Final polls for GE15 and round up !!

First topic message reminder :

TNS -...............Con 33.................Lab .....32

Panelbase -.......SNP 48................Lab ......26 = wipeout !!

Opinion -..........Con 35.................Lab.......34

Yougov Wales...Lab 39..................Con 25..........Plaid 13 (Change the leader she's crap!!)

Comres .........Con 35..................Lab 30..........(Majority within the margin of error)

Yougov...........Con 34..................Lab 34...................

Ashcroft has Farage winning............

Ashcroft has Clegg safe.........

Ashcroft has IDS number 2 Esther Mcvey behind in her seat.............

Don't forget the big plus for the Tories is voter registration...................Like Republicans in the USA......They are more likely to register.....

Pollsters don't ask are you registered !!

dummy_half wrote:
More difficult for Labour, as their core constituency (unionised working class) has diminished over the last 30 years and they have to appeal more to aspirational educated professionals, but without alienating those on the old left in the north-east and Scotland. This election, a tightrope that they managed to miss on both sides, although not helped by the relative unpopularity of the two Eds. I think they really have te re-embrace the Blairite New Labour ideas, and find a charismatic leader who can sell those ideas to the left.

That's why Labour needs to be 'New Labour', as it's traditional basis will continue to diminish. Citizenship isn't what it is, so voter turnout among 'working classes' isn't there any more and less people are employed by, and loyal to, Trade Unions.

The big test is whether a proper leader can win the race (eg Chuka) that would actually have a chance in 2020 (like Dave M would have) or whether the TU scum will be allowed a double-vote again and continue to hold Labour back in the dark ages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167

Well it was the most obvious fix since Lewis fought Holyfield, but I somehow doubt the police will find anything substantive evidence to overturn the result.

Bitter bitter bitter....

Don't take that away from me, Farage losing was one of the few highlights of the last election for me!

Ed Balls losing for me

Rowley wrote:Don't take that away from me, Farage losing was one of the few highlights of the last election for me!

Al Muarry's reaction was brilliant!

TopHat24/7 wrote:Bitter bitter bitter....

Said Nigel Farage, at his favourite English pub.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

dummy_half wrote:
More difficult for Labour, as their core constituency (unionised working class) has diminished over the last 30 years and they have to appeal more to aspirational educated professionals, but without alienating those on the old left in the north-east and Scotland. This election, a tightrope that they managed to miss on both sides, although not helped by the relative unpopularity of the two Eds. I think they really have te re-embrace the Blairite New Labour ideas, and find a charismatic leader who can sell those ideas to the left.

That's why Labour needs to be 'New Labour', as it's traditional basis will continue to diminish.  Citizenship isn't what it is, so voter turnout among 'working classes' isn't there any more and less people are employed by, and loyal to, Trade Unions.

The big test is whether a proper leader can win the race (eg Chuka) that would actually have a chance in 2020 (like Dave M would have) or whether the TU scum will be allowed a double-vote again and continue to hold Labour back in the dark ages.

It's tricky................Certainly in England it needs to be more business friendly...

However............It will never be a government party whilst the SNP have 58 seats in Scotland..........It wasn't the Blairites that deserted the party there !!!!

GSC wrote:Ed Balls losing for me

Same here. Vince Cable losing was a close second.

dummy_half wrote:
As for the cuts and 'austerity' (which while much spoken of, we haven't really had compared with the likes of Ireland or the Med countries), these were a necessary evil for a number of reasons:
1 - The global downturn and Labour policy screwed the national finances
2 - The public sector (as often) had become bloated. Local authorities with non-jobs relating to diversity, environment etc, and with an over-abundance of middle manager-level staff (because of their annual increments and the lack of positions to be promoted into).

The point is that the cuts were not done to be vindictive, but because there was insufficient money to pay for all the things that were being done by national and local government.

Good points, but I would say this:

It is also about getting a balance between cutting too fast and not cutting at all. If the deficit goes up, then that will mean over a longer term you will have more and more debt and debt interest which will have to be paid off by future generations. However cutting to fast may mean that demand is sucked out of the economy, and it won't grow. In the past few years the deficit has come down by 40% or so, and as an economy we have been growing quite quickly. That's good progress, although I hope in the next few years the economic growth will be manifesting itself as wage growth too.

