It does amuse my why you always take the most negative polls for labour. Other polls show 10% leads and the running poll of polls show a 8% lead(ish) for the last 6 months+
Provide me with a link that shows an average 8% Labour lead over the last 6 months (which would probably still result in a hung parliament anyway) in the last 4 months there has only been 2 opinion polls which gave Labour a double digit lead. I have no idea where your 10% lead comes from.
Amusing as it might seem to you I took the latest opinion poll which reflects the current situation in which the PM is in dire straits because that was what being discussed - the situation right now and whether Cameron's quote was applicable right now.
It is widely claimed, including extensively on this forum, that the only way the Tories can be defeated is by Labour working with other parties.
I don't agree with that but fully accept that currently there is no realistic possibility of Labour winning a general election and forming a majority government, Labour is simply offering nothing, beyond claiming to have a different name, to make that likely.
So do you agree that the Tories could still use that line of attack and the quote could be used again? Something along the lines of "Starmer can't win a majority, he would have to rely on the SNP for support. The SNP would insist that he implements left-wing policies which you don't agree with. The SNP would also demand an independence referendum which could result in the breakup of the United Kingdom - do you want to be responsible for helping to facilitate the breakup of the United Kingdom?"
Yes that SNP attack line can and will be used again I am sure. I took the numbers from a guardian article. Maybe 8% is optimistic but its not nearly as dire as you want to show. You don't post a poll that shows a 10% plus lead
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/polls/general-election
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/
"Although Labour’s lead in the polls has dropped back from the 9.5% peak that it enjoyed in the period between mid January and mid February 2022, that lead has started to increase again in late May following the publication of the Gray Report. The Lib Dems also appear to have nudged up 2% in the polls in the last month."
Labour has been running eight to 10 percentage points ahead of Johnson’s party for months now; if Keir Starmer starts to pull away and establish a more decisive lead, it could cement Johnson’s status as an electoral liability.
No link to their source tho
I don’t think there has been an opinion poll for many months which suggests a Labour majority government. Obviously how stable a Labour government that relied on the SNP for its survival would be is another matter, but the Tories can still reasonably pursue that line of attack which appears to some degree to have frightened voters in the past.
Do folk still believe the bollox that a Govt with a big majority is always a positive for the country, and that coalitions are intrinsically bad?
And note, both the SNP and Labour are centre left and probably the only policy they disagree on is the 'Union'.
Once more:
The SNP will NOT enter coalition with anyone. They want no part in governing England
Supply and confidence deal perhaps but the price would be high otherwise it on an issue by issue basis and the SNP will always vote down a tory government and will not vote down a labour government
Do folk still believe the bollox that a Govt with a big majority is always a positive for the country, and that coalitions are intrinsically bad?
I think a lot of people do. In fact, look across Europe and Scandinavia where coalition governments have been and still are a disaster for social democracies whereas strong and stable systems such as those used by Belarus and Hungary are relatively nirvana-like.
I wonder if enough people experience delays on holidays it'll continue to be in the news, prompting those 'what's going on?' articles which will make people start to realise it's a systematic problem not just one of those things, or the airport's fault. And if that happens, along with all the other systematic problems, people would probably be more likely to vote for change.
Do folk still believe the bollox that a Govt with a big majority is always a positive for the country, and that coalitions are intrinsically bad?
We're much more like the US than people like to admit. As in the US, people in the UK have an instinctive distrust of government and the establishment (apart from the royal family who inexplicably get a free pass), and so they prefer politicians to have the power to do stuff which otherwise would be obstructed by bureaucrats and/or minority interests.
I mean, the last coalition was such a raging success wasn't it? And then it was followed not long after by May's completely ineffective minority govt. Is it any wonder people prefer strong majority governments?
Starmer looking much more comfortable than Johnson at PMQs
Johnson looking angry from the off
I mean, the last coalition was such a raging success wasn’t it? And then it was followed not long after by May’s completely ineffective minority govt. Is it any wonder people prefer strong majority governments?
