Why keep saying labour ? it was nu-labour old labour swinging to the right, no diference to the torys we need old labour back fast before this country is finished for good. hello btw
But didn't even The Guardian abandon Labour in the run up to the elections? They were endorsing the Lib Dems in the end.
Indeed - because like moox stated Labour were ''deeply unelectable''. It was clear even then, the Guardian had an agenda as to why it was supporting the Lib Dems. From those who wrote for the Guardian on the matter of a coalition to the Guardian's reception to any anti-Labour comments the LDs made.
The point of The Guardian supporting the Lib Dems in the election as some sort of trump card is invalid when it is clear, in particular with hindsight their was a idealogical agenda there on the Guardian's part as to why it supported the LDs.
It was more a case of Labour not being as gutted at losing as they might have been under any other circumstance, but I still believe they wanted to win.
The two big parties have always hated the LDs - you could see it on these boards - mockery and dismissal before the election and bile and vilification after the election
The point of The Guardian supporting the Lib Dems in the election as some sort of trump card is invalid when it is clear, in particular with hindsight their was a idealogical agenda there on the Guardian's part as to why it supported the LDs.
Their point was indeed ideological, it was trying to advocate a progressive majority to keep the Tories out, as was the New Statemsan and the Oberver.
It didn't anticipate the Orange bookers taking over the Lib Dems, and the old SDPers being spineless.
The two big parties have always hated the LDs - you could see it on these boards - mockery and dismissal before the election and bile and vilification after the election
Your guilt is simple, or rather your party's guilt is.
It shafted a lot of people who voted for progressive politics, not a shower of neoliberal bitches.
That is what I was referring to. Voting intention after all, is combination of all things taken in account who would you vote for? Yes JM, this poll was about wherther people thought the coalition was the right outcome. However, even during the negoations back in May there was very little support among Guardian readers for a Con-Lib coalition - from the messages on CIF to a poll taken on who the LDs should go into coalition with.
This poll, like any other poll is representitive only of the views only those taken - not any other views. In general, I am wary of polls, and in any case by the time the cuts come by the end of this year, I expect any government that had been in power to be unpopular.
I also don't think a Guardian poll is exactly representitive of what ''Tory voters'' think. Sure, I'm not doubting some Tory voters don't support plans to Health and Education - but Tory voters are more Likely to be Spectator, Times, The Sun, and Telegraph readers than Guardian readers.
No, the point is that there was considerable support for the outcome in the early days and this poll shows it has dropped off very considerably.
The poll makes specific reference to conservative views - and as far as I can see the percentages relate specifically to the number of such people who think these policies won't improve services.
The poll wasn't conducted through the newspaper so the respondents weren't necessarily Guardian readers.
Your guilt is simple, or rather your party's guilt is.
It shafted a lot of people who voted for progressive politics, not a shower of neoliberal bitches.
See - same old tripe trotted out time and time again
Yes. LDs were daft enough to sign those pledges and they should have honoured them - but they are getting 60% of their manifesto through
And Labour lied to electorate too - all the stuff they were going to do (!) and didn't, increasing the gap between rich and poor, taking us into war,?????
And still Labour try and take the moral high ground and still tell LDs what they should be doing
Why the need to use such emotive language all of the timne? Just bile and rhetoric yet again
See - same old tripe trotted out time and time again
Yes. LDs were daft enough to sign those pledges and they should have honoured them - but they are getting 60% of their manifesto through
And Labour lied to electorate too - all the stuff they were going to do (!) and didn't, increasing the gap between rich and poor, taking us into war,?????
And still Labour try and take the moral high ground and still tell LDs what they should be doing
Why the need to use such emotive language all of the timne? Just bile and rhetoric yet again
I find a return to the 80s madness propped up by a supposedly centre left party to be quite emotive as a topic. Call me mad.
Oh boy! Are we seeing the arrogance of the Tories and Labour again!? - upset that the LDs lost them / won them seats in the General Election?
LDs guilty, yet again, of existing and upsetting the two-party dinosaurs!
Its a global conspiracy isnt it! The government are conspiring to keep the lib-dems down.Oh wait. Lib Dems are the government. The only thing that the lib-dems are a victim of is their own incompetence.
No, the point is that there was considerable support for the outcome in the early days and this poll shows it has dropped off very considerably.
According to 1,003 people within a 30 - 45 million elecorate.
The poll makes specific reference to conservative views -
Among 1,003 people. 8 million voted Tory.
The poll wasn't conducted through the newspaper so the respondents weren't necessarily Guardian readers.
Thart's questionable. ICM polls for the Guardian usually show more support for percieved centre-left, centrist parties than support shown in others polls, even during election campaigns.
This indicates regradless of ICM's attempts to weigh carefully there is a centre left bias among ICM/Guardian polls which leaves me to believe the majority of their respondents are Guardian readers since the polls are in tune with their views.
Hardly mid term - they've only been in power for 7 months. The honeymoon is over rather sooner than expected.
Yes, and three months after the 2005 election, Labour were trailing at the same -19 approval rating that yougov are showing the current government at. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/40
All governments experience this lull, there's nothing remarkable about it.
See - same old tripe trotted out time and time again
Yes. LDs were daft enough to sign those pledges and they should have honoured them - but they are getting 60% of their manifesto through
And Labour lied to electorate too - all the stuff they were going to do (!) and didn't, increasing the gap between rich and poor, taking us into war,?????
And still Labour try and take the moral high ground and still tell LDs what they should be doing
Why the need to use such emotive language all of the timne? Just bile and rhetoric yet again
Which 60% are they achieving - and can policies really be considered in percentage terms - is there no sense of some policies being more important than others - such as those where individual candidates put their names personally to a pledge to vote against a particular policy?
There is a difference between introducing policies that are the polar opposite of those you have been elected on and finding that those policies over time fail to achieve the outcome you'd hoped for - there's no doubt that Labour wanted to reduce inequity but that it wasn't achieved. There's no guarantee that any policy of the Lib Dems or the Tory will have any better success but it isn't that which makes politicians liars. It's promising to do one thing then doing the absolute opposite.
I certainly didn't support all of Labour's decisions (including the Iraq war) but the current situation is a new low for politics.
Its a global conspiracy isnt it! The government are conspiring to keep the lib-dems down.Oh wait. Lib Dems are the government. The only thing that the lib-dems are a victim of is their own incompetence.
I didn't say the government - I said the Labour (especially) and the Conservative parties and their supporters on these boards
Vennegoor, I have you on my ignore list, because I'm not borthered to respond to your rather ''emotive'' messages in which you seem to have a real issue with a different opinion to yours'. That post was on Tory voters, not Lib Dems voters your point was completely irrelvant.
I think all those posters who said that the Coalition wouldn't last a month / until the autumn / until Christmas are all feeling just that wee bit more silly as the time goes on!
Comments
That's not what they are guilty of.
Indeed - because like moox stated Labour were ''deeply unelectable''. It was clear even then, the Guardian had an agenda as to why it was supporting the Lib Dems. From those who wrote for the Guardian on the matter of a coalition to the Guardian's reception to any anti-Labour comments the LDs made.
The point of The Guardian supporting the Lib Dems in the election as some sort of trump card is invalid when it is clear, in particular with hindsight their was a idealogical agenda there on the Guardian's part as to why it supported the LDs.
New Labour didn't want to win.
Oh we are!
The two big parties have always hated the LDs - you could see it on these boards - mockery and dismissal before the election and bile and vilification after the election
Their point was indeed ideological, it was trying to advocate a progressive majority to keep the Tories out, as was the New Statemsan and the Oberver.
It didn't anticipate the Orange bookers taking over the Lib Dems, and the old SDPers being spineless.
Your guilt is simple, or rather your party's guilt is.
It shafted a lot of people who voted for progressive politics, not a shower of neoliberal bitches.
No, the point is that there was considerable support for the outcome in the early days and this poll shows it has dropped off very considerably.
The poll makes specific reference to conservative views - and as far as I can see the percentages relate specifically to the number of such people who think these policies won't improve services.
The poll wasn't conducted through the newspaper so the respondents weren't necessarily Guardian readers.
Hardly mid term - they've only been in power for 7 months. The honeymoon is over rather sooner than expected.
See - same old tripe trotted out time and time again
Yes. LDs were daft enough to sign those pledges and they should have honoured them - but they are getting 60% of their manifesto through
And Labour lied to electorate too - all the stuff they were going to do (!) and didn't, increasing the gap between rich and poor, taking us into war,?????
And still Labour try and take the moral high ground and still tell LDs what they should be doing
Why the need to use such emotive language all of the timne? Just bile and rhetoric yet again
I find a return to the 80s madness propped up by a supposedly centre left party to be quite emotive as a topic. Call me mad.
Its a global conspiracy isnt it! The government are conspiring to keep the lib-dems down.Oh wait. Lib Dems are the government. The only thing that the lib-dems are a victim of is their own incompetence.
This indicates regradless of ICM's attempts to weigh carefully there is a centre left bias among ICM/Guardian polls which leaves me to believe the majority of their respondents are Guardian readers since the polls are in tune with their views.
Yes, and three months after the 2005 election, Labour were trailing at the same -19 approval rating that yougov are showing the current government at.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/40
All governments experience this lull, there's nothing remarkable about it.
Which 60% are they achieving - and can policies really be considered in percentage terms - is there no sense of some policies being more important than others - such as those where individual candidates put their names personally to a pledge to vote against a particular policy?
There is a difference between introducing policies that are the polar opposite of those you have been elected on and finding that those policies over time fail to achieve the outcome you'd hoped for - there's no doubt that Labour wanted to reduce inequity but that it wasn't achieved. There's no guarantee that any policy of the Lib Dems or the Tory will have any better success but it isn't that which makes politicians liars. It's promising to do one thing then doing the absolute opposite.
I certainly didn't support all of Labour's decisions (including the Iraq war) but the current situation is a new low for politics.
I have to say, in this economic climate I for one was not expecting much of a honeymoon at all.
Oh ffs, now you're questioning the sampling technique? Jesus wept.
Can't the Lib Dem supporters drunk on power accept that many people who voted for you feel completely shafted?
Until you accept that, you really will be in freefall at the next election.
I hadn't even noticed that we had one
I didn't say the government - I said the Labour (especially) and the Conservative parties and their supporters on these boards
BBC saying he's not doing a (politically) bad job - PR needs a bit of work though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12048834
Vennegoor, I have you on my ignore list, because I'm not borthered to respond to your rather ''emotive'' messages in which you seem to have a real issue with a different opinion to yours'. That post was on Tory voters, not Lib Dems voters your point was completely irrelvant.