforms precisely, and how? At the moment, the lack of details doesn't help to dispel my scepticism.

Remember, David Cameron has reformed the housing market... with Help to Buy

[wonderpup]

I agree, in that POWER comes from "seats"... but I'd still say that INFLUENCE can come from getting a decent % share of the votes, both overall, and locally

+1

Even the credible threat of getting that decent % can create influence- observe the Tory shift to the right as UKIP have started garnering support from people who would normally be expected to vote tory.

So Ukip are already altering the terms of the debate despite not having a single MP in the house.

[richc]

But you're assuming that UKIP is only taking votes off the so-called "right". What about the many millions of people who don't fall into your categories of "immigrants, public sector troughers, and welfare scroungers", and yet who voted Labour in the past?

Do you think they have no opinion on the EU, or that they're perfectly happy with the levels of immigration? Which category did Labour supporting Sue, the one who Gordon Brown famously spoke to, and who was concerned about immigration, fall into?

Anyway, even if you're right in your assumptions and that Labour will *never* address that issue ... the Tories certainly must if they want to win an election again.

There is a simple way for them to resolve it... guarantee a referendum on the issue. They're going some way towards enshrining that into law, which is a good start - but let's see if they will see it through.

Those people not in the categories listed are now irrelevant. Labour only need 40% of the votes, and the immigrant vote puts them over the line. Look at the Labour front bench. How many sons of the working class? How many sons of immigrants? The actual working class of this country have been thrown under the bus.