A lot of floating voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 will vote tory in 2015, not as many as will vote labour admittedly but I see labour gaining maybe 3% thanks to lib dems switching to Labour

Why would a 2010 Lib Dem voter vote Tory next time?

Thus immediately causing problems for people who were already over-stretching themselves with current low interest rates. Are you really too stupid to realise how utterly irresponsible this policy is?

 

It makes financial sense to buy a house

 

People renting a property in say Clapham are probably paying in rent a good £1000 a month, the money is vanishing into thin air

 

By buying they are probably spending the same amount or less but physically owning something at the same time

 

It makes complete sense to buy a property rather than rent

A lot of floating voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 will vote tory in 2015, not as many as will vote labour admittedly but I see labour gaining maybe 3% thanks to lib dems switching to Labour

So of the Lib Dems' 23% last time, you think just 3% of that 23 will go to Labour next time? Which would leave Labour on 32/33. And would additionally mean about 7% would go to the Tories (or others), who got 36 last time, putting them into the 40% territory.

 

Honestly Craig, if you're going to pull figures out your arse you could at least TRY to stay consistent with your own predictions made over the last page!

Why would a 2010 Lib Dem voter vote Tory next time?

It would depend entirely whether they were in the likes of Norwich South or the likes of Eastbourne. You'd be hard pressed to find many 2010 Lib Dem voters who go Tory in the former. I'd be inclined to suggest you'd find a lot who'd go Tory in the latter.

Why would a 2010 Lib Dem voter vote Tory next time?

 

Clegg is a tory in all but name, the Lib Dem core vote is more left wing, more leaning towards Vince Cable, I know Lib Dems that can't stand Clegg, I can see many on the right of the lib dems voting tory as there is bugger all between them and Clegg

 

 

So of the Lib Dems' 23% last time, you think just 3% of that 23 will go to Labour next time? Which would leave Labour on 32/33. And would additionally mean about 7% would go to the Tories (or others), who got 36 last time, putting them into the 40% territory.

 

Honestly Craig, if you're going to pull figures out your arse you could at least TRY to stay consistent with your own predictions made over the last page!

 

I am not talking about 2010, I am talking about the recent polls that put Lib Dems at 10-15%, the other 8% have been lost, probably forever, Lib Dems will do well to get 15%, I suspect they will get nearer 10%, with say 2% of those voting Tory and the other 3% voting Labour if Lib Dems were to get 10% at next election from their current 15% base

It makes financial sense to buy a house

 

People renting a property in say Clapham are probably paying in rent a good £1000 a month, the money is vanishing into thin air

 

By buying they are probably spending the same amount or less but physically owning something at the same time

 

It makes complete sense to buy a property rather than rent

 

Yes, but why can't you see that if interest rates go up then the repayments will be unaffordable. Job security is not high and you may lose your job or be forced to take a job that pays a lot less - you cannot guarantee that it is sensible to take out a £300,000 mortgage!!! This is going to end up a bigger debt fuelled crisis than 2007.

 

Yes, but why can't you see that if interest rates go up then the repayments will be unaffordable. Job security is not high and you may lose your job or be forced to take a job that pays a lot less - you cannot guarantee that it is sensible to take out a £300,000 mortgage!!! This is going to end up a bigger debt fuelled crisis than 2007.

 

It is a risk yes, but life is about risks

 

You can take a chance in life and risk it might go pear shaped or you can sit on your hands, many are taking the chance, it is a chance worth taking imho

I am not talking about 2010, I am talking about the recent polls that put Lib Dems at 10-15%, the other 8% have been lost, probably forever, Lib Dems will do well to get 15%, I suspect they will get nearer 10%, with say 2% of those voting Tory and the other 3% voting Labour if Lib Dems were to get 10% at next election from their current 15% base

So that's the 3% Labour have over 2010, but where will the already lost 8% go between now and 2015? If you think more will go to Labour than the Tories then the two are getting very close together, and Labour only really need a plurality to get a majority given the way the seats are laid out. And that's assuming no 2010 Tory converts come back.

Exactly

 

As long as Crosby keeps on with the message about 'f***ing muslims' (his words not mine) and 'layabouts' (again his words not mine) then people will vote tory as that is what the Sun and Daily Mail have told people are what matters in the UK

But most of those people don't see that this government have done anything progressive regarding socially right-wing policies. I've recently spent 18 months workng with a bunch of people who are very right wing on the likes of immigration and benefits yet they feel there's been no change in the previous 3 1/2 years and that will remain as long as there are various shows on TV like People Like Us and Skint and they hear numerous languages when they go out.

 

Edit: Didn't realise this had gone onto another page or 2, probably already been covered to death.

Edited October 5, 201311 yr by RabbitFurCoat

So that's the 3% Labour have over 2010, but where will the already lost 8% go between now and 2015? If you think more will go to Labour than the Tories then the two are getting very close together, and Labour only really need a plurality to get a majority given the way the seats are laid out. And that's assuming no 2010 Tory converts come back.

 

I suspect that the overall number of people voting will be down in 2015 compared with 2010, that would account for a lot of the 8%, many of the rest have already switched to Labour judging by Labour's poll lead atm

 

But Labour's lead should be a lot bigger right now if they are to form the next government, Kinnock and Foot had far bigger leads than Ed has and lost and am pretty sure that Callaghan even had about an 8% lead and lost out massively to Maggie

 

Nationally tories and labour probably have a hardcore of about 30% each who would vote for them no matter what, the rest, floating voters and disaffected lib dems are the key

Yes, but why can't you see that if interest rates go up then the repayments will be unaffordable. Job security is not high and you may lose your job or be forced to take a job that pays a lot less - you cannot guarantee that it is sensible to take out a £300,000 mortgage!!! This is going to end up a bigger debt fuelled crisis than 2007.