The problem with the LibDems is that they don't have any red lines which makes them very difficult to vote for. They can promise whatever they like but the only thing you can be certain of is that any campaign promise will go out the window the minute they are given a sniff of power.
The DUP are the opposite. They have red lines. They dowsed themselves in petrol and wandered the halls of Westminster screaming that they were going to burn everything down if anyone approached any of their red lines. May had no chance because she was trying to find a solution to an unsolvable problem, something Johnson got around by flat out lying about there being a solution.
Somewhere between the LibDems playdough like commitments and the DUP's fanaticism there's a way of making coalitions and minority governments work.
"48 new hospitals"
Lots of noise, no delivery.
TBF I have a PhD and I’m as thick as shit. Mine was only from Newcastle though so maybe that explains it?
An acquaintance/former employer has a phd in archeology. He says the 'Dr' prefix is excellent for securing bank loans.
There is a bit of conflation going on here re SNP. Having reps in UK Parliament is not "governing England" it is representing the Scottish electorates in the UK Parliament while Scotland remains in the Union. If they wanted no part in that, why do they even field candidates? Or they could stay at home and not take their seats like the Sinn Fein reps?
"97% of Scottish MPs want Johnson gone."
Blackford on good form (as he so often is).
Blackford is as always exceptional value for money.
Might not be fully on board with the Snp but damn he's good
Hels - some stuff at Westminster directly effects scotland. While that happens we need representation. However thats very different from entering coalition and thus taking ministerial posts. Its longstanding SNP policy that they would not enter a coalition in Westminster.
"Johnson got as mmany votes from Scottish Tories as there are pandas in Endinburgh Zoo"
from SNP MP
More Dorris coverage for you...
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1534492186812751872?s=20&t=3cuYFQAd-YXRtpegAQlDrA
Johnson delivering for the British people...
Falling real household incomes will be the main driver of a slowdown in the economy, combined with fiscal and monetary policies that are turning “restrictive”, it added...
[Times Paywall]
Boris Johnson Broke Britain.
Building on the idea of SNP in a Westminster coalition (positions can change and they would be bonkers to pass that one up if Scottish independence is the goal - West Lothian aside) what cabinet post would you give to Ian Blackford? Minister for Witty Comebacks?
@hels, to be fair, that would probably deliver more value for the country than the "minister for Brexit opportunities" currently does, has done, or will do.
I have no time for Blackford. a pompous windbag
So, Minister for Orotundity?
Boris Johnson Broke Britain.
Damning article in the New York Times today basically saying the UK is economically ****ed with inflation, wage demands and Brexit.
The only thing I take from PM questions week after week is that Lindsay Hoyle is ****ing useless
UPDATE : Forums not broken, currently testing certain features, no need to worry
Tech Team
is that Lindsay Hoyle is **** useless
Not everyone will agrees with that. Pretty sure Johnson thinks he is great.
“Johnson got as mmany votes from Scottish Tories as there are pandas in Endinburgh Zoo”
One is known for being fat, hairy and (politically) impotent, and the others are pandas.
More 'getting the big calls right' content.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1534465573920333824
Ah, I see that's already up there. Still, Johnson is still a useless ****, so it bears repeating.
Another “Remainer coup” update…
In all honesty I would rather he didn’t [carry on as prime minister]. I don’t see any contrition.
Who? You might well ask. The Telegraph calls her Brexit 'superwoman'… that’s how much of a remainer this Brexit Party voting Tory Peer and government advisor is.
A good week for announcing dodgy decisions…
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1534560673082097664?s=21
The only thing I take from PM questions week after week is that Lindsay Hoyle is **** useless
Already a known known! 😉
Today we have allowing folks on housing benefit being able to buy a house with it! Completely out of touch with house prices, cost of living and workforce flexibility.
Paired with "promises" that the social housing stock will be replaced like for like... which everyone knows, including them, will absolutely never happen.
Paired with “promises” that the social housing stock will be replaced like for like…
Social housing stock is non-existent, as is rental stock in some parts of the country. A relative of mine with a normal income is currently looking for somewhere for her and her kids to live in southwest England, and there is literally nothing available.
Her only real hope is that the inflated air bnb/second home market falls apart once we get into recession next year.
The 'market' to Tories is like beer to Homer Simpson - the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Social housing stock is non-existent, as is rental stock in some parts of the country. A relative of mine with a normal income is currently looking for somewhere for her and her kids to live in southwest England, and there is literally nothing available.
The property next door to me went back onto the rental market a few weeks ago and the person who moved in said she'd spent nearly 2 months of being on Rightmove every single day looking for rental properties in the area (moving to be closer to a new job). There is nothing out there, anything that comes onto the market goes in hours if not quicker.
As a result, it's a landlord's dream, they can charge more or less whatever they want.
I see that BJ's announcement is a classic long-termist thing that can quietly be left to fail of it's own accord. Much like levelling up.
According to Labour it is "in principle a great idea". Labour's criticism appears to be based on lack of detail, although I didn't think it had been officially announced yet, firstly that there had allegedly been no discussions with lenders, and secondly that those on universal credit are unlikely to have the cash savings required for the deposit.
Which don't necessarily sound like insurmountable problems to me, ie, the government could have discussions with lenders and some sort of scheme to provide a government loan for a deposit.
It would appear that yet again Labour are attacking the government not for what they are doing in principle, but for apparently not doing it right.
@kelvin slight correction. Ever since 'right to buy' became a thing no government has ever replaced the stock even close to the amount they lost. And the amount required in new developments are pitiful, and push the boundaries on 'social'. 'Affordable' is questionable.
Paired with “promises” that the social housing stock will be replaced like for like… which everyone knows, including them, has
willabsolutely never happen(ed).
Yup, it takes money to build new housing stock. Sell off existing stock at a discount, and you need to spend big to replace it like for like (cost of renting and quality/size of the property). It needs to be done the other way around. Build much more social housing and then you can consider selling off the older stock at a discount to residents (with shared ownership probably being the option that widens who can take advantage). It has to be that way around, or it will only ever result in reduced availability and quality of affordable social homes.
The only consolation about this policy in its current half sketched out form is that it will probably never happen. They're just scrapping around for old policies to talk about "delivering for the British People"... it's unlikely to be actually delivered at any volume this decade.
The flaws aren't insurmountable, but they do require government spending to fix... which this government is about to get very twitchy about. As Johnson said in his letter to his MPs, he claims it's time for cuts, cuts, cuts.
Which don’t necessarily sound like insurmountable problems to me, ie, the government could have discussions with lenders and some sort of scheme to provide a government loan for a deposit.
A friend of mine benefited from a scheme like this in manchester - not to buy social housing but to buy in the general market. They lived in social housing with a decent income but no way of saving for a deposit to buy. I don't know if it was a loan or a grant but the local authority provided them with a deposit to buy a house as an incentive for them to get out of social housing to free up social housing for someone in greater need
Wrong answer to the wrong problem IMO - whats actually needed is more social housing and far better T&C for private rentals
those on universal credit are unlikely to have the cash savings required for the deposit.
Isn't it about time for 100% mortgages for 1st time/non property owning buyers? Up to a limit?
Before the mortgage I always managed to pay rent on time for 20 years. If it wasn't for parental help we'd never have been able to afford the deposit & given the way house prices have rocketed in Cornwall (we bought 4 years ago & ours is now worth £30-40k more than we paid).
I know a lot of people aren't lucky enough to have that help & are trapped funding lazy lay about landlords savings & pensions.
It would appear that yet again Labour are attacking the government not for what they are doing in principle, but for apparently not doing it right.
Do you think maybe that's because if you don't do something right then you are doing it wrong. And wrong seems to correlate with failure.
And frankly who believes any of it will ever happen other than on the smallest scale
A couple of observations.
Social welfare income has been accepted as income on applications for some time now, but if you're going to rely on say; child benefit on your application for a 30 yr mortgage and your kids are 12 and 14, don't expect a positive from your lender.
There are hundreds of thousands of folks trapped in neg equity and over expensive payments from the last crash, it would probs be better to organise some help for those folks rather than encourage more people to get into potentially the same scenario a few years down the line.