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

lightSwitch_3

treliac wrote: »

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.

Very good point and look where that mindset got us in the end. He is also a megalomaniac. They tried to play the capitalist game, thinking, they can use profits from a capitalist system to drive their social projects, stupidly forgetting that it is a zero sum game and the winners will be a few American individuals ie in true capitalist fashion.

Instead of thinking lets make British industry the best in the world, they were thinking lets help individuals flip houses. They took the ingenuity of the British public and turned it into who can make the most profit on a house. How absurd.

Have no illusions the Tories would have played this same game

lostinrates

sjaypink wrote: »

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

I shan't tell you about lib dim shenanigans locally then?

Vote on what you believe, IMO. I have no option for what I would vote this time locally, so will do the nearest I can...I think.

treliac

peterg1965 wrote: »

I think we need a General Election to be called, this 'phoney war' is not separating the men from the boys. Once an election is called the polls will reflect a more accurate picture - ie. a bigger Tory lead.

You're quite right. Why is Labour starting their campaign, but they have not called the election? I can only think they have some tactical advantage in mind. :mad:

Graham_Devon

Personally I don't think there is much between labour and tory at the moment, on the economy at least.

Both will have to cut drastically after the election, whichever is in power.

Labour cannot pretend that they can continue just pumping money we do not have into the economy. Just look at this month as an example. Their estimate was £6bn out, was supposed to pay off £2bn, not borrow another £4bn.

So labour will HAVE to cut. Already some of the policies they put in place are coming to an end. Stamp duty, VAT. I would say car scrappage, but that just keeps getting extended.

Labour has already started cutting behind the scenes anyway, 30% of a certain critical part of the NHS budget gone. Universities having their funding cut etc.

I don't think that there is any point believeing that labour can continue "creating" mystical growth in the economy while breaking records for the amount borrowed.

It's going to be painful. But we HAVE to cut. Labour, Liib Dems, Tory, all of them will have no choice.

Wookster

treliac wrote: »

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?

Exactly. Both parties are trying to portray public spending as black and white when it simply is not. On one hand Brown simply denies the need to cut spending, as if the current level of spending is sustainable, and lets be honest, his record on prudence isn't the best,and he has made doing business in the UK much much more complicated and more a legislative/ compliance nightmare.

Cameron seems to do ok, though his weak link is Osborne. He would do much better with Ken Clarke. Also one wanders if the Tories really are the party of the people when they seem so out of touch with what real problems in the economy are.

What a predicament we're in, forcing to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Lance

More 'experts' conducting polls in the right location speaking with the right people. I spoke with 10 people and 6 voted Labour so Labour would have 60% of the vote if there was a general election today.

Radiantsoul

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's going to be painful. But we HAVE to cut. Labour, Liib Dems, Tory, all of them will have no choice.

I think this is true, I also think that the gap between the parties is going to be small. Equally the Conservatives will not be able to cut as much as some of their supporters believe.

tartanterra

The prospect of a hung parliament is truly frightening.:eek:

Hard and painful decisions need to be made after the next general election, to try and drag this country out of the c**p.:(

A hung parliament just means lots of compromise, with any major decision being watered down to appease coalition parties and get them "onside".
The problem with compromise, is that NO ONE actually gets what they want.:(

Personally, I have very little time for any of the major parties, but a hung parliament is never going to get this country moving forward again.
It's a recipe for disaster.:(

lostinrates

tartanterra wrote: »

A hung parliament just means lots of compromise, with any major decision being watered down to appease coalition parties and get them "onside".
The problem with compromise, is that NO ONE actually gets what they want.:(

And the compromise that pleases few fully, takes longer to arrive at, and costs more.



Is it just me who is often disappointed by the small-ness of the ''big'' changes people propose? Change to me sounds like some thing different, a new game....not like.....making a move on a Rubik's cube..............

Kohoutek

If we didn't have the fraudulent system where Scottish and Welsh voters vote for themselves individually and the UK, then the Tories would win by a country mile. I remember hearing after the 2005 election that if only English votes were counted, Howard would have won.