Part of Thatcher's legacy is that the Tories' record in cities north of London since the mid 90s has been woeful. That is why it is so hard for them to win a majority.

 

Labour have 1 advantage, the fact it takes a lot less votes to elect a labour mp than it does a tory mp, this unbalanced and unjust system would have been changed to a fairer more equal one but for Clegg

But only 2 and 6 will influence any votes at the next election

 

That may be, but my point was that people just aren't impressed by the fact the official macro-economic figures are better in the way the Tories expected. Unless/until there's real improvements in people's lives, it's just numbers on a spreadsheet, and that won't change no matter how good the figures get.

 

 

Solihull was voted the best place to live in the UK a couple of days ago so some parts of the midlands, particularly those exposed to the booming car industry, are doing very well

 

Solihull is not a typical Midlands seat, it's one of the wealthiest in the region :lol: Generally, you've been doing pretty badly in council elections in the Midlands over the past couple of years (whereas you've done been doing pretty well in the south), as well as in the only major by-election there so far, in Corby.

That may be, but my point was that people just aren't impressed by the fact the official macro-economic figures are better in the way the Tories expected. Unless/until there's real improvements in people's lives, it's just numbers on a spreadsheet, and that won't change no matter how good the figures get.

Solihull is not a typical Midlands seat, it's one of the wealthiest in the region :lol: Generally, you've been doing pretty badly in council elections in the Midlands over the past couple of years (whereas you've done been doing pretty well in the south), as well as in the only major by-election there so far, in Corby.

 

I am not entirely convinced by the 11% feeling the recovery bit, we don't know where the questions are asked, and if the 11% is accurate we would be a lot further behind in the polls than we are imho, if 89% still feel bad about the economy yet we are consistently in the low 30%'s in the polls a lot of them must be voting tory as labour has a lead of about 8% atm

 

So i suspect that this 11% thing is a very northern and scots centric sample size

Those affected by the bedroom tax are traditional labour voters, people in social housing wont vote tory nor will most unemployed, students and public sector workers and most immigrants with the exception of chinese and indians who strongly support tories

You may find this hard to believe but some people think about other people when they vote, not just themselves. Many potential Tory voters will know someone badly affected by the Bedroom Tax and other measure introduced by this government. You may also be surprised to know that there are Tory voters in social housing. You really should be old enough by now to distinguish between generalisations and absolutes.

Labour have 1 advantage, the fact it takes a lot less votes to elect a labour mp than it does a tory mp, this unbalanced and unjust system would have been changed to a fairer more equal one but for Clegg

You really do like to repeat these fallacies don't you. The main reason it takes fewer (note, the word is fewer, not less) votes to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP is more to do with differential turnout than the size of constituencies. Turnout is generally higher in safe Tory seats than in safe Labour seats. And, of course, Clegg vetoed the boundary changes because Cameron couldn't persuade enough of his backbenchers to vote in favour of their own commitment to an elected House of Lords.

You may find this hard to believe but some people think about other people when they vote, not just themselves. Many potential Tory voters will know someone badly affected by the Bedroom Tax and other measure introduced by this government. You may also be surprised to know that there are Tory voters in social housing. You really should be old enough by now to distinguish between generalisations and absolutes.

 

Of course not every single social housing tenant and unemployed person etc votes labour, Crazy Chris votes tory yet lives on state benefits etc but i would be very surprised if labour dont have a sizeable lead, very sizeable infact, among social housing tenants/unemployed/public sector workers/students

You really do like to repeat these fallacies don't you. The main reason it takes fewer (note, the word is fewer, not less) votes to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP is more to do with differential turnout than the size of constituencies. Turnout is generally higher in safe Tory seats than in safe Labour seats. And, of course, Clegg vetoed the boundary changes because Cameron couldn't persuade enough of his backbenchers to vote in favour of their own commitment to an elected House of Lords.

 

We gave Lib Dems a referrendum on the voting reform and the public voted overwhelmingly to keep the first past the post system, we gave lib dems a vote on political reform, there was nothing in the coalition agreement that stated it had to be a three line whip or a result that Clegg had to be happy about, he got his vote x2

 

He then threw a hissy fit and stamped his feet like a toddler denied an ice cream, all because he didn't get the result that his arrogance expected

 

We honoured our part of the deal, he didn't

We gave Lib Dems a referrendum on the voting reform and the public voted overwhelmingly to keep the first past the post system, we gave lib dems a vote on political reform, there was nothing in the coalition agreement that stated it had to be a three line whip or a result that Clegg had to be happy about, he got his vote x2

 

He then threw a hissy fit and stamped his feet like a toddler denied an ice cream, all because he didn't get the result that his arrogance expected

 

We honoured our part of the deal, he didn't

It's not hard to see who is the child here.

It's not hard to see who is the child here.

 

Yep

 

Goes by the name of Nicholas William Peter Clegg

If you seriously think the Tories have a chance of winning seats in Sunderland or Barnsley you are even more deluded than I thought.

