3 Polls tonight show Conservatives 17 points ahead

Graham_Devon

toby3000 wrote: »

Well we had a welfare state in the 1980s

Nothing like we have now. I didn;t say I would cut it alltogether.

This is the problem when talking about the welfare state. It often gets taken out of context and you are labelled the bad guy. Re-read what I said I would cut.

toby3000

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nothing like we have now. I didn;t say I would cut it alltogether.

This is the problem when talking about the welfare state. It often gets taken out of context and you are labelled the bad guy. Re-read what I said I would cut.

Sorry, I did take it what you meant as 'lets go back to the glory days of pre-1914'

1echidna

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nothing like we have now. I didn;t say I would cut it alltogether.

This is the problem when talking about the welfare state. It often gets taken out of context and you are labelled the bad guy. Re-read what I said I would cut.

The world has changed a lot since the 1980s. No point in harking back to then even though it was not that long ago. We have to hope there are new solutions to what is a different situation now.

Rochdale_Pioneers

The polls are truly fascinating at the moment. We had a flurry of 9 point gap ones in the conference season. Then several polls put it at 17-19. Then we had three at 10-12, now three at 17.

They can't all be right. Either people are changing their minds day to day, or several of them are plain wrong. But which ones? The three showing us heading for a hung parliament? Or the three a few days later showing us heading for a majority north of 90?

However you cut it, the polls are swinging. Doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see them swing back to a hung parliament over the next 5 months - or to landslide territory. Anyone pointing to any poll - or even cluster of polls - saying "there, thats that then" is a fool.

torontoboy45

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The polls are truly fascinating at the moment. We had a flurry of 9 point gap ones in the conference season. Then several polls put it at 17-19. Then we had three at 10-12, now three at 17.

They can't all be right. Either people are changing their minds day to day, or several of them are plain wrong. But which ones? The three showing us heading for a hung parliament? Or the three a few days later showing us heading for a majority north of 90?

However you cut it, the polls are swinging. Doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see them swing back to a hung parliament over the next 5 months - or to landslide territory. Anyone pointing to any poll - or even cluster of polls - saying "there, thats that then" is a fool.

good call.

the media seems to have made its mind up about who's going to win the next GE ( with the sun trying to make everyone else's mind up ).

I'll leave the psephologists to explain the volatility of recent polling but my guess is the electorate find none of the mainstream parties appetizing.

and given the absence of leadership, vision and competence, together with the expenses scandal can anyone blame the electorate for not giving 2 hoots and changing minds one day to the next?

whathavewedone

Prior to the conference season the polls were pretty stable though showing the tories at around 40 and labour in the mid to late twenties. The tories have been consistently ahead since 2008.

I agree that the daily polls during the conference season should not have been taken seriously and also that polls in the immediate aftermath of the conference are less reliable. The daily polls were extremely volatile and probably shouldn't have been treated as anything other than a bit of fun.

However, these polls were not carried out during or in the immediate aftermath of the conferences. 17 points ahead does seem a little high to me, however the chances of all 3 polls being a rogue is miniscule. There is always a margin of error though and perhaps 14/15% is more realistic. Equally the polls that showed the tories only 10/11 points ahead might have understated their position by a couple of points.

Whichever way you spin it, 10 points behind is a rubbish place to be 6 months before a general election. All this excitement at getting to 30 in a few polls - the tories never went below the 30s in the polls prior to the 1997 election. At this stage Blair was on 43% and that was roughly what he got when he won his landslide. Personally I don't see the tories going above that before the GE but equally I don't see Labour doing much better than 30 or 31%.

Of course things could change. The tories could implode over Lisbon, the economy might improve drastically before May, Cameron and Osborne could be photographed eating babies etc.

However, I accept that this is probably a bit of a gloaty thread. Just thought it was worth posting after Laura's "Labour narrows the gap" thread a week or so ago.

Rochdale_Pioneers

The polls were very clear - Labour did narrow the gap. Now the gap is wide again. next week it might narrow again - it shows that there are a large pool of undecided who could do almost anything. As I understand it several of the +17% polls show only those committed to voting - for me that makes them effectively useless given the scale of don't knows out there.

Were I a Tory I'd be feeling nervous. Yes you're usually at or just above 40%. Yes the government are led by a mouse. But you haven't brought sufficient people on board to be guaranteed of anything. 5 months is still an eternity in politics - anything could happen. In all likelyhood I think the Tories wil win with a majority of about 50, but a hung parliament or a majority in 3 figures isn't unrealistic.

