Lib Dems fall behind UKIP
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
eharding said:
don4l said:
A real leader would tell the electorate why they needed to tighten their belts. A real leader would cut expenditure when we are bankrupt.
Why do I get the impression that don4l is pining for the sort of leader who would also introduce a natty line of smart black uniforms for the party faithful, funny special salutes, and encourage robust direct action against bits of society he doesn't like?Before, obviously, annexing the Sudetanland to improve public morale.
I admire all the principles that people exhibit on this thread and on PH in terms of their political beliefs but the sheer fact is that in 2010, 90% of voters voted for centrist parties - it's what the vast majority of people want.
Oh and actually can anyone show me numbers for Thatcher cutting spending in nominal terms?
The current coalition has cut spending significantly in some areas. They haven't in health or overseas development, but we knew they wouldn't before the election.
Spending as a %age of GDP is falling and spending in real terms is also falling.
dandarez said:
mattnunn said:
scenario8 said:
mattnunn said:
"Mejia stick knife in" in other words.
All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
for clarity (cos I don't understand what you mean) what facts are you referring to?All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
'Don't know she's born'?
DO YOU?!
This 'old fart' a good local man recently died.
This was him when he was probably 15 years younger than you moaners.
Remember, you might have been bloody goosestepping under a swastika if it hadn't been for the 'old bint's' 'old farts'.
And also remember, one day - 'course only if you're lucky enough to reach that age - you too, will be an 'old fart'!
martin84 said:
I agree with earlier comments about Osborne being the major weak link in the Government. You may think the three changes he's made in this budget are correct but the problem is they won't raise the Government any money which begs the question why he's investing serious political capital which he cannot afford to lose into these measures. The 'Granny Tax' especially has drawn plenty of criticism even from the Pro-Tory segment of the media and add that to the 'Pasty Tax', 'Charity Tax' and failure to act on the price of fuel and the Chancellor does look pretty inept at the moment. Taking unpopular decisions are at least worth it if it'll raise the Government money and go someway to achieving their aim of deficit reduction but these measures won't do that. All these measures will do is make it harder for the Tories to win in 2015.
Totally agree. Osborbe is losing the Tories the next election because he is tinkering - just like Brown did.martin84 said:
I also agree with Derek Smith when he says nobody won the last election which is true, Tory supporters can point to the fact the Conservative's are in Government holding most senior Ministerial posts but the fact is they didn't win and they don't have a majority. They struggle to get bills passed through the house as a result of no majority and they need the Lib Dems. Considering the unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the sheer amount of ammo which Cameron had to attack the Labour Government's 13 year record, his failure to win a majority speaks volumes of his lack of leadership and credibility. In fact the Tories failure to win against the most unpopular Labour party for 30 years should be a major source of embarassment for the blue ties.
I think you also have to add the Labour gerrymandered constituency boundaries and their army of paid voters (the underclass and the non-job public sector) to the list of causes for Cameron not winning an outright majority.oyster said:
Which would make them completely unelectable.
I admire all the principles that people exhibit on this thread and on PH in terms of their political beliefs but the sheer fact is that in 2010, 90% of voters voted for centrist parties - it's what the vast majority of people want.
Not including those who feel so disenfranchised (or just lazy) that they didn't bother voting... I admire all the principles that people exhibit on this thread and on PH in terms of their political beliefs but the sheer fact is that in 2010, 90% of voters voted for centrist parties - it's what the vast majority of people want.
35% of all voters didn't bother. Of the remaining 65%, 12% voted "other", so ~8% of all possible voters, leaving 57% of all possible voters voting for one of the big 3 parties. Brings down the "vast" majority to "small" majority.
oyster said:
The current coalition has cut spending significantly in some areas. They haven't in health or overseas development, but we knew they wouldn't before the election.
Spending as a %age of GDP is falling and spending in real terms is also falling.
According to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_c... spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP.Spending as a %age of GDP is falling and spending in real terms is also falling.
It was higher during World War 2, and again in the early 1970's.
Don
--
oyster said:
Osborbe is losing the Tories the next election because he is tinkering - just like Brown did.
To a degree yes, but it's both better and worse than that.The Boy George, CMD & Co are on the path to losing the next general election because they are clueless and have been taking the wrong advice from the wrong people, including each other.
