Poll List: Tories down again as Labour gain

I hope and believe that Labour can win - but if it's a hung parliament, then I hope common sense prevails and Labour aims for a coalition with the Lib. Dems.

Hmmm Alex

Why didn't my comment go through? Some would assume that party funding is a sore subject.

As regards AV - Jenkins said it was a bad choice. Spin all you like Labour Party members - no one I have met likes the idea. As I said when electoral reform was discussed a few months back you are setting back ER for decades because people see Browns clumsy efforts for what they are. AV won't happen so don't too excited.

@john doe,

I won't lose any sleep over it.

It's 6am!

@Alex

Sometimes I think the gods are looking down on me and smiling.
A chap moved into the flat next door and I got talking to him about politics (we asked each other what we do) and I stated to rant on about why Governments should have clean dealings over government contracts and he seemed to go with it.

He is taking me down to the Mosque tommorrow to meet the local muslims and hindus that live in Mayesbrook.

What were the odds of that?

What a star, Ralph - it will be an experience too - good luck with the British Asians.

I cannot get too excited about NonDoms, we should do as the Swiss do, negotiate what is in effect a fee for living and working in the UK, as pragmatically it is better that these very rich people make a contribution than no contribution at all.
Yes it is not healthy that the Tories are dependent for funding on a few rich people, but it is equally unhealthy that Labour cannot survive with money from the Unions. I would put a cap on individual contributions and an individual Union would be capped accordingly. If Union Members wish to contribute to a Political Party they should do so of their own volition.

'I cannot get too excited about NonDoms, we should do as the Swiss do, negotiate what is in effect a fee for living and working in the UK, as pragmatically it is better that these very rich people make a contribution than no contribution at all.'

Merkel wants to buy the tax avoidance records stolen from Swiss banks. Good for her. I hope she shares the information.

Research from Politics department at the University of Plymouth argues that the AV system benefits Labour the most and liberals slightly lesser, whilst it harms the Tories.

If you accept that a Labour voter is more likely to favour the Lib Dems 2nd and vice versa given the Lib Dems are more left of centre than right then it is not hard to see how AV would favour Labour.

I think the research had labour +15 on 2005, Lib Dems +9 and the Tories down. If this research is out there it seems unlikely Labour and Brown would not know of its like.

However you look at it though, to accept FPTP for election after election whilst it provides strong majorities and then only look to change it when you are about to lose an election shows a naked self interest that I think the public recognises as distasteful.

I look forward to a critical review of the research by Thrasher and Rallings by other than ConservativeHome and the Times and how it compares with Baston's research. It doesn't seem to take into account that some votes will be subtracted to the BNP and others to UKIP and others to the Greens. It will not affect the imminent GE. Dividing the LibDem vote seems a rather hazardous challenge, given Leeds City Council. The Tories, assuming they get into power, can always legislate again.

@ Ludwig Wittgenstein
"For myself, I intensely dislike Cameron simply because of the personal insults that he has dispensed in PMQs."

Agreed.
The worst insult occured when Brown returned to Parliament after meeting with other world leaders to take the necessary action to get GLOBAL economic activity rising again. The importance of this slipped by as Cameron took the p___ for a slip of the tongue by Brown. The British media then declared Cameron the winner.

Because obviously Brown would have passed on such an opportunity.

This "opportunity hoarding" issue is fairly dumb isn't it?

If you push personal aspiration, which apparently New Labour does, although I don't see how, won't people use their position to benefit and secure the future of their own kin?

You think we will go out to work to secure some other families future? Of course opportunity will be "hoarded", those paying for private education, tuition, extra curricula activities pay for their own kids, not other peoples.

I really don't see what you expect to get from the statement. Can someone explain what in practice is the objective, other than spleen venting?

@ Magna Carta

I'm certainly not going to respond to your questions when you deploy phrases like 'fairly dumb' and 'spleen venting'.

@Ludwig

But that's what it is isn't it?

A complaint that those who do well in life seek to use the benefit of doing well.

A complaint that those who do well seek to pass benefit onto their families, something that has gone on since humanity began.

To complain of it at the same time trying to promote your party as supporting "aspiration" is, to put it more politely, diametrically opposed?

@Magna Carta

It is also an ancient custom, when families hoarded too much wealth from the remaining population, the population would tear them apart.

Augustus Octavian Caeser introduced inheritence tax to keep the money flowing through what was a dire economy at the time, the consequences of his policies brought about a much more stable Empire and dealt with the corrupt Senate.

It is a balance and in principle people do want money and security for their families, but there are limitations. In a world of limited resources it will be essential for all government to keep the flow of money going as far as they can.

@Ralph

My basic point remains the same, how do you legislate against "opportunity hoarding" yet keep aspiration?

I earn my salary to benefit my family. I pay tuition fees to benefit my children. I strive at work to progress, learn and thus become more succesful in order to benefit my family and my own standing financially. I plan my finances to avoid IHT. I am not alone in any of this but am merely one of many millions doing the same thing.

No one I know of would pay for someone elses children's education. No one I know of would pay someone else's mortgage. By the fact that already the 50% rate is going to bring less in and The Sunday Times carried a 2 page spread on how to beat the taxman at the £100k mark you should realise aspiration and "opportunity hoarding" go hand in hand.

As I work to improve my lot and that of my family I intend to hoard opportunity to my family both through life and in deat as well.

In a global world it is natural and inevitable and that is why I say your opposition to "opportunity hoarding" at the same time as pushing aspiration is completely illogical.

@ Magna Carta

'But that's what it is isn't it?'

That just adverts to your language of 'spleen venting', I'm afraid.

Recent news articles have highlighted:

60% of new jobs created under Labour have been in the public sector.

Current UK debt is equivalent to us borrowing £1,100,000 a day since the birth of Christ

Civil Servants being used (and getting angry about it) for Labour party campainging work

50% tax rate already accepted as not going to deliver due to those being hit by hit leaving the country and avoiding it.

and then today, four articles:

1 Independent schools looking to set up their own university due to the fiddling of entrance requirements to favour less well off families

2 Dept for Transport to face a criminal investigation over an information cover up on data regarding Heathrow's thrid runway

3 University research showing Brown's policy to move to AV is for Labour party gain delivering a system that would be "even more unfair than at present".

and my personal favourite...

4 Tony travers of the LSE speaking about the implications of Harman's equality bill:

"The policy could lead to the collapse in the middle classes' faith in the state, raising a new class of "tax refusniks"."

""Those who pay the highest taxes can expect to see public services diverted away from them", Travers said. "Such a move would be a big change from the Blairite notion that taxpayers should be convinced their money provides them with a good service in order that they continue to be willing to pay for them".


All taken together it reinforces the view that this Labour government will leave a deeply divided country behind having alienated the middle and higher income brackets to the extent many are already avoiding and evading tax.

I said in another thread I think New Labour will become as hated by those in the centre and right as much as the left hate Thatcher.

If you can't bring people with you, especially those payingt the taxes you need for spending then you fail as a government.

There is sufficient evidence the UK is now polarised between a public sector dominated Labour supporting North and a private sector dominated Tory leaning South.

The claim I see on LL and from Brown that you are the party of "the many not the few" and support the middle class middle England demographic is clearly false and it's beginning to be widely recognised.

After 13 years your main legacy will be a more fractured, politics hating population where the tax paying classes are overwhelmingly suspicious of tax and government spend.

Congratualtions on achieving the exact mirror equal of the very hatred you directed at Thatcher.

3 University research showing Brown's policy to move to AV is for Labour party gain delivering a system that would be "even more unfair than at present".

How can someone analyse the 2005 election results (which by definition is first preference only) and infer second or third preference? Seems like nonsense to say that there is any evidence to say that AV will give a preference to Labour.

On the other hand, why cut the number of MPs by 10%? Why not cut it by 20%? Why not cut the number of MPs to a round number like 500 or 400? The fact is, Cameron's planned cuts in the number of MPs are blatant gerrymandering.

Lewis Baston, _A Better Alternative?_ (2008) suggested that there would be little discernible difference in the returns for Labour and Conservative under AV, but that the LibDems would be treated more equitably. Baston has hitherto been regarded as authoritative on this issue (Sept. 2008).

Richard Blogger

I remember "Brown" saying that very thing to cameron during PMQs"
"and why only 10%? why not 20% 30%.

As PM stated to Cameron on another occasion
"The voice may be that of a modern public relations man the mindset is that of the 1930s."


cheers

@Richard

"How can someone analyse the 2005 election results (which by definition is first preference only) and infer second or third preference?"