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally, for me it would be:

- VAT up to 20%.
- Cut stupid wastage in the NHS and MOD etc
- Cut ID cards
- Freeze public sector pay
- Cut the still ongoing, investment into road pricing.
- Stop the war
- Stop giving loads of people 10 quid a week in tax credits, it's a complete waste
- Stop the £250 bond thing for kids, we did fine without it
- Cut all the extra benefits that seem to crop up
- Pool all benefits into one service and one payment service
- Stop ESA....it really does start teaching people how to get something for nothing
- Make EVERYONE pay coucil tax, even if it's banded for those who are means tested apart from those truly disabled and truly unable to do any type of work.
- Stop sending child benefit overseas
- Do not allow single mothers to keep all their CSA payments and all their benefits, which is about to, or just has, come in, costing us all millions extra.

I could go on.

Doubt the conservatives will do half of that, but even 2 or 3 things could stop massive wastage simply to win votes and give an illusion of "you will be worse off if another party takes over"....i..e, creating reliance.

Doing all the above would write great headlines, but would acheive little or be counter productive. For example:

Cut stupid wastage in the NHS and MOD etc

How?

Stop the war

Drastically oversimplified response.

Cut all the extra benefits that seem to crop up

Like which ones?

Pool all benefits into one service and one payment service

IMO the DWP will eventually become part of HMRC (child benefit already is, & there are of course tax credits). However, culturally this is a big shock, both to HMRC (who are only experienced in collecting money, not paying out & therefore have made an almighty mess of what they've dealt with so far) and also to service users. A gradual approach is more likely to ensure a smooth transition & allow the service & its users to get used to the idea.

Stop ESA....it really does start teaching people how to get something for nothing

You clearly have no understanding or comprehension about ESA or other benefits do you? The whole purpose of ESA is to replace Incapacity benefit (ICB). People claimed ICB when they were unfit for work on health grounds. Swarms of people have been shunted over to it especially in the 80's in order to argue that unemployment figures were low. The average ICB claim lasted 7 years (after which the claimant usually died, or went onto retirement pension). Number of times the ICB claimant had contact with the DWP in that time? None (after making the claim). They were just left (many to miraculously recover, & possibly work cash in hand). With ESA, even though you argue you're incapable of work, you have to work with the jobcentre regularly, to overcome your health issues with the ultimate aim to get you back into work. & believe me, with the training I've had on ESA, it is A LOT harder to get than ICB. IMO, ESA is a good thing, & I believe genuine ESA claimants agree. The ones who think it's a bad thing tend to have a very spurious claim for ICB IMO.

Make EVERYONE pay coucil tax, even if it's banded for those who are means tested apart from those truly disabled and truly unable to do any type of work.

This is absurd! A single person is made redundant, signs on, gets £64.30p/w JSA. How is a person in that position expected to keep on top of food, gas, electric, water, TV licence & other essential spending AND have enough to pay the £11+ council tax each week?

Do not allow single mothers to keep all their CSA payments and all their benefits, which is about to, or just has, come in, costing us all millions extra

Do you read the daily mail? This hasn't just come in. The rules for Income Support state that lone parents are obliged (as part of the conditions of entitlement to the benefit) to share details of the absent parent. The DWP then uses these details to trace the absent parent & collect maintenance from the absent parent & put it back into the DWP coffers to cover the Income Support the lone parent got.

Jeez. Like I say, great soundbites, but please, if you're going to comment on anything, please do so with at least a basic understanding of the subject matter...

whathavewedone

I don't disagree with you actually. I think the chances of the tories winning a landslide are about as slim as labour winning.

Regarding certainty to vote, I think you get a better picture that way than by asking people which way they lean, especially in the current climate. There may be a lot of people who would lean towards labour in normal circumstances who won't vote for them next year but don't know who else to vote for either.

Similarly I think that polls like Populus who allocate the don't knows to the party that they voted for last time are fundamentally flawed. I know a lot of people who voted labour last time who will not vote for them this time and probably won't vote at all.

Rochdale_Pioneers

whathavewedone wrote: »

Similarly I think that polls like Populus who allocate the don't knows to the party that they voted for last time are fundamentally flawed. I know a lot of people who voted labour last time who will not vote for them this time and probably won't vote at all.

And its those voters who are key to the election. If they stay at home then its further proof of how disengaged people have become from politics. The challenge to both Labour and the Tories is fear. The Tories have to be very careful with their golden age for austerity - I just don't buy that people will vote for large tax hikes and service cuts for them with no pain for the people who caused the mess. If Labour can make people afraid of the consequences of voting for change - as the "Labour tax bombshell" campaign did so well in 1992 - then they make come back out and vote.

It is those people waking up to the reality of what a Tory government will actually do for them which has prompted the wild swings. They may stay home. They may vote tactically. They may align one way or the other. This is why we simply do not know what will happen yet regardless of what the latest confusing polls say.