FAO of crawley and all decent human beings

[Gilzeantoscore]

One of the greatest trick brown ever performed was through his mates at the BBC making him out to be moderate he was far from it hence the reason the country is in the state it is in now.

I hated kinnock and loved maggie, that will come as no suprise to you of course. But i do not get and i read it on here somewhere the other day not saying it was you but someone said that kinnock was a great leader, the guy lost how many times to thatcher? aand she was quite a decesive leader.

Labour and the tories are quite close now in that labour have said they would have done broadly speaking the same spending cuts as the tories. But we all know that if labour get back in they will borrow more money to appease the fan base in the north creating non jobs to boast the regions instead of trying to create indusstry. While also undoing the good work duncan smith has been doing getting the feckless back into work.

What would my reaction be to a true leftist government, shock, horror and disgust and would probably lead me to sell the house and move abroad 10 years earlier then planned.

It was me. You can be a great party leader and a poor electoral leader and that best describes Kinnock. He continued the work of Smith (one of the greatest men never to be PM in my view) by modernising the party and reforming policy, yet he was unelectable as a politician

 

[Gordinho]

It was me. You can be a great party leader and a poor electoral leader and that best describes Kinnock. He continued the work of Smith (one of the greatest men never to be PM in my view) by modernising the party and reforming policy, yet he was unelectable as a politician

Kinnock was pre Smith.

 

[parklane1]

I'm sure they do have conviction but it's swamped beneath the PR image they're forced to adopt for fear of not conforming to what they're told the public wants. Three of the finest conviction politicians that spring to my mind (leaving their politics out of the equation) are Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and Tam Dalyell, none of them had time for image makeovers or PR speak.

To be honest i 'm not sure they do have conviction, its all sound bites and phony smiles and i think our political leaders today are the worst i can remember ( and i am a old fart). As for the three names mentioned you are right and its no surprise to see that they are all Labour.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Kinnock was pre Smith.

Sorry of course you are right. Smith continued Kinnock's work.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Keep the delusions coming. Don't you read the opinion polls? Check them over the last eighteen months, there is a pattern...

whats the pattern at the moment mate? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/tories-labour-ukip-guardian-icm-poll

sad to see us (UKIP) slipping back but i guess some of the more fair weather UKIP have been convinced by the crackdown on making people from some countries pay a bond before they visit here and the long overdue reform of the welfare state(not gone far enough)

Still whats happening with Labour i dont think david will be getting on that plane to New York he is needed here or your lot will be fooked because ed aint the man for the job, quite funny for me.

The rise of UKIP has at least done some good and made the tories remember their core vote and brought some polices to bring them back into the fold, i shall not be going anywhere near the tories till cameron goes, not after the Lisbon treaty.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

whats the pattern at the moment mate? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/tories-labour-ukip-guardian-icm-poll

sad to see us (UKIP) slipping back but i guess some of the more fair weather UKIP have been convinced by the crackdown on making people from some countries pay a bond before they visit here and the long overdue reform of the welfare state(not gone far enough)

Still whats happening with Labour i dont think david will be getting on that plane to New York he is needed here or your lot will be fooked because ed aint the man for the job, quite funny for me.

The rise of UKIP has at least done some good and made the tories remember their core vote and brought some polices to bring them back into the fold, i shall not be going anywhere near the tories till cameron goes, not after the Lisbon treaty.

Hey Chich, do you actually read your own links? That was one poll, others still have Labour clearly ahead, particularly the running You Gov poll.

 

[Richie]

Labours lead has significantly narrowed, most polls have it under 5 points.

For this point in a parliament, that's pretty woeful. Bad sign for Labour.

Lucky for them, constituency boundaries and the rise of UKIP will likely save them in 2015

 

[scaramanga]

Labours lead has significantly narrowed, most polls have it under 5 points.

For this point in a parliament, that's pretty woeful. Bad sign for Labour.

Lucky for them, constituency boundaries and the rise of UKIP will likely save them in 2015

I stopped paying attention, how did they get away with not evening them up?

 

[Richie]

I stopped paying attention, how did they get away with not evening them up?

The deal with the Lib Dems was to even them out in exchange for the AV referendum, which they assumed they would win but didn't. The change in boundaries would have cost the Lib Dems seats but AV would have evened it back up, but after the public rejected it they couldn't give away half a dozen seats with Boundary change.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Hey Chich, do you actually read your own links? That was one poll, others still have Labour clearly ahead, particularly the running You Gov poll.

Yep and as the guy after you said th leads are cutting down, i am unhappy UKIP are losing some ground but as the tories have moved back to their core beliefs it was always going to happen.

Considering the cuts(not enough in my opinon) and all of that i would thought labour would be clearly ahead, pretty alarming.

My own little tip is that neither cameron or millband will be leader at the next election, will not ed maybe david.

 

[scaramanga]

The deal with the Lib Dems was to even them out in exchange for the AV referendum, which they assumed they would win but didn't. The change in boundaries would have cost the Lib Dems seats but AV would have evened it back up, but after the public rejected it they couldn't give away half a dozen seats with Boundary change.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of that. Sounds like the Lib Dems took a gamble on winning the referendum and lost - now they're welshing?

Or did the Conservatives agree because the loss of seats would narrow their majority? If so, why not have the boundaries change just before the next election?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of that. Sounds like the Lib Dems took a gamble on winning the referendum and lost - now they're welshing?

Or did the Conservatives agree because the loss of seats would narrow their majority? If so, why not have the boundaries change just before the next election?

Because cameron has no fudging teeth, oh for a leader like maggie again.

Does not suprise me that the liberals went back on the deal, that is what the left is like when they do not get what they want.

 

[Richie]

Because cameron has no fudging teeth, oh for a leader like maggie again.

Does not suprise me that the liberals went back on the deal, that is what the left is like when they do not get what they want.

Not a lot you can do without a majority in Parliament. Give Cameron any of Thatchers majorities he would be a different PM.

Thatcher had it much easier, she was up against Socialist Labour. Cameron has to beat a Labour party that has squeezed itself so close to the Tories that it's tough to differentiate. New Labour was so smart, they knew the left didn't have anywhere else to go so they moved right swallowing up a lot of Tory voters in the process.

New Labour is to the right of most 70s Tory parties, but that won't stop Labour lifers (even from that era) voting for them.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of that. Sounds like the Lib Dems took a gamble on winning the referendum and lost - now they're welshing?

Or did the Conservatives agree because the loss of seats would narrow their majority? If so, why not have the boundaries change just before the next election?

I don't know what you mean about the Conservatives losing seats. They took a gamble that AV would be voted down, which it was, and should have gotten boundary change as their pay off. When the Lib Dems lost the vote, they changed their tune and claimed the deal for boundary change was House of Lords reform which the Tories refused to give them, hence no boundary change.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Not a lot you can do without a majority in Parliament. Give Cameron any of Thatchers majorities he would be a different PM.

Thatcher had it much easier, she was up against Socialist Labour. Cameron has to beat a Labour party that has squeezed itself so close to the Tories that it's tough to differentiate. New Labour was so smart, they knew the left didn't have anywhere else to go so they moved right swallowing up a lot of Tory voters in the process.

New Labour is to the right of most 70s Tory parties, but that won't stop Labour lifers (even from that era) voting for them.



I don't know what you mean about the Conservatives losing seats. They took a gamble that AV would be voted down, which it was, and should have gotten boundary change as their pay off. When the Lib Dems lost the vote, they changed their tune and claimed the deal for boundary change was House of Lords reform which the Tories refused to give them, hence no boundary change.

And clearly that isn't going to be enough for the tory lifers to vote for them either. The way some go on in these threads one could be forgiven for thing Ed was Leon Trotsky.

 

[scaramanga]

Not a lot you can do without a majority in Parliament. Give Cameron any of Thatchers majorities he would be a different PM.

Thatcher had it much easier, she was up against Socialist Labour. Cameron has to beat a Labour party that has squeezed itself so close to the Tories that it's tough to differentiate. New Labour was so smart, they knew the left didn't have anywhere else to go so they moved right swallowing up a lot of Tory voters in the process.

New Labour is to the right of most 70s Tory parties, but that won't stop Labour lifers (even from that era) voting for them.



I don't know what you mean about the Conservatives losing seats. They took a gamble that AV would be voted down, which it was, and should have gotten boundary change as their pay off. When the Lib Dems lost the vote, they changed their tune and claimed the deal for boundary change was House of Lords reform which the Tories refused to give them, hence no boundary change.

I meant the coalition as a whole losing seats - although obviously the Conservatives would gain some back.

 

[Richie]

And clearly that isn't going to be enough for the tory lifers to vote for them either. The way some go on in these threads one could be forgiven for thing Ed was Leon Trotsky.

Of course not, Economically I'm still to the right of the conservatives. On social issues I'm much more in tune with the Liberal Democrats, but IMO the economy is more important so the Tories get my vote.

If UKIP really did become the Libertarian party they claim to be they would get my vote in a heart beat. Sadly they are appealing to the socially conservative vote that the Tories have lost under Cameron on issues like gay marriage, they aren't even close to Libertarian.

 

[Richie]

+

I meant the coalition as a whole losing seats - although obviously the Conservatives would gain some back.

Well this wouldn't be in affect until the 2015 election at which point there will be no coalition.

Basically Tories would gain and Lib Dems and especially Labour would lose seats. Lib Dems would recoup most of those loses through AV hence why they were willing to do it, but when AV got voted down there was no way they could allow boundary change to go through as it would cost them too many seats.