They are also on the path to losing the next election because they have to accommodate the absolute muppetry of libdims to a degree in order to keep Coalition relations getting any worse than toxic. Ludicrous libtard policies are at the heart of almost all snafus from the Coalition. Not all but nearly.
Add to that, a week is a long time in politics and with the Conservative element of the Coalition working flat out to engineer a mini recovery and some more tax giveaways just in time for 2015, it's by no means lost.
Clearly from the opinion polls, floating voters are as clueless as our political leaders...CMD gets tough with the EU and the Conservatives sail ahead in the polls, then the media repeats soundbite criticism a few times and Labour sail ahead. Not that various foolish budgetary actions and subsequent u-turns weren't culpable, but then politicians are muppets and it's only to be expected.
The fact that there are people who would even remotely consider voting for Wallace Gump and his incompetent liarbore mates is a clear signal to CMD that another 1997 is on the cards unless he gets his finger out, ignores libdim idiocy, develops a backbone and grows some cojones.
don4l said:
oyster said:
The current coalition has cut spending significantly in some areas. They haven't in health or overseas development, but we knew they wouldn't before the election.
Spending as a %age of GDP is falling and spending in real terms is also falling.
According to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_c... spending is increasing as a percentage of GDP.Spending as a %age of GDP is falling and spending in real terms is also falling.
It was higher during World War 2, and again in the early 1970's.
Don
--
Look at this one for 2010-2015:
Forecast spending as a percentage of GDP 2010-15
oyster said:
You were using figures up to 2010, before this government was even in power.
Look at this one for 2010-2015:
Forecast spending as a percentage of GDP 2010-15
That forecast is saying that the figure will be 44% this year and 42.5% next year. These are still very high, and they are only forecasts.Look at this one for 2010-2015:
Forecast spending as a percentage of GDP 2010-15
BTW, this government was in power for most of 2010. They had their emergency budget in June of that year.
Don
--
turbobloke said:
Add to that, a week is a long time in politics and with the Conservative element of the Coalition working flat out to engineer a mini recovery and some more tax giveaways just in time for 2015, it's by no means lost.
Tax "giveaways" will not benefit most voters as the necessary cuts in public spending will outweigh any benefit.Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Add to that, a week is a long time in politics and with the Conservative element of the Coalition working flat out to engineer a mini recovery and some more tax giveaways just in time for 2015, it's by no means lost.
Tax "giveaways" will not benefit most voters as the necessary cuts in public spending will outweigh any benefit.Short-termism isn't something I would advocate but it's all that politicians focus on as their goal is re-election and anything beyond that isn't even a bonus it's incidental or accidental.
dandarez said:
mattnunn said:
scenario8 said:
mattnunn said:
"Mejia stick knife in" in other words.
All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
for clarity (cos I don't understand what you mean) what facts are you referring to?All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
'Don't know she's born'?
DO YOU?!
This 'old fart' a good local man recently died.
This was him when he was probably 15 years younger than you moaners.
Remember, you might have been bloody goosestepping under a swastika if it hadn't been for the 'old bint's' 'old farts'.
And also remember, one day - 'course only if you're lucky enough to reach that age - you too, will be an 'old fart'!
ninja-lewis said:
Somehow I doubt Matt was thinking of the small proportion of over 85 year olds who fought in the war. It's the generation after that - who didn't fight in the war yet reaped many of the benefits of our post-war society - who pose an issue. I note Mr Jones is survived by three children (aged 70, 68 and 59) but only three grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.
Wondered how long it would be before somebody blamed all of us baby boomers. You need to look back and see just how fine and dandy it was post 1945 before making judgements.oyster said:
I think you also have to add the Labour gerrymandered constituency boundaries and their army of paid voters (the underclass and the non-job public sector) to the list of causes for Cameron not winning an outright majority.
I'm not sure I buy that, its a popular theory on PH but with very little substance to back it up. Essentially you're saying Cameron didn't win an outright majority because millions of UK citizens didn't vote for his party which is sort of how a democracy works. Cameron's failure is down to the fact he has failed to convince enough people that he is any better than Gordon Brown and Labour. Nobody won the last election, the results smacked of a public saying 'we dont really like any of you.'You mention 'the underclass' as though the Uzi wielding council estate drug addicts who fascinate the Daily Mail actually vote. I'd be surprised if 'the underclass' of which you speak could even read a ballot paper let alone bother to vote. You're a bit more accurate with the public sector I suppose but is that surprising? The Tories are not friends of the public sector, this is well documented and the NHS is the UK's biggest employer with over 1.4 million people. People are afraid for their jobs at the moment and most people employed in the public sector observing the balance sheet in 2010 would've read Labour - keep job, Conservatives - redundancy.
