Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
1 Year To Go For And All To Play For?
23 Answers
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 6th May - Con 34%, Lab 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%; APP -19
http://
Must be pretty worrying for Ed, the opposition are normally more up in front than this, particularly given the problems of a coalition for both the Tories and the Lib Dems.
So is it his latest swathe of left wing policies putting people off or UKIP starting to make inroads into labour (which they are now targeting)?
Ed certinaly seems to have missed the point that it is Middle England he needs to attract; and they dont react well to real left wing politics, in much the same way that they dont like real right wing politics.
http://
Must be pretty worrying for Ed, the opposition are normally more up in front than this, particularly given the problems of a coalition for both the Tories and the Lib Dems.
So is it his latest swathe of left wing policies putting people off or UKIP starting to make inroads into labour (which they are now targeting)?
Ed certinaly seems to have missed the point that it is Middle England he needs to attract; and they dont react well to real left wing politics, in much the same way that they dont like real right wing politics.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is a similar poll published in the Daily Mirror which agrees with those stats. Other 'snippets' from the poll;
David Cameron is a good PM; yes 31%, no 48%, don't know 21%
Ed Milliband would majke a good PM; yes 20%, no 51%, don't know 29%
Whilst 25% think Cameron is capable of standing up to the banks, energy suppliers, etc, 53% believe him incapable.
In Milliband's case, 31% believe he could, 42% believe otherwise
17% of people believe that their financial situation is getting better, 30% getting worse and 53% about the same.
39% trust the Tories to manage the economy, 44% do not
23% trust Labour to manage the economy, 49% do not
If a referendum were to be held on membership of the European Union 46% would vote to leave, 39% want to remain and 15% either don't know (or don't care)
Finally, asked what the most important issue facing the UK today, is, a massive (compared to other issues) 25% said immigration.
Based on that, i'd suggest that they all have lots of work to do to earn our votes come election day. And one day i'll learn how to do links:-)
David Cameron is a good PM; yes 31%, no 48%, don't know 21%
Ed Milliband would majke a good PM; yes 20%, no 51%, don't know 29%
Whilst 25% think Cameron is capable of standing up to the banks, energy suppliers, etc, 53% believe him incapable.
In Milliband's case, 31% believe he could, 42% believe otherwise
17% of people believe that their financial situation is getting better, 30% getting worse and 53% about the same.
39% trust the Tories to manage the economy, 44% do not
23% trust Labour to manage the economy, 49% do not
If a referendum were to be held on membership of the European Union 46% would vote to leave, 39% want to remain and 15% either don't know (or don't care)
Finally, asked what the most important issue facing the UK today, is, a massive (compared to other issues) 25% said immigration.
Based on that, i'd suggest that they all have lots of work to do to earn our votes come election day. And one day i'll learn how to do links:-)
Electoral Calculus was updated over the weekend :::
http://
Little has changed since this time last month, and still no sign that dave is going to win. But I agree with ymb (!)...there is still all to play for.
But I will disagree with him on one thing...Polls DO predict the outcome, usually very accurately, and Electoral Calculus has a pretty good record here. Kinnock was an exception. In the 1992 election, Labour made considerable progress – reducing the Conservative majority to just 21 seats. He thus made the landslide election of Labour and Blair in 1997 a absolute certainty. Well, having the dithering Major as PM helped a bit of course !
( Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB )
dave still has a long way to go to be anywhere near certain of winning outright or even having to go cap-in-hand to Cleggie again. Lets not forget that is why we have a Tory PM...its due to Cleggie, not dave.
http://
Little has changed since this time last month, and still no sign that dave is going to win. But I agree with ymb (!)...there is still all to play for.
But I will disagree with him on one thing...Polls DO predict the outcome, usually very accurately, and Electoral Calculus has a pretty good record here. Kinnock was an exception. In the 1992 election, Labour made considerable progress – reducing the Conservative majority to just 21 seats. He thus made the landslide election of Labour and Blair in 1997 a absolute certainty. Well, having the dithering Major as PM helped a bit of course !
( Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB )
dave still has a long way to go to be anywhere near certain of winning outright or even having to go cap-in-hand to Cleggie again. Lets not forget that is why we have a Tory PM...its due to Cleggie, not dave.
Mikey, two things….
//Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB//
Why would we be discussing John Major?
//Lets not forget that is why we have a Tory PM...its due to Cleggie, not dave.//
How do you work that out? The Conservatives won the most seats. There’s no way we could have had a Labour PM – or a LibDem PM.
//Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB//
Why would we be discussing John Major?
//Lets not forget that is why we have a Tory PM...its due to Cleggie, not dave.//
How do you work that out? The Conservatives won the most seats. There’s no way we could have had a Labour PM – or a LibDem PM.
"If a referendum were to be held on membership of the European Union 46% would vote to leave, 39% want to remain and 15% either don't know (or don't care)
Finally, asked what the most important issue facing the UK today, is, a massive (compared to other issues) 25% said immigration. "
I wonder how many of the 25% concerned about immigration are among the 54% who either want to remain in the EU or are undecided. Since about half of immigration is from EU nations and is uncontrollable perhaps they should link the two things in their minds. But I doubt they will.
Finally, asked what the most important issue facing the UK today, is, a massive (compared to other issues) 25% said immigration. "
I wonder how many of the 25% concerned about immigration are among the 54% who either want to remain in the EU or are undecided. Since about half of immigration is from EU nations and is uncontrollable perhaps they should link the two things in their minds. But I doubt they will.
naomi...as I see it, the main reason why JM is not mentioned on here is that he and his Tory government was the part of the cause of the biggest landslide victory for the Labour Party in 1997, since the last one in 1945. Mrs T was the cause of a huge win in 1979 and we hear lots about her, which I can understand, but JM ....rarely if ever.
