Opinion Polls Discussion Thread (Part 2)

1249250252254255543

Comments

  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There is also the Opinium Poll:

    CON: 30%
    LAB: 34%
    LD: 9%
    UKIP: 17%

    Labour lead at 4, down two. Changes are on 2 weeks ago.

    What is telling is the lack of popular support either of the big two parties have. Neither are polling decent numbers.

    It is only FPTP that is protecting them.
  • RobMilesRobMiles Posts: 1,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tiger2000 wrote: »
    900000 Back to Work

    Laughable, most of those would have found jobs anyway as the recovery progressed no matter who was in power, the real question is have his and his governments policies made any difference to what would have happened anyway, its the usual Tory smoke and mirrors when its comes to unemployment, bug gestures that have very little effect in the real world.

    If Labour were in power there would be no economic recovery. In fact, the economy would be getting worse.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    If Labour were in power there would be no economic recovery. In fact, the economy would be getting worse.

    Let's ignore the fact the economy was recovering towards the end of Labour's last term, then Osbourne came in and trashed it...
  • OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    If Labour were in power there would be no economic recovery. In fact, the economy would be getting worse.

    "IF" but they're not, so no one can know for sure what would have happened had Labour won the last election,

    "IN FACT" you do know what a "fact" is? ,
    So, to sum up, IF a situation that doesn't exist did exist then something that is (apparently)
    happening now, wouldn't be happening, and all of this is a "fact"
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James2001 wrote: »
    Let's ignore the fact the economy was recovering towards the end of Labour's last term, then Osbourne came in and trashed it...

    The economy is doing better now than Labour left it - if that is trashing it you really need to get a sense of perspective. :D
  • MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    What is telling is the lack of popular support either of the big two parties have. Neither are polling decent numbers.

    It is only FPTP that is protecting them.

    The we aren't voting Tory or Labour scores exceed those of either party! We may well get a government with a huge majority which more than two thirds of those voting didn't vote for, I don't think we really can look other states in the eye and lecture them about democracy!
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Labour pushed up GDP figures with extra borrowing. Recovery then was an illusion.
  • tiger2000tiger2000 Posts: 8,541
    Forum Member
    RobMiles wrote: »
    If Labour were in power there would be no economic recovery. In fact, the economy would be getting worse.

    Utter rubbish, virtually every single economy in Europe and the US are recovering, even basket cases like Spain, Ireland and Cyprus, what makes you think it would have been any different under Labour?, if anything the recovery would have been quicker as they would not have cut so deeply as the Cons have for mainly dogmatic reasons.
  • Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    If Labour were in power there would be no economic recovery. In fact, the economy would be getting worse.

    There were five straight quarters of growth between mid 2009 and Summer 2010, at which point Cameron and Osborne came to power and as we know the economy spent next 3 and half years dipping in and out of recession becoming the last major economy to limp past its 2008 growth peak earlier this year, the effect of that is that not only did Osborne blow apart his own 2010 borrowing plans, he's on course to borrow some £200 billion more than even Gordon Brown planned in this parliament and become the first chancellor to double the national debt in one single parliament.

    Its nothing short of astounding that Tory supporters have managed to con people into thinking this is a Government more trustworthy on the economy than its opposition.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If we had had Labradors as government then we would be at about the same point we are now.

    woof.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Looks like Cameron's reshuffle has widely been seen as a total joke.

    Over half of those polled thought he was just doing it for effect.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    What is telling is the lack of popular support either of the big two parties have. Neither are polling decent numbers.

    It is only FPTP that is protecting them.

    And that's why the Tories will do anything to keep it.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    solenoid wrote: »
    Labour pushed up GDP figures with extra borrowing. Recovery then was an illusion.

    And Kenneth Clarke has admitted the recovery that is happening now is an illusion. Borrowing is still above £100bn and we have a housing bubble.
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    True. There haven't actually been any cuts.
  • David_JamesDavid_James Posts: 144
    Forum Member
    solenoid wrote: »
    Labour pushed up GDP figures with extra borrowing. Recovery then was an illusion.

    Indeed. Labour's 2010 "recovery" was built on a £157bn deficit, and was created simply for the Election that was coming. It was built on enormous debt and consumption. House prices were rising quickly again, they cut VAT so people would spend more money they didn't have, they cut stamp duty to put heat into the housing market, and they subsidised a car scrappage scheme so people would buy more cars.

    What the Left forget of course is shortly after 2010 the Eurozone economies began to shrink substantially and this has a negative effect on UK growth, and held us back. Many European countries have been in 2-4 recessions since 2008, we only had one, during Labour's time in Government.