Its almost amazing people don't vote for becoming unemployed
Einion Yrth said:
They don't have to, they just have to put an 'X' next to the picture of a rose, even they can manage that.
Yeah but you talk as though they bother. 35% of adults didn't bother voting at all in 2010 and the under 25's have been political apathetic for many years now which will only be made worse now due to the Liberal 'the student party' Democrats selling out on their principles. My parents have worked all their lives yet are staunch Labour voters. How do you explain that if the voting patterns are as simplistic as you suggest?
ninja-lewis said:
dandarez said:
mattnunn said:
scenario8 said:
mattnunn said:
"Mejia stick knife in" in other words.
All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
for clarity (cos I don't understand what you mean) what facts are you referring to?All 3 taxes are correct, imo, and I'm not a traditional tory voting type, but don't let the facts stand between you and buying a copy of the daily mail.
'Don't know she's born'?
DO YOU?!
This 'old fart' a good local man recently died.
This was him when he was probably 15 years younger than you moaners.
Remember, you might have been bloody goosestepping under a swastika if it hadn't been for the 'old bint's' 'old farts'.
And also remember, one day - 'course only if you're lucky enough to reach that age - you too, will be an 'old fart'!
I'm not blaming the baby boomers for being born, it's they who have pushed this burden onto my generation, I don't know why they won't accept responsibility.
I know I'd rather be contributing to the German governmental system right now, if that's not too outrageous, infact suppose I was german, I'd be earning more money, have a nicer car, nicer house and probably be able to afford to go skiing... so you know, thanks for that.
martin84 said:
Einion Yrth said:
They don't have to, they just have to put an 'X' next to the picture of a rose, even they can manage that.
Yeah but you talk as though they bother. 35% of adults didn't bother voting at all in 2010 and the under 25's have been political apathetic for many years now which will only be made worse now due to the Liberal 'the student party' Democrats selling out on their principles. My parents have worked all their lives yet are staunch Labour voters. How do you explain that if the voting patterns are as simplistic as you suggest?
They need to explain it, not others.
Derek Smith said:
You accept that they, like everyone else, lost?
The problem with UKIP is that it will cost the tories their coalition, all else being equal. The libdem defectors will go to labour and the tory unfaithful will jump ship to UKIP.
The hope for the tories is that another paty takes the black/muslim vote but that will probably be labour now that they've had their wake-up call. Further galloway is famous. Who's heard of the other participants?
Some might feel the rise of UKIP is not good news for the tories.
Derek whether we think they lost or not isn't relevant here. From their point of view they entered an election and walked away the dominant coalition partner and with all the significant ministerial positions. At the end of the day they turn up to parliament like election winners and get paid ministerial salaries like election winners. The problem with UKIP is that it will cost the tories their coalition, all else being equal. The libdem defectors will go to labour and the tory unfaithful will jump ship to UKIP.
The hope for the tories is that another paty takes the black/muslim vote but that will probably be labour now that they've had their wake-up call. Further galloway is famous. Who's heard of the other participants?
Some might feel the rise of UKIP is not good news for the tories.
‘The problem with UKIP is that it will cost the tories their coalition’ is exactly why I will be voting UKIP in the next election. The Tories need to lose in terms of being kicked out of power rather than in the meaningless not-winning semantic sense debated on CIF.
Cameron was at his most popular when he 'vetoed' the so-called EU treaty. Although this was of course a load of rubbish, it gives an indication of the direction the Tories need to go in to become electable. If they fail to address issues like Europe and spending and behave like a Labour government, let’s just have a Labour government.
UKIP votes will soon translate back into Conservative votes should sensible Conservative policies be enacted.
I have no doubt that as we have seen with Ken, Labour will play to the Muslim votes and get them.
turbobloke said:
There are vast tracts of northern enclaves with that voting pattern.
They need to explain it, not others.
And there are vast tracts where the registered voters can't be asked for an explanation on the simple premise that they don't exist. The old meme of "if you want a rigger for a neighbour vote Labour!"They need to explain it, not others.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff