Danny

Oh right, so when an opinion poll throws up a right-wing result, it's a reliable snapshot of public opinion, but when it's a left-wing result, it's wrong and people just haven't thought about it enough :lol: I'm sure you're talking about the 1992 election here (which is basically the Godwin's law of all Labour rightwing people), but in actual fact taxes was not even one of the top factors in Labour's defeat that year.

Half would pay extra tax for the NHS Almost half of voters say they would be happy to pay more income tax as long as the money went directly to the NHS, which is facing a £30bn gap in its finances by 2020. Polling firm ComRes found that 49% of people would be prepared to pay more tax to help fund the health service, one in three (33%) people said they would not be ready to do so, and 18% did not know either way. However, if only the views of those who expressed an opinion are considered, as many as 60% of people are willing to pay more tax to help the NHS providing its wide range of services; 40% are not. The public's willingness to pay extra tax to help the NHS has reached its highest level in over a decade amid growing concern about hospitals slipping into the red, waiting lists lengthening and the service becoming unsustainable. The 49% and 60% figures are the highest seen for either of the methodologies since the early 2000s, just before Tony Blair's government kickstarted a sustained campaign of well above inflation NHS budget increases. Professor Chris Ham, chief executive of the King's Fund health thinktank, said the increase in people willing to help the NHS financially was likely to be linked to public perceptions that it had started to struggle financially and clinically and because it was so highly valued. The findings should tell political parties that they should not shy from discussing the money needed to ensure the NHS survives and showed that voters might be more willing to pay extra tax for a specific purpose than MPs usually imagined. "It's a wake-up call to politicians to be willing to debate the funding of the NHS and to avoid colluding with each other in saying spending can't be raised until deficit reduction has been completed," Ham, who helped advise No 10 on health during 2011, said. "They may be surprised that the public are willing to support politicians who promise to raise taxes for specific purposes like the NHS." http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/au...x-fund-nhs-poll

Disagree. He was definitely detested personally during the tuition fees debacle, but as time's gone on I think people just see him as an irrelevance now. The bigger problem now is that the Lib Dems as a whole (including Clegg, but not limited to just him like it was at one stage) are seen as cheap, untrustworthy sellouts who just want to line their pockets. And that's also why I think people are overestimating how easy it's going to be for the Lib Dems to "recover" even when they leave the coalition, because they're going to need to find someone to lead them who the public already has a very high level of trust in (Vince Cable being probably the one and only example) to overcome how badly damaged the party's reputation is.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Miliband's personality needs to be a killer in itself. If he had a popular and well-defined raison d'etre and list of policies, I don't think he'd be unelectable. I don't think people see his personality as so infuriatingly unlikeable that it would override what people thought was decent substance (in the way that I think might have been the case for Brown or Ed Balls even if what were they were saying was liked by the public). But my point is Miliband's personality is certainly not appealing enough to get the job done on its own, in the absence of good, distinctive policies, in the way that Clegg's was to some extent or Blair's was.

Because they're not. How is "public bidding for rail franchises" (btw, isn't this already allowed?) going to impact living standards? How is making some minor technical adjustment to rent contracts going to impact living standards (they have not promised rent caps)? The only one which might have potential is the childcare one, but that's going to fail since there's no "credible" explanation of how it's going to be funded. Or is this another policy which isn't going to need old-fashioned money and is going to be achieved by waving a wand and asking people nicely to do it for free? And yes, by your standards, the centrists of the 1980s were "ideological purists". Hell, even the Tories before Thatcher were left-wing ideological purists I guess.

Yeah, microscopic variances might excite the Westminster bubble, but do not cut it for the public. Ed is not going to be substantially disagreeing with Cameron on the 3 big economic issues of the day (government spending, living standards and the power of big businesses), no matter how many piddling little differences he tries to play up on side-issues, so nothing in the content of what he says will make enough of an impression on the viewer to distract from the...lacklustre presentation. It's going to be a repeat of the 2010 campaign, with the public being doubly turned off because the main parties won't be giving any real choice and because, as a result of that lack of choice and not opposing eachother on the issues, will resort to playground name-calling. Incidentally that's also why I think UKIP are going to do even better than people think, because I can't see how the public aren't going to be utterly disgusted at an election campaign filled with nonstop talk about the "evil Tories" and "weird, incompetent Miliband" with no actual discussion of the issues, and will be desperate for any alternative (I still to this day don't think Clegg was anything special in the 2010 debates, it was just because it came against a backdrop of Cameron and Brown flinging shit at each other while essentially saying the same thing on the issues that it was so powerful).