    The Left blame austerity for what they call "3 wasteful years of no growth". Yet austerity is still happening now, when we are growing at 3%+ a year.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Indeed. Labour's 2010 "recovery" was built on a £157bn deficit, and was created simply for the Election that was coming. It was built on enormous debt and consumption. House prices were rising quickly again, they cut VAT so people would spend more money they didn't have, they cut stamp duty to put heat into the housing market, and they subsidised a car scrappage scheme so people would buy more cars.

    What the Left forget of course is shortly after 2010 the Eurozone economies began to shrink substantially and this has a negative effect on UK growth, and held us back. Many European countries have been in 2-4 recessions since 2008, we only had one, during Labour's time in Government.

    The Left blame austerity for what they call "3 wasteful years of no growth". Yet austerity is still happening now, when we are growing at 3%+ a year.

    Austerity is not happening now. Our spending has gone up not down.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    Austerity is not happening now. Our spending has gone up not down.

    Of course our spending has gone up - the bills of all the things we've committed to paying have gone up. More pensioners, more welfare, more interest on debt, more PFI repayments, inflation etc. etc. Were it not for the program of austerity, our spending would have gone through the roof.

    The key point is that the deficit - the difference between what we borrow and what we spend, is coming down. So although we're spending more, we're also borrowing less as a proportion of the total.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just 8 months till the dissolution of parliament.
  • Multimedia81Multimedia81 Posts: 83,335
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    When Labour came back in in 1997 you could tell they were reformed, but gradually the old ways sneaked back in to some degree.

    However in 2010 there was no reform at all of the Conservative party. It was like a continuation from 1996, only worse. They had spent their 13 years in opposition becoming more corrupt and "bought".

    And so this has become apparent to most people. But Labour are not forgiven, hence the only small lead.

    Although the Conservatives became more Eurosceptic during their years in opposition, I think they did change albeit gradually during their time out of office. Admittedly they squandered the first term (1997-2001) but in the second term (2001-05) they did become a united orderly opposition. It was only in the 3rd term when they became a credible alternative goverment, helped by David Cameron, and Gordon Brown being a less effective communicator as PM.

    Coming up to date, and Labour are now largely a united orderly opposition, apart from mumbles of discontent about Ed Miliband not doing well enough. So, Labour are now where the Conservatives were in 2004, and likely to have to wait til 2020 to regain office.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Although the Conservatives became more Eurosceptic during their years in opposition, I think they did change albeit gradually during their time out of office. Admittedly they squandered the first term (1997-2001) but in the second term (2001-05) they did become a united orderly opposition. It was only in the 3rd term when they became a credible alternative goverment, helped by David Cameron, and Gordon Brown being a less effective communicator as PM.

    Coming up to date, and Labour are now largely a united orderly opposition, apart from mumbles of discontent about Ed Miliband not doing well enough. So, Labour are now where the Conservatives were in 2004, and likely to have to wait til 2020 to regain office.

    ... more like they were in 2010.
  • RobMilesRobMiles Posts: 1,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tiger2000 wrote: »
    Utter rubbish, virtually every single economy in Europe and the US are recovering, even basket cases like Spain, Ireland and Cyprus, what makes you think it would have been any different under Labour?, if anything the recovery would have been quicker as they would not have cut so deeply as the Cons have for mainly dogmatic reasons.

    Because Labour have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted with the economy. Labour are just as dogmatic as the Tories and would be borrowing and spending more.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    Because Labour have proven time and time again that they are not to be trusted with the economy.

    Because the economy always blooms and does brilliantly under the Tories doesn't it? Let's totally ignore the majority of recessions over the last 50 years have been under a Tory government.
  • SoppyfanSoppyfan Posts: 29,911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Just 8 months till the dissolution of parliament.

    And possibly 8 months till we find out if the turnout will be an all time low or not.
  • RobMilesRobMiles Posts: 1,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James2001 wrote: »
    Because the economy always blooms and does brilliantly under the Tories doesn't it? Let's totally ignore the majority of recessions over the last 50 years have been under a Tory government.

    Labour were responsible for the worst Recession since the Second World War. I know they blame the 'world financial crisis' for everything, but I don't buy it.
  • DaccoDacco Posts: 3,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    Labour were responsible for the worst Recession since the Second World War. I know they blame the 'world financial crisis' for everything, but I don't buy it.

    Blimey Rob, say it how it is mate....I can hear the rumbling, yes it's the lefties....
This discussion has been closed.