 

 

I'm from Barnsley. There's more chance of me getting a job next week than there is of the Tories winning one of the three seats there. :lol: Rock solid Labour with huge majorities.

 

I think Ed WILL be PM and will have a small majority in 2015. :)

Edited November 15, 201311 yr by Common Sense

If you seriously think the Tories have a chance of winning seats in Sunderland or Barnsley you are even more deluded than I thought. As for the inclusion of Liverpool, that is even more of a joke. The Tories have come a distant third in all but one Liverpool seat for the last few elections. They have consistently come fourth in the other Liverpool seat.

 

 

They were just generic throwaway towns and cities first ones that came into my head

 

My point was that we will need to win some seats north of the midlands to form a government on our own for definite

 

Obviously the northern cities are a total lost cause for the Tories at this point. But what should really be alarming for them is their performance in northern suburbs - the types of seats where you were still often managing to win in the 80s, but which have been gradually trending away from you over the past 20 years (as in, the swing away from Labour at every election since '97 in those types of seats has generally been lower than the national swing).

 

I know it might seem counterintuitive to blame Thatcher for you not managing to win seats that she herself managed to win, but my theory is that she managed to win those seats back then largely due to retirees who generally weren't directly affected by the unemployment and misery she caused. But by this point, many of those old people who were happy to vote Tory back then have obviously died off, and the people in that age range now have their own vivid memories of themselves or their friends being downtrodden by Thatcher's policies (so bucking the trend of people being more likely to vote Tory as they get older). Meanwhile, the generation of voters under age of 40 have literally grown up having anti-Toryism drummed into them, with parents and family members always saying things like "Thatcher devastated our community" or "Tory snobs look down their noses at northerners" - which means that, even for people now who might agree on the surface with most of the Tories' current policies, it's still often not going to be able to overcome such a deeply-ingrained emotion that the Tories hate them which they've been hearing all their life.

Solihull was voted the best place to live in the UK a couple of days ago so some parts of the midlands, particularly those exposed to the booming car industry, are doing very well

Obviously the northern cities are a total lost cause for the Tories at this point. But what should really be alarming for them is their performance in northern suburbs - the types of seats where you were still often managing to win in the 80s, but which have been gradually trending away from you over the past 20 years (as in, the swing away from Labour at every election since '97 in those types of seats has generally been lower than the national swing).

Indeed. I read the YouGov article you posted a while back and Craig can't say that a booming economy or there simply being urban middle class areas north of Birmingham (which I guess is a genuine shock for Craig) benefits the Tories at all.

 

There are constituencies like East Renfrewshire which is almost entirely made up of posh Glaswegian suburbs and was formerly a safe Tory seat but in 2010 they were 20% behind Labour, who managed 50%. Likewise the constituency which contains Bearsden (which is the 7th wealthiest town in Britain) and Milngavie only managed a 15% Tory vote in 2010. They have similar demographics to some of the safest Tory seats but are never going to go Tory again any time soon.

Edited November 15, 201311 yr by Harve

I still don't see anything other than either a hung parliament, or a small Labour majority in 2015.

 

Craig, even with all of this 'propaganda' about how wonderful the economy is supposedly doing, the majority of the population are still voicing their concerns over seeing their savings inflated out of existence among record low interest rates and their disposable income squeezed by flat wages and huge rises in energy prices. 18 months won't be enough to turn that around, for sure.

Edited November 15, 201311 yr by Doctor Blind

Depends where, in London and the South East and the south coast those parts of the country are booming, shops packed, car parks full, vacancies a plenty, life is good for people who live in those areas

 

What we need is the same thing to start happening in poor areas like Barnsley, Bolton, Liverpool, Sunderland, Derby etc as we already have the south east and southern vote.

 

wikipedia:

 

he British public debt is the total quantity of money borrowed by the Government of the United Kingdom at any one time through the issue of securities by the British Treasury and other government agencies.

As of Q1 2013 UK government debt amounted to £1,377 billion, or 91% of total GDP.[1] The annual cost of servicing the public debt amounts to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of GDP. This is roughly the same size as the British defence budget. It is forecast to rise to 96% of total GDP in 2013, further rising to 99% of GDP in 2014.[2]

Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £121 billion per annum, or around £2.3 billion each week.

On 23 February 2013 Moody's downgraded UK debt from AAA to Aa1.

 

 

The public debt increases or decreases as a result of the annual budget deficit or surplus. The British Government budget deficit or surplus is the cash difference between government receipts and spending, ignoring intra-governmental transfers. The British Government debt is rising due to a gap between revenue and expenditure. Total government revenue in the fiscal year 2011/12 was projected to be £589 billion, whereas total expenditure was estimated at £710 billion. Therefore the total deficit, was £121 billion. This represented a rate of borrowing of a little over £2 billion per week.

