Tory lead down to 2 points, or is it.

adr0ck

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Your list is anecdotal and is assuming they are against one thing by not being for something else.

if tory's campaign against affordable housing in my locality i assume that they are against against affordable housing

whats anecdotal about that?

Charterhouse

ninky wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

it's been said that people aren't supporting the tories because they don't know what they stand for. well i know very well what they stand for and that is why i'm not voting for them.

it's also been said that david davis should have won the tory leadership battle or been given shadow chancellor. well he didn't because the tory party is a party that would rather support smug smirking public school types than someone who is actually more competent. what other reason is there for giddy osborne to be shadow chancellor?

the tories are a party of privilege and for privilege.

i have had wobbles over labour. i've considered lib dem and greens. but when i look at my life and what i have in it then i thank labour for that.

i'm happy to live in a country with a minimum wage, civil partnerships, an open attitude to europe.

and i actually quite like gordon brown and 'eyebrows' darling. and i think any disagreement between them is a healthy and robust one. far better than chummies cameron and osborne patting each other on the back and devising more ways to help out their ex-bullingdon mates.

Err.

David Davis is incompetent.

And as for "I'm happy to live in a country with a minimum wage, civil partnerships and an open attitude to Europe", I don't think you will find that Cameron is opposed to any of those.

I agree with a few of the posters above though in that I do not think it is clear what the Tories stand for. Half the problem of that is that the last 12 years have been run under some of MTV generation "have what you want and have it NOW" policy. Why would anyone vote for a party that says you can only have X or Y, when the party of the last 12 years has mortgaged our futures to try and give us both?

Charterhouse

adr0ck wrote: »

if tory's campaign against affordable housing in my locality i assume that they are against against affordable housing

whats anecdotal about that?

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of anecdotal. What he is saying is that one incident of something does not make a policy, it makes an anecdote.

Spartacus_Mills

adr0ck wrote: »

if tory's campaign against affordable housing in my locality i assume that they are against against affordable housing

whats anecdotal about that?

Well it is you just coming on here and telling us those nasty local Tories are against affordable housing.

No substance, no background, no facts to back it up.

If I came here and said my local Labour Council want to allow !!!!!philes to take children for gym lessons, therefore Labour are bad would you then believe me or would you think I was just sh t stirring and making it up.

(I hasten to add the story I have written is for illustration only and not true)

ninky_2

Charterhouse wrote: »

And as for "I'm happy to live in a country with a minimum wage, civil partnerships and an open attitude to Europe", I don't think you will find that Cameron is opposed to any of those.

camerons tory chums have consistently tried to undermine the minimum wage by attempting to allow employers to 'opt out'.

clause 28 demonstrated the conservative party attitude to homosexuality. can't imagine cameron ever campaigned against it.

europe - the tories want a full opt out from the charter of fundamental rights, to "ensure only british authorities can instigate criminal investigations" and national control over social and employment legislation.

europe has provided a fantastic resource to challenge outdated attitudes in the british courts (to gay rights for example) as well as bringing in working time legislation and other things that offer employee protection. the tories would try to put a stop to all that.

Rochdale_Pioneers

whathavewedone wrote: »

Oh and Rochdale: when all the polls were showing Labour to be 17-20 points behind the Conservatives I distinctly remember you saying things like, yeah but Ipsos Mori are rubbish because they weight on the basis of certainty to vote etc etc etc. So pot kettle!

Hardly. there are still a variety of different pollsters out there using different methods. Mori as you paraphrase me saying do indeed magnify swings - they had a couple of outlier polls one after another earlier this year (6 then 17 lead). ComRes don't get dubbed Comedy Result for nothing. And Angus Reid are either wrong or everyone else is wrong.

So don't take any single poll at face value. The only thing that matters is the trend. There has been a lot amusing spin from Tories (and anti-Brown frothers which amounts to the same) reacting to the last few polls, here, on PB and elsewhere. Make whatever comment you like about YouGov or indeed anyone else and you still can't get away from the trend across all polls which has been away from the tories and towards Labour.

For YouGov to be part of a Labour spin campaign is hilarious. YouGov, hired at great expense by News International to provide daily polling rto back up their "Cameron Wins!" agenda, have actually spun their methods to rig the results for labour. And not only that, NI haven't noticed and even now continue to spend £11k a poll every day to buy rigged numbers!

Is that the alternative scenario to the reality which is that the Tory lead has tanked? This is the problem with blinding yourself with hatred of Brown. Anything that disagrees with the narrative has to be eliminated because the narrative - and you - cannot be wrong.

Do I think the actual lead is 2%? No, because its one poll. But the one before that was 5, then a flood of 6s. We've seen single digit leads now from everyone barring !!!! - even Harris came back into play and put the lead at 9%. The lead IS in single digits and it IS shrinking rapidly. So froth all you like, it doesn't change reality.

ninky_2

oh david cameron and gay rights.... he voted to keep section 28 as recently as 2003.

of course he's had to apologise in an attempt to keep votes.

puke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/02/david-cameron-gay-pride-apology

Charterhouse

ninky wrote: »

camerons tory chums have consistently tried to undermine the minimum wage by attempting to allow employers to 'opt out'.

clause 28 demonstrated the conservative party attitude to homosexuality. can't imagine cameron ever campaigned against it.

europe - the tories want a full opt out from the charter of fundamental rights, to "ensure only british authorities can instigate criminal investigations" and national control over social and employment legislation.

europe has provided a fantastic resource to challenge outdated attitudes in the british courts (to gay rights for example) as well as bringing in working time legislation and other things that offer employee protection. the tories would try to put a stop to all that.

I think that you will find that most of those things are things that the Tories have to make appearances to support/oppose to retain what was historically known as their "core" support. Fortunately that is changing and I think that as the "core" Tory vote dies of old age you will see a more compassionate Tory party that is fiscally conservative (small "c") but socially more liberal. I certainly hope so.

I do not believe that the current Tory leadership, at their relatively young ages and occupying a relatively unsheltered place in society is in anyway "opposed" to homosexuality nor would I want them to.

I don't believe the Tories want to join Europe (thank god given what a colossal rolling clusterf*ck it has turned out to be) but I also do not believe they are opposed to a close relationship with Europe. Your objection seems to be to them attempting to take control over British Sovereignty, something that I am very surprised anyone would try to oppose.

Finally on the minimum wage if I recall correctly their objection is to it being set too high because it can provide a barrier to employment if it is too high. I do not believe they are opposed to the concept any longer.

MrsBartolozzi

greytroot wrote: »

Lies Lies Lies, never even met anyone who has taken part in one of these so called polls.

Hello:wave:, pleased to meet you then!

I regularly take part in Yougov polls, many of them are about how I might vote in an election, and I'm pretty sure I took part in the one quoted here. I would imagine that many other forum regulars did too, given the number of people who say they use Yougov over on up your income board .

ninky_2

Charterhouse wrote: »

I do not believe that the current Tory leadership, at their relatively young ages and occupying a relatively unsheltered place in society is in anyway "opposed" to homosexuality nor would I want them to.

cameron voted against civil partnerships (and later tried to lie by claiming he abstained even though hansard shows otherwise). he is also opposed to IVF treatment for women in same sex partnerships (including civil partnerships).

http://www.labourlist.org/how-truthful-is-david-cameron-on-his-gay-rights-voting-record

i would like to hand more power to europe because it would protect us from when these sorts of reactionary muppets take over.