Tory lead slipping away, Heseltine predicts hung parliament...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The party grandee stunned activists by claiming that history was against Mr Cameron’s hopes of securing an overall majority.

Instead, the former deputy prime minister said he would "put money" on a hung parliament, with the Tories the largest party. Mr Cameron would then be forced to call a second election later this year to seek a proper mandate to govern.


His comments, at a meeting of party members in west London, reflect a growing anxiety among the leadership about the size of the task they still face to secure outright victory.

The results of a YouGov poll published today show the Tory lead narrowing to six points. A separate pollshows Mr Cameron’s personal lead over Gordon Brown has been halved in the past six months.

The Tories are paying dearly for the "Austerity" fiasco.... The backpedalling with "no swingeing cuts" may well have been too little too late.

A 6% lead is no use to them at all. It means a hung parliament and coalition or minority government.

The country wants and needs, growth, recovery, a future for the aspirational, and will vote for whomever promises to deliver it. Pushing an austerity message to a country sick of recession was an act of absurd stupidity.

The tories are better placed to deliver in the long term, but not if they can't get their foot out of their mouth and win some votes.

sjaypink

I'm glad this has been posted, because I wanted to ask what is probably a very stupid question.....

If we are to assume that big cuts in the short term will stifle recovery, or even cause a double dip, & believe that Gordons tricks have, and will continue to, aid growth, does than mean bulls short be avoiding a blue vote in May?

Any bulls want to let on what they're thinking for the General Election?

I will not be voting tory. I expect I will go Lib Dem, and TBH I am hoping for a hung parliment

phlash

The last thing you want is a hung parliament!

Political fighting instead of decisive action - absolutely catastrophic when trying to stimulate ecomonic recovery or should I say steer the second dip.

peterg1965

A hung Parliament will be a disaster, that would mean a 2nd General Election this year....... I think it will be a small Tory majority, when the chips are down at the election only a fool would vote Nu Lab.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

sjaypink wrote: »

Any bulls want to let on what they're thinking for the General Election?

I'm becoming more conflicted.

I would never vote Labour, but not only because of economic policies. I intensely dislike their authoritarian social agenda. The nanny state, surveillance society, anti free speech, etc.

I general terms, I believe in low tax, low beurocracy, small government and private sector friendly policies.

But given where we are, it will take a very slow and long transition to successfully transition us economically from a public sector heavy economy to a small state and private secotr friendly economy. Sending us crashing back into another recession, as the Tories austerity agenda would do, is not in the best interests of anyone.

A hung parliament may be the best of some bad options, unless the Tories can firmly get on track with growth rather than cuts as the preferred solution.

treliac

sjaypink wrote: »

If we are to assume that big cuts in the short term will stifle recovery, or even cause a double dip, & believe that Gordons tricks have, and will continue to, aid growth, does than mean bulls short be avoiding a blue vote in May?

But we can't keep borrowing either. We've already borrowed £200bn and we're still at rock bottom.

Pull the rug out a little and repossessions will soar. But are these people who could never afford to have bought in the first place but, thanks to unregulated banks, were able to get themselves into situations that were not viable? If so, how is it feasible to continue to protect them from reality? And if we don't face reality, how can the economy ever recover?

A delicate balancing act sure, but we can't carry on like this for ever. Isn't a rebalancing needed in order to give those 20 somethings, we've been talking about, a future?

peterg1965

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm becoming more conflicted.

I would never vote Labour, but not only because of economic policies. I intensely dislike their authoritarian social agenda. The nanny state, surveillance society, anti free speech, etc.

I general terms, I believe in low tax, low burocracy, small government and private sector friendly policies.

But given where we are, it will take a very slow and long transition to successfully transition us economically from a public sector heavy economy to a small state and private secotr friendly economy. Sending us crashing back into another recession, as the Tories austerity agenda would do, is not in the best interests of anyone.

A hung parliament may be the best of some bad options, unless the Tories can firmly get on track with growth rather than cuts as the preferred solution.

Good post Hamish and you make some good points. I am currently reading 'The Plan' by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, it advocates the smaller state and the delegation of accountability to the lowest acceptable level, this can only be achieved with an outright Tory majority, anything else, including a hung Parliament, would simply maintain the status quo.

sjaypink

treliac wrote: »

But we can't keep borrowing either. We've already borrowed £200bn and we're still at rock bottom.

Pull the rug out a little and repossessions will soar. But are these people who could never afford to have bought in the first place but, thanks to unregulated banks, were able to get themselves into situations that were not viable? If so, how is it feasible to continue to protect them from reality? And if we don't face reality, how can the economy ever recover?

A delicate balancing act sure, but we can't carry on like this for ever. Isn't a rebalancing needed in order to give those 20 somethings, we've been talking about, a future?

Its an interesting one this time round. I would never, under 'normal' (?) circumstances consider voting tory. However, I think their policies, or, the consequences of their policies, might be the best choice for me personally.

I'm just unsure as to whether I'm comfortable voting purely for my very personal interests rather than also taking into account effects on my community, town .... the rest of the country?

I think I will go lib dem. There is too much potential guilt for both Tory & Labour votes, I feel. :cool:

As for hung parliment, I say I hope for that outcome because I think it would be a major wake up call for the selfish b*stards, remind them who they hould be working for. I am aware though that I may be hoping too much of them in that assumption

lightSwitch_3

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm becoming more conflicted.

I would never vote Labour, but not only because of economic policies. I intensely dislike their authoritarian social agenda. The nanny state, surveillance society, anti free speech, etc.

I general terms, I believe in low tax, low beurocracy, small government and private sector friendly policies.

But given where we are, it will take a very slow and long transition to successfully transition us economically from a public sector heavy economy to a small state and private secotr friendly economy. Sending us crashing back into another recession, as the Tories austerity agenda would do, is not in the best interests of anyone.

A hung parliament may be the best of some bad options, unless the Tories can firmly get on track with growth rather than cuts as the preferred solution.

Why would you not vote for a social agenda. What is wrong with people coming together in a society that takes care of the common good, at least where it counts ie health, education, public transport.
It just makes for a healthier more content society and what is good for society is good for the family and the individual. Avarice is the worst possible affliction for society.

Kohoutek

The problem with our system, like America, is that our politics are so partisan and adversarial, even in the way the House of Common is built, that the chances of cross-party deficit reduction plans working are about as likely as Tiger Woods and his wife seeming their marriage through until their diamond wedding anniversary.

I think a hung Parliament would be pretty catastrophic for the pound and what's left of international confidence in Britain. Cameron needs to pull the finger out - Gordon Brown is about as popular as a mouth ulcer to most people, winning this election shouldn't be that hard, just stop flip-flopping!

treliac

lightSwitch wrote: »

Why would you not vote for a social agenda. What is wrong with people coming together in a society that takes care of the common good, at least where it counts ie health, education, public transport.
It just makes for a healthier more content society and what is good for society is good for the family and the individual. Avarice is the worst possible affliction for society.

True, and Labour politicians seem to have been shown up to be the greediest of them all. I'm thinking expenses.... and look at Blair raking it in as fast as he possibly can.