Gilts[edit]

 

 

Distinct from both the national debt and the PSNCR is the interest that the Government must pay to service the existing national debt. In 2012, the annual cost of servicing the public debt amounted to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of GDP. This is roughly the same size as the British defence budget.[5]

In 2012 the British population numbered around 64 million, and the debt therefore amounted to a little over £15,000 for each individual Briton, or around £33,000 per person in employment. Each household in Britain pays an average of around £2,000 per year in taxes to finance the interest.[6]

 

 

So, just exactly where is the recovery, given the debt. isn't. going. down.

 

Imagine you run a garden centre and owe more than your business earns each year, so you keep on borrowing to cover the bills. What you are doing right now is cheering a "recovery" based on an increased footfall in the shop which means the the money you owe is rising less fast than it has been recently. You still owe the banks HUGE sums of money and one day they'll want it back, so the rather generous rates theyve been giving you the last few years to borrow even more might shrivel away when they get pissed off at waiting to be repaid.

 

The governments policy, such as it is, is for inflation to chip away at the money owed so it's not so bad. Don't hold your breath as a problem solved in the next 18 months, I'll quite happily take any bet that nothing much will have changed re: money UKplc owes....

wikipedia:

 

he British public debt is the total quantity of money borrowed by the Government of the United Kingdom at any one time through the issue of securities by the British Treasury and other government agencies.

As of Q1 2013 UK government debt amounted to £1,377 billion, or 91% of total GDP.[1] The annual cost of servicing the public debt amounts to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of GDP. This is roughly the same size as the British defence budget. It is forecast to rise to 96% of total GDP in 2013, further rising to 99% of GDP in 2014.[2]

Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £121 billion per annum, or around £2.3 billion each week.

On 23 February 2013 Moody's downgraded UK debt from AAA to Aa1.

The public debt increases or decreases as a result of the annual budget deficit or surplus. The British Government budget deficit or surplus is the cash difference between government receipts and spending, ignoring intra-governmental transfers. The British Government debt is rising due to a gap between revenue and expenditure. Total government revenue in the fiscal year 2011/12 was projected to be £589 billion, whereas total expenditure was estimated at £710 billion. Therefore the total deficit, was £121 billion. This represented a rate of borrowing of a little over £2 billion per week.

Gilts[edit]

Distinct from both the national debt and the PSNCR is the interest that the Government must pay to service the existing national debt. In 2012, the annual cost of servicing the public debt amounted to around £43bn, or roughly 3% of GDP. This is roughly the same size as the British defence budget.[5]

In 2012 the British population numbered around 64 million, and the debt therefore amounted to a little over £15,000 for each individual Briton, or around £33,000 per person in employment. Each household in Britain pays an average of around £2,000 per year in taxes to finance the interest.[6]

So, just exactly where is the recovery, given the debt. isn't. going. down.

 

Imagine you run a garden centre and owe more than your business earns each year, so you keep on borrowing to cover the bills. What you are doing right now is cheering a "recovery" based on an increased footfall in the shop which means the the money you owe is rising less fast than it has been recently. You still owe the banks HUGE sums of money and one day they'll want it back, so the rather generous rates theyve been giving you the last few years to borrow even more might shrivel away when they get pissed off at waiting to be repaid.

 

The governments policy, such as it is, is for inflation to chip away at the money owed so it's not so bad. Don't hold your breath as a problem solved in the next 18 months, I'll quite happily take any bet that nothing much will have changed re: money UKplc owes....

 

The average person on the street doesn't know we are even in debt, its only intellectuals and academics that do

 

And also if the government is in debt it does not mean every business in the UK is, ours is doing well, the CEO has recently bought an aston and a boat, we have 11 vacancies atm

 

The government will likely blame the unemployed for the defecit and the public will swallow it

 

The average person on the street doesn't know we are even in debt,

 

Wait, what?

Wait, what?

 

Most people in the country are not very bright, the average chav in the street or someone who doesn't read the broadsheets wouldn't know about the debt or what it was

Craig, the average person on the street is not a 'chav'. Why do you think everyone in this country is a blinkered moron? The vast majority of people in this country know we're in debt (ESPECIALLY considering how much of an issue the deficit has been for the last three/four years). In an incredibly crowded category, that has to be by some distance the stupidest statement you've made since you came back here.

Edited November 15, 201311 yr by Cassandra

Craig, the average person on the street is not a 'chav'. Why do you think everyone in this country is a blinkered moron? The vast majority of people in this country know we're in debt (ESPECIALLY considering how much of an issue the deficit has been for the last three/four years). In an incredibly crowded category, that has to be by some distance the stupidest statement you've made since you came back here.

 

There was an article a few weeks back where people were asked what they thought the amount of benefit fraud is and other questions and the results were truly frightening

 

 

You trust the intelligence of the British public far more than you should Tyron

 

Have a read http://www.tuc.org.uk/social-issues/child-...-cuts-dependent

 

Public believe benefit fraud is 27%. True figure 0.7%

 

Public think 41% of benefit spending goes on dole. True figure 3%

 

And you think they are well informed on the debt :lol:

Edited November 15, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere