Did you miss the bit about them targeting those on disability benefit then?

They have demonised everyone on benefits, not just disability benefit claimants.

The Tories have their first opinion-poll lead for 2 years: 34% to 32%.

 

Labour third place in the Euros now looking more and more likely.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

The Tories have their first opinion-poll lead for 2 years: 34% to 32%.

 

Labour third place in the Euros now looking more and more likely.

Not really at all, given every Euro poll going has shown the Conservatives miles behind Labour. Ukip are taking even bigger chunks out of their Euro vote, so you're comparing apples with pears here to suggest this result implies anything about the Euro results.

 

In any case, this result's from a new polling agency - Ashcroft's started weekly telephone polling. With nothing to compare it against from before, we have no idea what the standard result his methodology would have been generating for the last few months, so it's a little soon to judge until we get an idea of the centre of the margin of error his results are working around. Particularly as YouGov came out with a (doubtless at the top edge of the margin of error) seven point lead for Labour yesterday of 38-31.

Sorry, but now another poll (from ICM) has the Tories in the lead too.

 

There's really no doubt that the Progress Tendency strategy has been a catastrophic failure. They should've picked up on the warning signs a long time ago. And it's doubtful whether there's time to turn things round, even in a perfect-world scenario where they finally (belatedly) realise that if they want people to vote for them then they need some distinctive policies to actually vote for.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

Two polls (and one which could be a rogue) with the Tories slightly in front and one with Labour with a good lead doesn't exactly downplay the notion that the reality is a very small Labour lead.

 

AND this is without the policies in the new ten point plan getting much coverage outside of the usual places. The Tories tend to benefit immediately from policy announcements because about half the press will shout it from the rooftops as soon as it's announced, this will start to come through in the next few weeks/months. If we're regularly behind in the polls then then you have an excuse to crow.

Well, I admire your optimism.

 

But sadly, I have to agree with what someone on another forum said, that Labour right now look like the equivalent of William Hague's Conservatives before the 2001 election (who did not lose because they were too "right-wing", but simply because they were an incoherent mess who didn't seem to have a clue about what they would want to do if they got into government except that they wouldn't be the other lot). As much as like everyone I would've assumed political ads would have no impact, I wouldn't be surprised if that woeful advert last week was the final straw, because it would've confirmed some people's suspicions that Labour have nothing to say about themselves or what they would do.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

Forgive me for taking that comparison with a pinch of salt given that Hague was up against probably the most popular government of recent times between 1997 and 2001. Compare that to the current one.

Labour stopped being one of the most popular government of recent times after about a year or two. They only won that 2001 election (with less votes than they got when Neil Kinnock lost) because the main opposition party was such an utter mess that they couldn't inspire their own voters to turn out...

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

LMFAO at the idea that had the Tories been strong we'd have lost in 2001. We had one of the biggest majorities ever before and after! We had fewer votes than Kinnock got because turnout totally collapsed as it was an overwhelmingly forgone conclusion we'd win. If enthusiasm had gone down so much we wouldn't have been gaining seats in 2001 - and the Lib Dems would've been taking far more seats if people were that disillusioned.

And sorry Danny but it's becoming totally laughable that you now blame everything bad on 'the Progress tendency', and the ultimate in hacky 'everything is because of this sole evil!' argumentation. You're beginning to sound like UKIP supporters do about the EU. What's the prominent coverage on Labour policy been over the last week? Rent controls and (if anyone's paying that much attention) pressure within the party to renationalise the railways. Oh, and a party political broadcast hysteria which wasn't seen by many people at all and which was the definition of a Westminster bubble process 'scandal'.

 

Do I think that's to blame for the poll? No. But to label this result as the 'Progress tendency's' fault when we absolutely DON'T spend 'most of the time' as a party talking about deficit reduction etc. as you portray us to, and haven't done so recently, is an utter joke.

 

One: the fact that ICM poll shows the Conservatives in the lead in European elections should send off some serious alarm bells, given no other polling agency has done so. As I say every time, if it looks strange, it probably isn't accurate - wait for more polls from the *same organisation* before coming to a snap judgement. The same thing has happened countless times before and reverted to the mean in almost very case after. Yet the hysteria happens every time.

And to mention - distinctive policies? The market interventionist policies we're coming out with have been unthinkable for the last thirty years. How are they in any way not distinctive?

 

Or does distinctive in this case mean 'everything I believe'?

Labour stopped being one of the most popular government of recent times after about a year or two. They only won that 2001 election (with less votes than they got when Neil Kinnock lost) because the main opposition party was such an utter mess that they couldn't inspire their own voters to turn out...

No, they stopped being popular after Iraq. Apart from a brief blip for the fuel protests in 2000 Labour had a clear poll lead throughout their first term.

 

And sorry Danny but it's becoming totally laughable that you now blame everything bad on 'the Progress tendency', and the ultimate in hacky 'everything is because of this sole evil!' argumentation. You're beginning to sound like UKIP supporters do about the EU. What's the prominent coverage on Labour policy been over the last week? Rent controls and (if anyone's paying that much attention) pressure within the party to renationalise the railways. Oh, and a party political broadcast hysteria which wasn't seen by many people at all and which was the definition of a Westminster bubble process 'scandal'.

 

Do I think that's to blame for the poll? No. But to label this result as the 'Progress tendency's' fault when we absolutely DON'T spend 'most of the time' as a party talking about deficit reduction etc. as you portray us to, and haven't done so recently, is an utter joke.

 

One: the fact that ICM poll shows the Conservatives in the lead in European elections should send off some serious alarm bells, given no other polling agency has done so. As I say every time, if it looks strange, it probably isn't accurate - wait for more polls from the *same organisation* before coming to a snap judgement. The same thing has happened countless times before and reverted to the mean in almost very case after. Yet the hysteria happens every time.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that advert - it went out on TV and has "gone viral" and got more Youtube hits than any of the other Euro election adverts, presumably for the wrong reasons.

 

Anyway, I've said it a million times, I don't think the reason Labour are bombing is because the average person is thinking "Labour are for spending cuts, so I'm not voting for them", per se (though it is the reason for a hardcore section of Labour core voters/activists). It's more that the average person thinks they're a mess. That's what I was getting at when I compared them to Hague's Conservatives - they ended up in the ridiculous position where they said they'd keep Labour spending plans, while simultaneously still criticising them for "overspending". We have the same today with Labour one minute going on a rant about the evil Tories and their wicked spending cuts, yet the next minute contradicting themselves by saying they'd be making huge spending cuts too. It just gives the impression of a party that isn't serious and doesn't know what it's about or what the hell they're actually for, and just constantly flip-flops depending on what they think is the popular opinion on that particular day. People might not pay religious attention to the day-in day-out nuances of politics, but when you have 4 years of that kind of thing (we had yet another example on the news tonight, with Ed Miliband complaining about the state of the NHS but saying when asked by Nick Robinson that he had no serious plans to inject huge amounts of cash--I wish he would learn there is NO POINT complaining about something if you're not going to promise to do something about it) then it does start to sink in even for the average person.

 

I already said a few days ago that I was quite impressed with some of their recent policies, and if they keep plugging away with those types of things and build up an argument, and stop sending out conflicting signals by simultaneously saying they're pro-business and for austerity, then they might, MIGHT, turn things round. If they get to a place where the overwhelming public impression of Labour is "Labour are going to crack down on the super-rich and will improve poor people's lives", then, despite the Westminster bubble's delusions, I think they'd be pretty well-positioned. But, no matter how loudly they shout about their good policies, it's going to take a hell of a long time to rub out the current public impression of "Labour are a mess who have no ideas and they need to sort themselves out before they're ready for government", and a year is quite possibly not enough time to do it.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

No, they stopped being popular after Iraq. Apart from a brief blip for the fuel protests in 2000 Labour had a clear poll lead throughout their first term.

 

They did, but again, how much of that was down to the woeful quality of the opposition party? I'm not old enough to remember really clearly, but it's always been my impression that while Labour weren't hated by 2001, people were very lukewarm and uninspired by them (gradually turning into outright hostility after Iraq). The Labour government's approval ratings were about the same at this stage as the current government's is, although Blair's personal ratings were quite a bit higher than David Cameron's.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Danny

I do like the proposed Tory policy of no strike unless a certain percentage of the workforce vote. So the present teachers strikes wouldn't go ahead. Cameron's in favour of this policy but can't introduce new laws before the election as the Lib-Dems are against it. Boris Johnson thinks it should be set at 50% and that sounds fair to me.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Common Sense

I have to say that I missed the very beginning of the labour ad last week and didn't really know who it was for until the very end. Neither was I any the wiser for what labour planned to do in Europe by the end. All in all rather bemused by it.

The Labour PPB was embarrassing, misguided and had me cringing. Just awful frankly.

I do like the proposed Tory policy of no strike unless a certain percentage of the workforce vote. So the present teachers strikes wouldn't go ahead. Cameron's in favour of this policy but can't introduce new laws before the election as the Lib-Dems are against it. Boris Johnson thinks it should be set at 50% and that sounds fair to me.

I cannot support any system that means that one side can achieve what they want by sitting on their hands while the other side has to do something positive. How can you support a system that says that if one side gets the support of 49.9% of the people entitled to vote and the other side gets no votes at all, the latter side wins? And how can the Tories support the continued existence of Police and Crime Commissioners when the average turnout in elections to the post was 15%?

They did, but again, how much of that was down to the woeful quality of the opposition party? I'm not old enough to remember really clearly, but it's always been my impression that while Labour weren't hated by 2001, people were very lukewarm and uninspired by them (gradually turning into outright hostility after Iraq). The Labour government's approval ratings were about the same at this stage as the current government's is, although Blair's personal ratings were quite a bit higher than David Cameron's.

The Labour government were still reasonably popular in 2001. Of course the Tories didn't help themselves by having only one policy theme - Keep The Pound - but there was probably more positive support for the incumbent government than in any other election I can remember.

Oh wow. I've never actually felt better about our Government than I do right now. They may be the biggest pile of scum in the UK but jesus we're better off that what the poor Aussies have been lumped with in their new budget.