Agree with what you and Azzy were saying about the Lib Dems, they were always in a difficult position being the smaller party in a coalition. If the public were a bit better informed then maybe they wouldn't have been so harsh, but that is politics. I did like the fact Clegg tried to play the 'moderating centrists' card at the election, but it clearly didn't work. I don't think there's anything Clegg could have done to rescue the situation in 2015 tbh. Maybe quit the coalition and bring down the stable government- that would have been in his party's interests but not in the national interest. Sad the public punish him for that, but there we go.

Duty- get over it, Farage lost the seat fair and square- police said there was no evidence of anything to the contrary.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

The big test is whether a proper leader can win the race (eg Chuka) that would actually have a chance in 2020 (like Dave M would have) or whether the TU scum will be allowed a double-vote again and continue to hold Labour back in the dark ages.

It's interesting to see in which direction the Labour party will now go. Left, right, or stay where they are ?

First I think these are the 3 main reasons they lost:

1/ Miliband not charismatic enough, seen as a bit odd; had poor personal ratings and not seen as Prime Ministerial
2/ The threat of Labour-SNP combo, moved many voters in England towards the Tories to keep that out
3/ Labour seen to blame for economic crash and overspending, and Tories trusted on economy which they've kept stable and secure. This has another effect, as also means that if Labour pledge austerity, the public will say 'how can we trust them to keep that promise after last time', and on the other hand if they do pledge a greater fiscal stimulus and greater spending, the public will say 'oh look Labour haven't learnt from their mistakes'. So really whatever Labour's economics policies were, they wouldn't be trusted.

I don't think the party's shift to the left was the reason for them losing, I think the 3 listed above were the principle causes.
I personally would actually be more likely to vote for Labour if they did become more right wing with the economy (i.e. be tougher on deficit etc.), but I don't think that would be the wise thing for the party to do electorally.
I think the new leader needs to be charismatic and inspiring, but keep Labour politically where they are now. Moving to the right closer to Tories, will mean the public see them as 'Tory-lite', meanwhile move further to left could alienate a lot of people. They need a message and tone which appeals to many (like in elections 1997-2005), but policies slightly to the left could be engineered like they are now to make it seem Tories only standing up to the rich.
The Tories managed to keep the focus of the election on their strongholds, such as security in the economy, better PM, and SNP alliance- I think the Tories would be a lot more uncomfortable trying to defend why they wouldn't: force energy firms to lower prices, have a bankers bonus tax, ban non-doms etc.

So to sum-up: I don't think Labour lost the election because they were too left wing (3 actual reasons listed), and I think they should keep same centre-left/left policies with just a more charismatic leader.

Get over it?

I'm glad he lost!

Azzy wrote:

GSC wrote:Ed Balls losing for me

Same here. Vince Cable losing was a close second.

Esther Mcvey was fun.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Azzy wrote:

GSC wrote:Ed Balls losing for me

Same here. Vince Cable losing was a close second.

Esther Mcvey was fun.............

Seeing Labour crumble ever so gradually, while the BBC looked on aghast, was a personal favourite.

George Galloway losing was quite nice.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Azzy wrote:

GSC wrote:Ed Balls losing for me

Same here. Vince Cable losing was a close second.

Esther Mcvey was fun.............

Seeing Labour crumble ever so gradually, while the BBC looked on aghast, was a personal favourite.

George Galloway losing was quite nice.

Can't say I was surprised the Tories kept Downing street.......Surprised they got a majority though...............Even more surprised the Lib dems were left in single figures..........

These things happen in cycles............Should be an interesting 5 years with a 10 majority.......

Labour need to pick wisely..

2010                    2015
--------                -------

Con    36.1 %      36.9 %
Lab    29.0 %      30.4 %          
Lib     23.0%        7.9 %
UKIP  3.1 %      12.6 %
SNP   1.7 %        4.7 %
Green 0.9%        3.8 %

3.8% of the people in the UK need deporting.