It also doesn't help that so many jobs are now fixed term. I work for an organisation that employs thousands of people, and there's now no such thing as a permanent job. You're incredibly lucky if you find something with a contract for as long as 2 years. I know that no job is ever safe, particularly now, but how are people going to get mortgages when the contracts they have at work are becoming shorter and less secure? They'll be less likely to be offered them and will be more expensive as they're a greater risk.

I really don't see why people think turnout will be down in 2015 over 2010. There'll probably be a fair few disaffected Lib Dems staying home (mainly students who were burned, I'd imagine), but the differences between Labour and the Tories won't have ever been as obvious as they will be in 2015. Say whatever you will about the budget envelope, but the priorities of a party pledging to scrap all benefits for under 25s against those of a party pledging to freeze gas bills are about as transparent as possible.

But most of those people don't see that this government have done anything progressive regarding socially right-wing policies. I've recently spent 18 months workng with a bunch of people who are very right wing on the likes of immigration and benefits yet they feel there's been no change in the previous 3 1/2 years and that will remain as long as there are various shows on TV like People Like Us and Skint and they hear numerous languages when they go out.

 

Edit: Didn't realise this had gone onto another page or 2, probably already been covered to death.

 

There were some very popular benefit announcements at our conference

 

Long term unemployed being forced to do community work had 68% support according to one poll

 

Banning the u25's from benefits although I can see some down sides to this is also very popular in the polls

 

So those people you talk about are faced with a choice of reining in the welfare state by voting tory or handing more and more money to claimants by voting labour

 

If benefits is what influences their vote they are best off voting tory

I really don't see why people think turnout will be down in 2015 over 2010. There'll probably be a fair few disaffected Lib Dems staying home (mainly students who were burned, I'd imagine), but the differences between Labour and the Tories won't have ever been as obvious as they will be in 2015. Say whatever you will about the budget envelope, but the priorities of a party pledging to scrap all benefits for under 25s against those of a party pledging to freeze gas bills are about as transparent as possible.

 

The energy bills thing while well meaning was probably the dumbest thing Ed has announced since he became leader, full of good intentions yes but energy companies will hike up bills before the election by way more than they normally would to make up the shortfall so what sounds good on paper wont save anyone any money

 

But full of good intentions but clueless on economic realities sums Ed up

Edited October 5, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Banning the u25's from benefits although I can see some down sides to this is also very popular in the polls

No it bloody well isn't! There's been one poll so far from YouGov. There's popular support for banning under 25s from housing benefit - there was last year when the idea was floated as well - but there's pretty much a majority against banning under 25s from jobseekers' and a majority against banning them from receiving child support.

The energy bills thing while well meaning was probably the dumbest thing Ed has announced since he became leader, full of good intentions yes but energy companies will hike up bills before the election by way more than they normally would to make up the shortfall so what sounds good on paper wont save anyone any money

 

But full of good intentions but clueless on economic realities sums Ed up

Given he'll be in charge of an energy regulator that would have the power to impose a price freeze, don't you think it's likely he'd take some action against such a transparent hike if it did happen?

 

As it goes I think it's a double edged sword of an announcement that's either won the next election for him or condemned him to inevitable defeat, depending on how the Tories respond to it. But in any case - it's pretty canny on his part, given after three years of making him out to be useless the Tories can't convincingly now accuse him of being the dangerous Marx of Muswell Hill.

No it bloody well isn't! There's been one poll so far from YouGov. There's popular support for banning under 25s from housing benefit - there was last year when the idea was floated as well - but there's pretty much a majority against banning under 25s from jobseekers' and a majority against banning them from receiving child support.

 

What it saves in money it will cost in increased crime, no doubt about that

 

But I do think u25's should be living at home unless they are victims of physical or sexual abuse, they should not be entitled to housing benefit imho, exceptions being those in the 2 catergories I mentioned

 

I also think that the tories have the right idea in preventing chavs from having a career on the dole, but someone who leaves school at say 16 and works for 7 years as a mechanic for example and gets made redundant should be entitled to JSA so I don't agree with the 'one size fits all' element of this

 

But the up sides are that chavs might suddenly realise instead of dossing at school, leaving barely literate or numerate and churning out a couple of kids and spending a life on benefits, that it is worth putting in effort at school, paying attention in class, learning to read and write, getting good grades and being employable.

Clegg is a tory in all but name, the Lib Dem core vote is more left wing, more leaning towards Vince Cable, I know Lib Dems that can't stand Clegg, I can see many on the right of the lib dems voting tory as there is bugger all between them and Clegg

So why would people who hate Clegg because they think he's a Tory vote Tory? The words utterly deluded spring to mind.

What it saves in money it will cost in increased crime, no doubt about that

 

But I do think u25's should be living at home unless they are victims of physical or sexual abuse, they should not be entitled to housing benefit imho, exceptions being those in the 2 catergories I mentioned

 

I also think that the tories have the right idea in preventing chavs from having a career on the dole, but someone who leaves school at say 16 and works for 7 years as a mechanic for example and gets made redundant should be entitled to JSA so I don't agree with the 'one size fits all' element of this

 

But the up sides are that chavs might suddenly realise instead of dossing at school, leaving barely literate or numerate and churning out a couple of kids and spending a life on benefits, that it is worth putting in effort at school, paying attention in class, learning to read and write, getting good grades and being employable.

I think you'll find Iain Duncan Smith disagrees. If the parents are in social housing and in receipt of housing benefit, it is assumed that a child in their early 20s will have left home. As ever with this government, there is no coherency to their policies at all.

 

As for making people on Jobseekers' allowance work, support will start to fall when people find out that it's their job that these people will be doing. If somebody is doing a full-time job then they should be paid the rate for the job. What part of that do you think is unfair?