I used to think they'd help him, but I agree they'd be a disaster for him now they've decided to not have any decent policies. Because he won't have the balls to disagree with the Conservatives on any of the main issues that people care about, he won't be saying anything interesting. What no-one in Labour seems to have realised is that, the fewer the differences there are on policy between them and the other parties, the more important personality becomes, because that's the only noticeable point of difference between them; since Ed won't be saying anything interesting or distinctive on the issues, the only things that will stand out for the viewer will be his funny voice, goofy looks and lack of self-assurance.

What are you defining as "natural Labour supporters"? I agree, very few of UKIP's supporters are people who were ever diehard/lifelong Labour voters. And very few UKIPPers were ever lifelong/diehard Tory voters either. Most of UKIP's voters are volatile swing voters (all those cringeworthy names like "Essex man", "Yorkshire man", "Worcester woman" -- it's no coincidence that these are all the areas where UKIP are thriving most). You're obsessed with the "centre ground", well, UKIP are the closest thing to the "centre ground". Except despite the political groupthink they don't and never have had "centrist" views.

I've read this post a couple of times, and I still don't understand the argument you're making here? I actually agree with the bit in bold, but that backs up what I was saying -- converts based on how people voted in 2010 only tells a skewed version of the story. As you say, comparing UKIP supporters now to 2012 tells a different story -- the Conservatives' poll ratings now are virtually identical to how they were in 2012 when they were miles behind, the big difference since then has been a massive shift from Labour to UKIP, with many people who were planning to vote Labour a couple of years ago (irrespective of how they voted in 2010) getting pissed off with them and going to UKIP. So do you agree that UKIP harms Labour almost as much as the Tories, because many "Kippers" are people who could and should be won over by Labour? They're the only party Labour have a chance of winning any votes from to try and top up their current ratings (and they're the people who put Labour in such a healthy position in 2012), since the Tories are close to core-vote levels and most of the remaining Lib Dems seem pretty right-wing economically (they're probably the only people who'd vote for any "Progress Party" :P ).

Oh? I thought according to you the majority of people agreed with "centrist" (i.e. Tory with a few cosmetic meaningless tweaks) economics? :kink: No, but my point is the numbers for UKIP supporters on economic questions (spending/cuts, taxes, businesses, public services, welfare, etc.) are much closer to Labour supporters than they are to Tory supporters. In fact, Kippers are usually more to the left even than current Lib Dem supporters on those issues (though obviously that's after loads of lefties have fled the Lib Dems).

I actually agree, but Labour if they won would also probably go into total meltdown quickly judging the fate of virtually ANY leftwing party that starts cutting government spending (Spain and France being the most obvious examples). And I also doubt the Lib Dems will recover quickly even if they get a new leader and repent for the last few years. I honestly think, in the event of Labour winning next year, UKIP could be topping the opinion polls within 18 months.

But again though, you're basing "converts" solely on "how they voted in 2010". But that's always been a flawed way of measuring it, because that was an election where the Conservatives were at a 20-year high and Labour were at a near all-time low -- therefore, virtually any subgroup that is studied in detail is going to be skewed towards the Conservatives if you base it solely on 2010 results. It never made any sense to think that how a group of people voted in that one, exceptional, election was representative of the normal/natural state of affairs. That probably is a factor for a small number of them and for a lot of UKIP's diehard activists, but most of their voters are not going to be caring about any future political machinations. Specific questions on the issues usually show that UKIP supporters are very close to Labour supporters on most economic issues (though not on immigration/social issues).

I can't work out if these are jokes at my expense or not(!), but... ...this isn't true. That poll I posted was taken a few days ago, and it still shows almost half of UKIP's current support prefer Labour to the Tories.

They have. On those polls which ask what issues people are concerned about, the NHS has been rising fast lately -- I think the last one I saw had it just ahead of or about level with the economy, miles ahead of "the deficit", and not too far behind immigration. (The NHS is also virtually the only area where Labour have a big lead over the Conservatives, so it would really be foolish if they don't take advantage of that by having a concrete, believable pledge on it to improve it by increasing spending, and instead wasted its potential with tedious soundbites about how "you can't trust the Tories with the NHS" without any substantial suggestions for how Labour would be better.)

I think it depends on what the politicians say the tax is for. If no reason is given, or the tax rise is just to "cut the deficit" or some ill-defined unspecific "to create a fairer society" thing, then yeah, it would be a disaster. People are not going to take well to the idea that they're not even guaranteed to get anything extra out for all the extra tax money they're putting in. If on the other hand the politicians are very specific about what the money from the tax rise will be used for, that it will be used to improve schools or especially to improve the NHS, then I honestly think people would be open to it.

Interesting poll of UKIP supporters shows that almost as many want a Labour government as want a Tory government: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php...es-think-it-has This runs somewhat counter to the meme that all UKIP supporters are Tory voters on loan.

But they did kill Ukrainian civilians. My point was that rebels fighting against an unfair status quo, and terrorism, are two sides of the same coin.

Do you also not realise how contradictory your stance on this is considering that (iirc) you wanted the Ukrainian rebels to succeed and were appalled at Russia's actions? The Ukrainian rebels have done nothing different to what Hamas do ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" yada yada yada), and it is quite easy for Russia to make the same kind of bullshit argument that Israel makes, that these rebels/so-called "terrorists" pose a threat to them and therefore they have the right to do whatever they want to supposedly "defend themselves".

If you were a Palestinian, what reaction would you have if a government was keeping you in a prison camp, not giving you basic resources, constantly wrecking your neighbourhoods and killing your friends and family?

I didn't interpret his comment to mean he himself approved of or would encourage Palestinians to fire rockets. I interpreted it to mean that, if he was in the Palestinians' position he would probably resort to it, which is slightly different. And how are Hamas's actions any more terrorism than the Israeli government/armed forces' actions? It's always hard to not be suspicious when people condemn Hamas's "terrorism" while simultaneously defending Israel, that underlying their argument is a (usually unconscious) belief that it's worse to kill white people than it is to kill "brown" people.

That's right, but Israel is less innocent. You can't expect the Palestinians to just sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the Israelis to finally be nice enough to treat them decently. Sure, we in the west in our comfortable positions can see that Hamas firing rockets is not productive or fair to any innocent Israeli civilians who potentially could get caught in the crossfire (though, the Israeli defence systems are so sophisticated that their civilians very rarely die). But if you've lived in the Gaza Strip all your life, been treated like dirt by the Israeli government, had food and basic supplies deprived from you, had the Israeli army come and deliberately bomb your family and friends constantly (since the Israeli government always deliberately target civilian areas despite their "defending themselves" bullshit), you probably wouldn't be viewing the situation rationally and dispassionately - you'd be mad as hell and wanting to get "revenge", you wouldn't be thinking about the big picture. If I was in the shoes of a Palestinian, I'd probably be cheering Hamas on tbh (though a Lib Dem MP who made comments to that effect was condemned for "endorsing terrorism!!!!!111" this week by people who themselves were apologists for the Israeli military's terrorism and war crimes).

Probably should have an active thread to discuss current events... Summary of the past couple of weeks: http://i.cdn.turner.com/ireport/sm/prod/2014/07/26/WE01130275/3337482/imagejpg-3337482_p9.jpg

Indeed, this shows their total double standards. When the public are against a "left-wing" thing, public opinion has to be respected and it's dangerous and Communist to try and persuade them otherwise, yet when they're against a right-wing thing, it doesn't matter and it should be forced through anyway. No, when I make those arguments, I'm just trying to make the point that Labour's policies are not just unprincipled, they're fails on their own terms because in most cases they're not even popular policies. For what it's worth, I would love politicians to ignore public opinion more (and perversely, I actually think the public themselves would like it since people want politicians to actually have principles that they aren't willing to throw under a bus, rather than cynically scraping around for any votes at any cost). Benefits is one thing where obviously I wish Labour would ignore what the public say and try and persuade them of their own point of view. *I* don't think Labour should not have 5 more years of spending cuts just because the public are against it -- far stronger reasons are that poverty and inequality will rise and public services will inevitably be decimated further, and that the Labour Party would almost certainly go into meltdown on the scale of the socialists in Spain and France.

I completely agree, but it's New Labour people who said that principles should always be sacrificed if it clashes with public opinion. I just find it amusing that it's been completely inverted now, and it's now New Labour people who say public opinion should be ignored when a majority say there's no need for 5 years more of cuts. Not to mention they always prided themselves on being more "realistic" than leftwingers, yet now peddle the patent rubbish that you can make huge spending cuts yet not have them affect anything that matters.

This shows just how little you understand the public's views on spending cuts. What you say might make sense in some uber-technical economics class (thought it's beyond proven by now that real economies, depending on volatile real people and unpredictable events, rarely pan out according to some academic theories) but as far as the public is concerned, the economy recovering means there's a lot less need for more spending cuts. And I thought the whole New Labour philosophy was never to argue with how the public see things?