By research into second preferences at a statistically relevant level then apply the research findings to the electoral result and constituency set up? That is as valid as any national top line poll.

If, as I believe the research shows that 40% of liberal voters would vote Labour yet a much lower % would vote Tory, something that seems entirely plausible, wouldn't that benefit Labour at the expense of the Tories?

Perhaps we have found the answer to DCs question of GB "after 13 years in government and 90 days from the election, what first attracted you to..." AV?

As for the number of MPs, why not cut the numbers? If that means that the inherent bias in the distribution of value of voting for Labour v Tory is equalised why is that "gerrymandering"?

Or are you arguing that keeping the current constituency distribution with the inbuilt Labour advantage is fair?

Pickles HAS SAID

"there are sufficient Neanderthals at the top of the Labour Party that will insist on this strategy. {about class} It's mean and it's nasty and it sums up Gordon Brown."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7408464.stm

The only two sources for the direct quote used in this article on google are this blog and the Blue Blog which said pickles thought the Labour party would stop at nothing.

In fact Pickles went further:

"Of course it's going to be a dirty [Labour Party] campaign, we've seen that a lot in all the by-elections... the dirtier it is, the more it will backfire on those who seem to spread the dirt."

"I'm giving out straight advice: anybody does any dirty tricks from our side, we will sack them. Anyone does any dirty tricks in constituencies, we'll take a very firm disciplinary line on that. You can't be an open and transparent party and engage in dirty tricks."

So far it seems the Tories haven't really attacked Labour. On the right wing blogs many are complaining that the attack dogs aren't being released. Memories of the Tories election campaign of 97 seem to haunt them.

Sadly Labour don't appear to have got the memo

If you can't even be honest with each other how do expect the electorate to?

The dilemma is this: as soon as one starts to discuss equality of opportunity, social closure, and 'opportunity hoarding', which is demonstrably a feature of the last thirty years, one is accused of using the 'class card'. For myself, I intensely dislike Cameron simply because of the personal insults that he has dispensed in PMQs.

You 'intensely dislike' him because of that? Isn't that a little strong? I can think of many other reasons to dislike him (some good, IMHO, others bad).

Can you give some examples please? I'm sure others can counter with examples of Brown being insulting at PMQs...

'Can you give some examples please?'

I've been out. I dislike people who call other people 'useless' and 'weak' and many people that I know share that opinion.

Of course, that is worse than trying to insinuate that the death of a child might be due to his father's lifestyle at University.

Remember that? And yes, Brown was responsible, at the very least for not keeping his directly-reporting underlings under control.

Or did you approve of McBride's sick scheme?

And remember the way that Blair and Brown treated Major at PMQs? At least Major tried to actually answer the questions. How do you think Brown would answer the following question if it was given by a Tory:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960516/debtext/60516-04.htm#60516-04_spnew7

Insults and name-calling should not happen in the house. But please, clear up your own house before accusing others.

I dislike Brown because he is useless and weak.

@Dave Cotton,
How about we don't like him because he appears to be a Tony Blair clone. Does that strike any chords with you?

I for one think he is probably the least capable of your leaders since 1997. But he does know how to exercise the Blair touch.

Fair enough. That, at least, is a more substantial reason to dislike him.

By the way: he's not my leader.I am not a member of any party.

Can I highly recommend politicalbetting.com for a superb in depth analysis of why the polls at the moment aren't shifting much and would need to be much worse to scare the Tories.

If you think a 1% shift, with a margin of error of 3% on a national poll is significant then I can begin to understand why the economy is in such a mess.

As regards the nastiness of the campaign - so far the most negative campaigning is being done by Labour. Lies, smears and inference. I suspect that it will get much worse because Brown's message just won't be listened to by people like me - I'm just interested in grass roots to see how the party will renew itself after it loses the election and finally gets rid of Brown and the front bench.

I find it interesting to see Ashcroft coming up yet again - this seems one of the few things Labour has got - but Labour are basically trying to come to its own conclusions before the independant electoral commision makes its ruler. People will find that telling.

And just wait until the spotlight is shone on Labou'r own financial arrangements. If you want to throw stones then the rather dodgy practices of using tax money to what seems to be money laundering is much more worrying.

"If you think a 1% shift, with a margin of error of 3% on a national poll is significant then I can begin to understand why the economy is in such a mess."

I laughed out loud.

