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

[Quicken]

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.

Nothing is fixed. The global economy in general, and UK economy in particular are very much broken and will remain so until well beyond 2015. ZIRP=Broken. QE=Broken. House price bubble=Broken.

[Goat]

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

Lets look at those in order.

1. Doubling national debt. Debt in 2010 was about £700 billion but the annual budget deficit was £160 billion. It should be pretty obvious that unless you can find £100+ billion of spending cuts in the middle of the deepest recession for 80 years that the stock of debt is going to rise alarmingly but whose fault is that? The guys who inherited the deficit or the idiots who created it.

2. Stealing savings. UK base rate was reduced to 0.5% in March 2009, does anybody think that the economy has really been strong enough to justify a rise since then? Again whose fault is this? The guys who inherited the enormous debt hangover or the idiots who created it in the first place.

3. Using taxes to subsidise a HP bubble. Help to buy is pretty minimal IMO, really just enough to create the impression of trying to do something without really doing it.

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

Doesn't this rather conflict with 3 above? They seem to be simaltaneously complaining that they're not deflating the HP bubble whilst complaining that they've freed up planning to help deflate the HP bubble.

[Goat]

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

Close.

They present a very real threat that Ed Milliband will be next PM and Ed Balls his Chancellor.

And to repeat I can't actually see what the current lot are supposed to have done wrong.

[FallingAwake]

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.

How come they couldn't win the 2010 election then? (To answer my own question, I suppose that was the "Brown" factor, but that shows that parties and their leaders still have a certain popular appeal.)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but am I right in saying you're implying that the only way to stop Labour is to vote Tory?

You're probably right if that's the primary concern of the electorate, but I honestly think a lot of people are getting fed up with the constant Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue (with occasional shades of Yellow) election charade that has gone on for decades now.

2010 has proven that alternatives *are* available, even if that's not ideal either (I'm talking about the Blue / Yellow coalition), it's the best that can done in our First Past The Post system.

What % of the votes did the Lib Dems get in 2010? Wasn't it in the 20's? That shows me you don't have to actually be First past the post, in order to have political influence. As wonderpup pointed out, UKIP are only on 10% and are already influencing Tory policy!

[Goat]

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".

But if that's the only thing they care about why vote for a party whose only electoral effect will be to ensure that no referendum takes place (via electing Miliband as PM) rather than the party that is promising the one thing they really want.

And if anyone doubts that Cameron would hold the referendum, how long do you think he would last as leader of his party if he reneaged on that committment? Hours rather than days IMO.

It's slightly odd, UKIP voters are now in the position of voting against the one thing the party really stands for.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Lets look at those in order.

1. Doubling national debt. Debt in 2010 was about £700 billion but the annual budget deficit was £160 billion. It should be pretty obvious that unless you can find £100+ billion of spending cuts in the middle of the deepest recession for 80 years that the stock of debt is going to rise alarmingly but whose fault is that? The guys who inherited the deficit or the idiots who created it.

2. Stealing savings. UK base rate was reduced to 0.5% in March 2009, does anybody think that the economy has really been strong enough to justify a rise since then? Again whose fault is this? The guys who inherited the enormous debt hangover or the idiots who created it in the first place.

3. Using taxes to subsidise a HP bubble. Help to buy is pretty minimal IMO, really just enough to create the impression of trying to do something without really doing it.

Yes, it's always someone else's fault. Man up!

Are you a Tory politician?

[zugzwang]

Lets look at those in order.

1. Doubling national debt. Debt in 2010 was about £700 billion but the annual budget deficit was £160 billion. It should be pretty obvious that unless you can find £100+ billion of spending cuts in the middle of the deepest recession for 80 years that the stock of debt is going to rise alarmingly but whose fault is that? The guys who inherited the deficit or the idiots who created it.
2. Stealing savings. UK base rate was reduced to 0.5% in March 2009, does anybody think that the economy has really been strong enough to justify a rise since then? Again whose fault is this? The guys who inherited the enormous debt hangover or the idiots who created it in the first place.
3. Using taxes to subsidise a HP bubble. Help to buy is pretty minimal IMO, really just enough to create the impression of trying to do something without really doing it.

The idiots who created the debt all vote Tory and work in the City of London. By and large, they still have their feet up on the same rotten desks running the same rotten rackets. Brown's greatest failure was to regulate them to within an inch of their rotten lives. Incredibly, the principal criticism leveled at Brown during those years by Cameron and co. was that he was guilty of over-regulating financial markets!

[Goat]

Yes, it's always someone else's fault. Man up!

Are you saying that we didn't have a £160bn annual deficit in 2010, or that the economy has been strong enough to withstand a substantial interest rate rise or that the enormous HP bubble was not inflated between 1997 and 2007?

If none of the above then it really was someone else's fault.

Are you a Tory politician?

No.

Are you a labour party sock puppet?

[The Knimbies who say No]

Lets look at those in order.

1. Doubling national debt. Debt in 2010 was about £700 billion but the annual budget deficit was £160 billion. It should be pretty obvious that unless you can find £100+ billion of spending cuts in the middle of the deepest recession for 80 years that the stock of debt is going to rise alarmingly but whose fault is that? The guys who inherited the deficit or the idiots who created it.

2. Stealing savings. UK base rate was reduced to 0.5% in March 2009, does anybody think that the economy has really been strong enough to justify a rise since then? Again whose fault is this? The guys who inherited the enormous debt hangover or the idiots who created it in the first place.

3. Using taxes to subsidise a HP bubble. Help to buy is pretty minimal IMO, really just enough to create the impression of trying to do something without really doing it.

Doesn't this rather conflict with 3 above? They seem to be simaltaneously complaining that they're not deflating the HP bubble whilst complaining that they've freed up planning to help deflate the HP bubble.

Regarding #3, I asked Boles in person why, if the Government was keen to make housing more affordable, they were pushing stuff like HTB and FLS which work directly against that stated aim. Boles replied that builders won't build unless they have the certainty of price realization, and that the Soviets tried and failed with centrally-planned&financed housing construction. So, if you oppose these policies you're practically a Commie. What he never really even began to address is how exactly a listed company engaged in housebuilding can just shut up shop for an indefinite period. Of course, they cannot, and Boles and Shapps etc caved in to builders' lobbying/scaremongering and wrote the policy they wanted- cheaper money and mortgage guarantees for buyers to enable chums at big builders to get record margins.

#1- Osborne wrote a cheque to the IMF for £9Bn without intending to mention it to Parliament. This is the sort of stuff that infuriates people, especially after all the electoral waffle between Labour and Tories being about £6Bn being the dividing line between salvation/disaster. I think it is fair game to ask how serious he actually is about approximately balancing the books.

#2 - Much of the reason UK is in the brown stuff is the absurd cost of housing, rate rises would likely play a great part in solving that issue, at the expense of a small minority of overindebted borrowers and some zombie businesses.

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

[Liquid Goldfish]

Doesn't this rather conflict with 3 above? They seem to be simaltaneously complaining that they're not deflating the HP bubble whilst complaining that they've freed up planning to help deflate the HP bubble.

Not in most peoples minds. Anyway, i don't think UKIP supporters main concern here is house prices. They seem to be arguing we only need more houses because of immigration

[Sancho Panza]

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.

The reasons for the animosity are much deeper than you apparently realise.

My circle of acquaintance-admittedly mostly older people over 30-is that in the North and the Midlands Labour has far more to fear from UKIP than the Tories.In most urban Northern and Midlands seats,the Tories are in third place and probably about to move to fourth in 2015.Most of the new UKIP voters have either never voted or are old Labour.Watch places like Barnsley,Rotherham,St Helens etc.

Part of the problem has been the decline of the Tory machine in those areas,where,in all honesty,they just don't have a credible presence any more,but more fundamentally,the working class people who put Thatcher in power are culturally a long way away from David Cameron and George Osborne.This is aside from labelling everyone who's not in favour of unlimited immigration a 'racist',which only serves to isolate the very people you're trying to win back.Immigration issues matter in those places,whether real or apparent.

From my personal experience,a large proportion of these UKIP voters wouldn't vote Tory if they were the only party on the ballot paper.

In the shires and the South,things are different,the Tory vote is much stronger.My friends in London/SE are all still voting Tory.

It seems doubtful at the minute that UKIP will win a seat.The important thing to note is that since the 50's,the percentage of votes for small parties bottomed at 3% and has been rising ever since.

It's also worth pointing out that both the Tories and labour have been haemorrhaging members for 30 years.The idea that UKIP/BNP/Green are a function of recent histroy isn't supported by the evidence.

[FallingAwake]

But if that's the only thing they care about why vote for a party whose only electoral effect will be to ensure that no referendum takes place (via electing Miliband as PM) rather than the party that is promising the one thing they really want.

This is surely a moot point if they enshrine the referendum into law, as they seem to be trying to do at the moment. Surely it will mean the Government will be legally obliged to hold a referendum at that time, no matter which party is in power (unless Labour actively create a law nullifying the previous one, which nails their true colours to the mast for all the electorate to see).

And if anyone doubts that Cameron would hold the referendum, how long do you think he would last as leader of his party if he reneaged on that committment? Hours rather than days IMO.

Again, surely moot... if he enshrines it into law. He can't renege on a LAW.

It's slightly odd, UKIP voters are now in the position of voting against the one thing the party really stands for.

The Conservatives still don't really stand for the same thing, though. UKIP want out. Conservatives don't.

I do concede that, if Cameron gets the referendum into law, that's going to improves his chances with the UKIP'ers... but there's still lots of room for fudge, I suspect.

- Is this a simple IN / OUT referendum, or one with lots of nuanced options to, umm... "help" the average Brit (which conveniently waters down the "Out" votes)

- Can he guarantee he will not be using the resources of the State to support his obvious "IN" stance?

- What are the specific reforms he is going to push for, before the recommendation, and on what timetable? At the moment, this "reform" idea is very vague.

Hopefully you can see why there's room to be at least a little sceptical.

[Liquid Goldfish]

Are you saying that we didn't have a £160bn annual deficit in 2010, or that the economy has been strong enough to withstand a substantial interest rate rise or that the enormous HP bubble was not inflated between 1997 and 2007?

If none of the above then it really was someone else's fault.

You've had almost 4 years. The deficit was supposed to be eliminated and the economy rebalanced by now.

No.

Are you a labour party sock puppet?

Well, you defend the Tories more passionately than any non-politician I've come across. So, I just wondered.

I've no allegiance to the Labour party - that still means I can criticise the Tories, though.

[Sancho Panza]

Loyal Tories who can't see the clear potential threat from UKIP have their heads in the sand imo.

That's most of the leadership then.The electoral system has allowed them to overestimate their popularity for a long time.

I've met quite a few Tory MP's over the years and I must say,many of them were/are just odd,posh and out there.

[Sancho Panza]

And to repeat I can't actually see what the current lot are supposed to have done wrong.

You're clearly not a chippy on a lower daily rate than 5 years ago.

[Goat]

The idiots who created the debt all vote Tory and work in the City of London. By and large, they still have their feet up on the same rotten desks running the same rotten rackets. Brown's greatest failure was to regulate them to within an inch of their rotten lives. Incredibly, the principal criticism leveled at Brown during those years by Cameron and co. was that he was guilty of over-regulating financial markets!

Royal Bank of Scotland

Halifax Bank of Scotland

Northen Rock

Bradford and Bingley

[EUBanana]

And if anyone doubts that Cameron would hold the referendum, how long do you think he would last as leader of his party if he reneaged on that committment? Hours rather than days IMO.

This is Cast Iron Dave we're talking about. He's got form.

( So did Gordon before him, of course, which makes you wonder why any of it really matters. )

It's slightly odd, UKIP voters are now in the position of voting against the one thing the party really stands for.

I don't think you should vote tactically - you should vote for what you believe. If everybody did that, then politics would be very different, and for the better IMO.

And really, aside from the quite frightening obsession ZanuLabour used to have with the nascent police state, I can't really see a whole lot of difference between Cameron and Bliar/Brown. Even the latter is being tarnished with Cameron's war on the internet stuff, not to mention the lack of the talked about Great Repeal Bill.

[Goat]

You're clearly not a chippy on a lower daily rate than 5 years ago.

But again whose fault is that?

Who created the tidal wave of immigration that has driven down wages? Who created the enormous debt bubble and subsequent recession?