Saw a funny joke, people voting Green are rather ironically wasting a piece of paper

Azzy wrote:3.8% of the people in the UK need deporting.

I voted Green. I'm pretty English, going wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back

I threw the Green pamplets we were posted in the bin. That's right, of all the parties, the only pamplets I DIDN'T recycle were the Green ones. Take that.

All this talk of lurching to the right is okay and good for Labour.........

But Blair got 36% in 2005...........and one must imagine the 6% combined rise in Green and SNP vote included a fair few disgruntled lefties and I imagine UKIp hoovered up some of them too....

If Labour does go down the Blairite road whoever wins will have to somehow engage the left as well.........

The Tories realised after years in opposition they'd have to compromise.......Not sure Labour are ready to do that........

2025 could be likelier than 2020..

Azzy wrote:I threw the Green pamplets we were posted in the bin. That's right, of all the parties, the only pamplets I DIDN'T recycle were the Green ones. Take that.

The Greens leaflet man here asked me to return their pamphlet to him after I had cast my vote so he could put it in the paper recycling bin.

Should have seen the look on his face when I set a match to it when I was leaving (about 5 paces away from him as he had his hand held out) and I told him I was a carbon neutral type of voter and felt I had not contributed enough to global warming.

Besides, I'll decide how and when I wish to recycle paper. I think he respected my democratic right to do as I did... and collect my own carbon credits.

I would've kept it for whenever I needed cheering up.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

Azzy wrote:I threw the Green pamplets we were posted in the bin. That's right, of all the parties, the only pamplets I DIDN'T recycle were the Green ones. Take that.

The Greens leaflet man here asked me to return their pamphlet to him after I had cast my vote so he could put it in the paper recycling bin.

Should have seen the look on his face when I set a match to it when I was leaving (about 5 paces away from him as he had his hand held out) and I told him I was a carbon neutral type of voter and felt I had not contributed enough to global warming.

Besides, I'll decide how and when I wish to recycle paper. I think he respected my democratic right to do as I did... and collect my own carbon credits.

I'm struggling to find what's so clever about behaviour like this ??

For a party that prides itself on looking after the environment, printing materials is a waste of electricity, ink, manpower, delivery petrol, and recycled paper. If they took their own beliefs seriously, I might listen to them.

Azzy wrote:For a party that prides itself on looking after the environment, printing materials is a waste of electricity, ink, manpower, delivery petrol, and recycled paper. If they took their own beliefs seriously, I might listen to them.

How else are they going to get their message over.........

Telepathy ?????

To be honest, they might as well not bother.

GSC wrote:To be honest, they might as well not bother.

Brighton folk may disagree..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Azzy wrote:For a party that prides itself on looking after the environment, printing materials is a waste of electricity, ink, manpower, delivery petrol, and recycled paper. If they took their own beliefs seriously, I might listen to them.

How else are they going to get their message over.........

Telepathy ?????

Television, social media, internet, old-school hustings, face-to-face campaigning. Going door-to-door should be bread and butter for the Greens.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:

Azzy wrote:I threw the Green pamplets we were posted in the bin. That's right, of all the parties, the only pamplets I DIDN'T recycle were the Green ones. Take that.

The Greens leaflet man here asked me to return their pamphlet to him after I had cast my vote so he could put it in the paper recycling bin.

Should have seen the look on his face when I set a match to it when I was leaving (about 5 paces away from him as he had his hand held out) and I told him I was a carbon neutral type of voter and felt I had not contributed enough to global warming.

Besides, I'll decide how and when I wish to recycle paper. I think he respected my democratic right to do as I did... and collect my own carbon credits.

I'm struggling to find what's so clever about behaviour like this ??

You are so easily conned, Truss. It was a bad joke.
I actually threw all the various pamphlets in the bins just outside the hall. I wouldn't be so mean.

Grow a sense of humour, mate... you're obviously still in a state of shock.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:To be honest, they might as well not bother.

Brighton folk may disagree..

My experience with Brighton folk, being related to some, is that they'd disagree with a paper clip in a darkened room.