The problem is that the Tories will also have noticed this narrowing of the polls. Of course, everyone knew that the polls would narrow close to the election as people focus more on actually reading the party's policies, the problem for the Tories is that the narrowing has occurred earlier than they expected it. And more worryingly for them, it has occurred because of their policy launches. Their previous strategy of "no policies, just rely on Cameron not being Brown" was successful before, but can only last so long. They are now in a dilemma: they have to release policies, but the polls show that doing so will turn away voters.

When Eric Pickles told the Tory bloggers that "This is going to be one of the nastiest, most brutal campaigns in recent history" we know that this nasty, brutal behaviour will be unleashed when the polls tighten against their expectations. Their silly campaign against Kerry McCarthy shows that they can be juvenile and crass. But as things get worse for them, their attacks will be more professional, as Pickles has implied.

Time to gird your loins, I think, the Ashcroft machine will throw whatever it can at us to establish his government. Talking of which, regardless of the headline polls, it will be the marginals that count. And Ashcroft have made sure they are being pumped with his cash...

I think Labour need to be careful over the Ashcroft issue as it appears the non-dom status of some of their Lords is in question.

An interesting post I saw earlier was about Labour funding.

Okay it may not be true BUT with the likes of some and the poster campaign against David Cameron, this could be the next "big thing" - only this time directed at Labour.

That coupled with the ruling from the Independent Electoral Commission hasn't been released yet and if that shows he is okay, there will be some serious egg on some faces.

And yes one of those will be John Prescott. The irony is not lost on me, honest ;-)

Richard,

Ashcroft is one of many, many private donators to the Tory party, his contributions account for 2% of Tory funding.

To think that Labour is in any position to moralise on fundraising after how many Police investigations?

As for funding of the Labour Party, I am far more concerned with the level of influence 80% of total donations buys you.

That is the 80% coming from the Trade Unions.

Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd a company that does nothing other than donate money to the Conservative party?

And what about the Midlands Industrial Council?

And yet Lord Ashcroft still pays no tax in this country, how can that be the case?

While we are talking about it, what about Zac Goldsmith's tax situation?

You miss the point.

The Tories are not held to fortune by any of its donators.

And the Labour Party?

Tories and its donors

Well, we'll have to see: what will James Murdoch receive. Ashcroft is already an unofficial shadow minister.

What have the affiliated unions received since 1997 for supporting Labour?

@Mike Thomas

As for funding of the Labour Party, I am far more concerned with the level of influence 80% of total donations buys you.

That is the 80% coming from the Trade Unions.

I cannot believe that you say that with a straight face.

Precisely what influence do you really think the unions have had on the Labour (yes... "Labour"...not "Corporates and Consultants") party in the last administration?

Cut the rhetoric, Mike and stick with the reality: you're not bad at that for a Tory.

How's this for influence?

Remember this?

Union threatens to pull funds

Amazing what happened wasn't it?

As for Labour's funding crisis, there a nice graph here.

There's quite a few more allegations but it seem Alex won't let it through moderation that have all appeared in the print media, wonder why?

Kerry McCarthy has hardly done herself any favours in that 'silly' campaign.

As for the quote from Pickles - he could have been talking about Labour being 'nasty and brutal', and the need to respond to that. And you know what, after last Easter, when the evil McBride nonsense came to light - it is clear that he could well be right.

As for the quote itself; it was reported on Left-wing blogs (e.g. http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/pickles-key-role-for-tory-bloggers-in-rebutting-labour/) as an account of what went on within a Tory meeting. Hardly an authoritative source, yet the people around here jump on it: "Oh, it must be true!". Do you realise that this could just be another *Labour* smear?

Just because you want it to be true, does not make it true. If you believe it, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

After McBride, Labour have got absolutely no moral authority to accuse the Tories of dirty tricks. It was flagrant and sickening, as was some people's reaction to it. (yes, I mean you, Kevin Maguire).

@Alex

Thanks for the poll update and hope you had a fun evening after your canvass!

I am taking a rest today.

Guess that is the economy then. Not a bad return for 0.1%

@Ralph,
Is it me, or did you pick up that 0.01% from a misprint.

It's ten times better than than. 0.1% quarterly growth(Unfortunately the range of accuracy of initial GDP estimates is such that we should make the most of it while we can.)

@Thomas

Sorry typo, thanks for the correction. I am typing fast whilst working so lots of spelling mistakes and constantly editing previous statements.