[The Knimbies who say No]

The reasons for the animosity are much deeper than you apparently realise.

My circle of acquaintance-admittedly mostly older people over 30-is that in the North and the Midlands Labour has far more to fear from UKIP than the Tories.In most urban Northern and Midlands seats,the Tories are in third place and probably about to move to fourth in 2015.Most of the new UKIP voters have either never voted or are old Labour.Watch places like Barnsley,Rotherham,St Helens etc.

Part of the problem has been the decline of the Tory machine in those areas,where,in all honesty,they just don't have a credible presence any more,but more fundamentally,the working class people who put Thatcher in power are culturally a long way away from David Cameron and George Osborne.This is aside from labelling everyone who's not in favour of unlimited immigration a 'racist',which only serves to isolate the very people you're trying to win back.Immigration issues matter in those places,whether real or apparent.

From my personal experience,a large proportion of these UKIP voters wouldn't vote Tory if they were the only party on the ballot paper.

In the shires and the South,things are different,the Tory vote is much stronger.My friends in London/SE are all still voting Tory.

It seems doubtful at the minute that UKIP will win a seat.The important thing to note is that since the 50's,the percentage of votes for small parties bottomed at 3% and has been rising ever since.

It's also worth pointing out that both the Tories and labour have been haemorrhaging members for 30 years.The idea that UKIP/BNP/Green are a function of recent histroy isn't supported by the evidence.

Good points, the apparatus to mobilise the required number of activists to do stuff like deliver leaflets and talking to potential voters must be under great strain in an environment of declining membership. The Tories' member numbers have dropped by over 40% since Cameron took over, now standing around 140,000 if memory serves. That's about 210 members/constituency on average. Not all will be able or inclined to get involved so guessing about numbers it might mean that a few tens of people are covering a constituency of 100k people on average. I guess the membership is skewed to places with safest seats too, which may compound the challenge.

It shows what a minority pursuit politics is, I imagine that Chester(edit this is the constituency I reside in) has over 210 people involved in quite a lot of things you've maybe heard of but who don't get to run the country.

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

[Goat]

Well, you defend the Tories more passionately than any non-politician I've come across. So, I just wondered.

Ultimately the next election will be a straight choice between Labour and Conservatives, UKIP won't get a single seat but may get enough votes to return Labour to power.

Which means that the worst government in our history will be returned to power after one term in opposition.

[Liquid Goldfish]

the enormous HP bubble was not inflated between 1997 and 2007?

Yes it was.

That's no reason to blow another one!!

Maybe it's because the Tories just can't help themselves - they have a long history of credit and housing bubbles.

Edited January 14, 2014 by oldsport

[Liquid Goldfish]

Ultimately the next election will be a straight choice between Labour and Conservatives, UKIP won't get a single seat but may get enough votes to return Labour to power.

Which means that the worst government in our history will be returned to power after one term in opposition.

I see very little difference.

I actually think the bubbles would have been bigger if the Tories had been in power - they have form, after all - and they were calling for less regulation.

The main difference on the spending side is that we wouldn't have had Tax Credits and spending on heath would probably have remained at half the amount of other developed countries. The Labour government was virtually a Tory clone. We may have had less EU immigration - but again, probably not!

Edited January 14, 2014 by oldsport

[dances with sheeple]

Not in most peoples minds. Anyway, i don't think UKIP supporters main concern here is house prices. They seem to be arguing we only need more houses because of immigration

I would argue that we don`t even need more houses WITH immigration, it is all B.S, where are the hundreds of thousands of homeless living now? Brigadoon?

[dances with sheeple]

According to Newsnight Milliband is now babbling about breaking up banks to create more competition, he is desperate, nearer election time he will be offering to wash peoples cars if they will vote for him.

[Sancho Panza]

But again whose fault is that?

Who created the tidal wave of immigration that has driven down wages? Who created the enormous debt bubble and subsequent recession?

If you spoke to those people you'd find that they don't really care who's fault it is.They just want the immigration to stop and if leaving the EU is a means to an end,then so be it.

You're nowhere near perceptive enough to be a politician but you have a real future astro turfing for Labour or Tory HQ.