In all seriousness if anyone ever wants a laugh try reading the Greens manifesto

"WE WILL: 5 - Increase the minimum wage to reach a living wage of £10 an hour by 2020."

That's the biggest joke of them all. You would single-handedly destroy almost every single small business in the UK, as well as many publicly-funded bodies, charities and community groups. Bus, train and tube drivers would strike as they feel entitled to more, teachers would quit en masse as their worth is essentially nothing, but yay! £10 an hour!

The Loaded Dog wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

The Loaded Dog wrote:

Azzy wrote:I threw the Green pamplets we were posted in the bin. That's right, of all the parties, the only pamplets I DIDN'T recycle were the Green ones. Take that.

The Greens leaflet man here asked me to return their pamphlet to him after I had cast my vote so he could put it in the paper recycling bin.

Should have seen the look on his face when I set a match to it when I was leaving (about 5 paces away from him as he had his hand held out) and I told him I was a carbon neutral type of voter and felt I had not contributed enough to global warming.

Besides, I'll decide how and when I wish to recycle paper. I think he respected my democratic right to do as I did... and collect my own carbon credits.

I'm struggling to find what's so clever about behaviour like this ??

You are so easily conned, Truss. It was a bad joke.
I actually threw all the various pamphlets in the bins just outside the hall. I wouldn't be so mean.

Grow a sense of humour, mate... you're obviously still in a state of shock.

I laugh a lot.....generally at things that are funny..

I voted Green to give them support and give them more chance to influence the powers that do have a say. If they see people reacting well to some of these policies politics being as it is they may then look into how they can capture that vote.

Which you all know is how it works.

So having failed to increase their number of sitting MPs, they know that their Green-first manifesto does nothing for voters, right?

They should ditch that twerp of a leader for starters.

I couldn't name one person ever affiliated with the Greens until 2014, when Caroline Lucas won MP of the Year (what a crud award btw). Until the debate I still didn't know who the Greens leader was, and was appalled to find it was both an Australian (no place leading a UK political party), AND she was diabolical at getting her point across. I've never seen an Aussie incapable of talking sense before.

Caroline Lucas is a superb politician hence she regained her seat easily........

Shame she didn't do the TV debates..............

All I remember is her shouting in the debate.

She's less useless than the Welsh one though

GSC wrote:All I remember is her shouting in the debate.

She's less useless than the Welsh one though

She was innocuous wasn't she !!......In the welsh parliament Plaid cymru speak Welsh...........She'd have been more interesting If she had done that in the debates..

Her interview on LBC is the stuff of legend. Simple question that any one of us would be able to answer, and she had a complete brain fart. Fantastic.

Azzy wrote:Her interview on LBC is the stuff of legend. Simple question that any one of us would be able to answer, and she had a complete brain fart. Fantastic.

All politicians have a bad time................Cameron and Miliband with paxman wasn't for the squeamish..

The radio 1 live lounges are great in hindsight. The guy betting Cameron he wont get a majority.

Azzy wrote:So having failed to increase their number of sitting MPs, they know that their Green-first manifesto does nothing for voters, right?

It's not a fast process. But it's better than just voting for a party you think is in with a chance of winning and ignoring the rest. The impact it also has is people looking at how they take those voters away from the greens too.

I vote for a party not ran by loonies.

In fact Id vote for the monster raving loonies party or whatever they are before the Greens

GSC wrote:The radio 1 live lounges are great in hindsight. The guy betting Cameron he wont get a majority.

You'd probably find a car crash funny..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:The radio 1 live lounges are great in hindsight. The guy betting Cameron he wont get a majority.

You'd probably find a car crash funny..

Considering I've never laughed at one of your posts, evidence would indicate not.

GSC wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:The radio 1 live lounges are great in hindsight. The guy betting Cameron he wont get a majority.

You'd probably find a car crash funny..

Considering I've never laughed at one of your posts, evidence would indicate not.

You've probably sneered at a few though.....I blame your Parents !!

GSC wrote:I vote for a party not ran by loonies.

In fact Id vote for the monster raving loonies party or whatever they are before the Greens

Find me a party with a leader I'd trust and I'm likely to be shown a liar. Nick Clegg was the closest we got.