I accept that it would have been difficult for Brown to lead the post-2010 Government, although it was technically possible. Anyway, it is Betty that has the final say. Clegg, of course, was in no position to be PM, but dave needed his assistance to move into Number Ten. Well, not his assistance so much as his 57 seats at Westminster. And that is the origin of my remarks earlier today.
If you and the other right-wingers here on AB think that JM was such a great Leader of the Tory Party, I look forward to seeing you all include him in more of your posts. We have freedom of speech here and I hope for long and fond eulogies about a man that would have made a pretty good Scout Leader or maybe a smashing Cricket Team Captain, but was a disaster as PM.
Just to remind you, JM went into the 1997 Election with 343 seats but lost
178, ending up with just 165, against Labour's 418.
Is it any wonder why JM isn't talked about !
I accept that it would have been difficult for Brown to lead the post-2010 Government, although it was technically possible. Anyway, it is Betty that has the final say. Clegg, of course, was in no position to be PM, but dave needed his assistance to move into Number Ten. Well, not his assistance so much as his 57 seats at Westminster. And that is the origin of my remarks earlier today.
If you and the other right-wingers here on AB think that JM was such a great Leader of the Tory Party, I look forward to seeing you all include him in more of your posts. We have freedom of speech here and I hope for long and fond eulogies about a man that would have made a pretty good Scout Leader or maybe a smashing Cricket Team Captain, but was a disaster as PM.
Just to remind you, JM went into the 1997 Election with 343 seats but lost
178, ending up with just 165, against Labour's 418.
Is it any wonder why JM isn't talked about !
Mikey, //it is Betty that has the final say.//
Oh good grief! Do you really think she can ever say ‘No’? And why would she? Like it or not – and you don’t - the Conservatives gained the most seats in the last election.
// Is it any wonder why JM isn't talked about !//
No, it isn’t – which is precisely why I’m bemused by your reference to him.
//Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB//
At 13:03 you were puzzling - at 17:15 you provided the answer to your own question.
Stop spinning, Mikey. You’re making yourself dizzy – and it shows.
Oh good grief! Do you really think she can ever say ‘No’? And why would she? Like it or not – and you don’t - the Conservatives gained the most seats in the last election.
// Is it any wonder why JM isn't talked about !//
No, it isn’t – which is precisely why I’m bemused by your reference to him.
//Its a puzzle why John Major doesn't feature more, or indeed at all, in our little debates on AB//
At 13:03 you were puzzling - at 17:15 you provided the answer to your own question.
Stop spinning, Mikey. You’re making yourself dizzy – and it shows.
-- answer removed --
Naomi, without Clegg, Cameron could have formed only a minority government and, given the backbenchers he has, that would have been lucky to last for longer than a few months.
Don't forget, Clegg also entered talks with Labour in 2010, so a Lab/Lib coalition might well have resulted, ready to leap into power. It is quite obvious that Gordon Brown COULD quite easily have been Prime Minister now!
To "win" a British general election it is not just necessary to get more seats than your major rival party, you need to get more seats that ALL the other parties combined.
I've often mentioned it here before but The Times cartoon on the day the coalition was formed showed the door of LibDem HQ with a red light burning above it and a note which read, "Knock three times and ask for Nikki" or words to that effect. A pretty clear indication of just what sort of relationship had just been agreed!
Don't forget, Clegg also entered talks with Labour in 2010, so a Lab/Lib coalition might well have resulted, ready to leap into power. It is quite obvious that Gordon Brown COULD quite easily have been Prime Minister now!
To "win" a British general election it is not just necessary to get more seats than your major rival party, you need to get more seats that ALL the other parties combined.
I've often mentioned it here before but The Times cartoon on the day the coalition was formed showed the door of LibDem HQ with a red light burning above it and a note which read, "Knock three times and ask for Nikki" or words to that effect. A pretty clear indication of just what sort of relationship had just been agreed!
Quizmonster...lots of sense in what you have posted today. The reason that Clegg agreed to sup with the devil in 2010 is because he knew that it is the only chance that the LibDems would ever get of being in government, albeit in a very minor way. If he could have chosen a coalition with Labour instead of the Tories, he would have done that instead, but the arithmetic was against him.
But he knew that he was sealing the fate of his party for many years to come, because the Libs have never had any great love for the Tories. The result of his decision in 2010 will be the decline of LibDems seats in 2015, and, who knows, further elections as well.
We have to remind ourselves of where the LibDems came from. It was a joint venture between the old Liberal Party and the SDP, itself an off-shoot of Labour. So the LibDems and the Tories made strange and uneasy bedfellows. Vote LibDem, but get Tory is how the 2010 election turned out. And I can't see it happening again in 2015. A lot of LibDem voters will either abstain or put their crosses for the Labour candidate.
Its still possible I suppose, that dave will be in a similar position in 2015 as he was in 2010, but who will he turn to, to make a coalition with ?
But he knew that he was sealing the fate of his party for many years to come, because the Libs have never had any great love for the Tories. The result of his decision in 2010 will be the decline of LibDems seats in 2015, and, who knows, further elections as well.
We have to remind ourselves of where the LibDems came from. It was a joint venture between the old Liberal Party and the SDP, itself an off-shoot of Labour. So the LibDems and the Tories made strange and uneasy bedfellows. Vote LibDem, but get Tory is how the 2010 election turned out. And I can't see it happening again in 2015. A lot of LibDem voters will either abstain or put their crosses for the Labour candidate.
Its still possible I suppose, that dave will be in a similar position in 2015 as he was in 2010, but who will he turn to, to make a coalition with ?
