why is labour crashing in the polls this week

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Many people forget that when the Tories came to power in 1979 , they raised VAT from 8% and 12% (two bands) to 15%. If they win in May expect VAT to increase from 17½% to 20% with food no longer zero rated and gas & electricity uprated from 5% to 20%.

 

[clippedgull]

If you're not going to bother exercising your democratic right then you lose any right to complain in my mind. You may not like any of your local condidates but you must at least be able to make some sort of differentiation between them and vote for who you consider to be the least worst option.

I guess you are correct. But it doesn't invalidate my statement.

Voting Labour, Conservative, or Liberal won't make any difference to the average man in the street. A few quid handed back here and there, a few quid taken here and there. There are very minor differences between the Tories and Labour.

ps, I am exercising my democratic right, by not voting.

 

[User removed 4]

At least National Insurance hits earners -

This encapsulates the whole ethos of new labour, and is reason enough on its own not to vote for them.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This encapsulates the whole ethos of new labour, and is reason enough on its own not to vote for them.

If not earners, who SHOULD pay taxes then? Children? Beggars? The sick?

 

[User removed 4]

If not earners, who SHOULD pay taxes then? Children? Beggars? The sick?

It was the way you gleefully specified ' hitting ' earners as if they had done something wrong.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

im not sure NI is really a sideshow, its a very real amount to many. see the pay rise thread, many are not getting a payrise these days but next year are facing a 1% decrease in take home pay, and the business cost is massive taken across the whole economy. The marriage couple incentive is a waste of time, it will only play out in the hard core tory vote (who will turn out anyway) and piss off a increasingly large non-married population. bit of an own goal really. but what this IT cut, i thought it was suppose to be funded from some (ineffective) bank levy?

I think that in comparison to the challenge of producing a credible plan for reducing the deficit without pushing the country back into recession (or worse) the NI issue is relatively minor. Getting the deficit reduction strategy wrong would involve lost livelihoods and homes for 000,000s of people. There will be an impact on business but take I take bleating of business chiefs with a grain of salt. Based on Vince Cable's figures, the annual cost to M&S will be £10m, which is less than the CEOs £15m fee for joining.

As I understand it, the termination of IT contracts, along with recruitment freezes is one of the supposedly painless measures which will be used to fund the reversal of the NI increase. This is misleading as many business have only survived the last 2 years because of public contracts. Major cuts to contracts will have an impact on many businesses as well as their supply chains; it is not painless. Similarly, it is naive to think that recruitment freezes are an easy option. In times of economic growth it is possible to use this to reduce salary costs, but staff turnover reduces dramatically in a recession for obvious reasons.
We all know that there will be a need for major cuts; I am a manager in the public sector and we are planning for budget reductions on an unprecedented scale. All I am asking is for a bit more honesty and, although Labour have not been particularly open about the detail, their overall message has not been so opportunistically or cynically changed as that of the Conservatives.
If George O wants to portray the kinder, more giving side to his nature to win the election, the kind of change we will see in May will be on the scale of the transformation of the childcatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

 

[Simster]

Many people forget that when the Tories came to power in 1979 , they raised VAT from 8% and 12% (two bands) to 15%. If they win in May expect VAT to increase from 17½% to 20% with food no longer zero rated and gas & electricity uprated from 5% to 20%.

You can expect this from Labour too, as they have just announced no income tax rises in their manifesto.
I hate VAT as a taxation method. It's expensive, complicated and hits low earners hard. I'd much prefer income was taxed at source and more or less left alone.
I just don't believe the electorate would be that bothered about a few pence in the pound on income tax if they knew that they weren't going to be clobbered all over again on VAT, yet both the Tories and Labour seem scared about doing anything on income tax. Labour even dressed up their last income tax rise as a NI increase.

 

[strings]

Today's Sky News poll is Con - 38, Lab - 31, Lib Dem - 20.

This would leave a hung parliament with the Tories 32 seasts short of a majority.*

*As with all of strings' (tm) election predictions, this result presumes a uniform national swing, which, to say the least, is pretty unlikely.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Today's Sky News poll is Con - 38, Lab - 31, Lib Dem - 20.

This would leave a hung parliament with the Tories 32 seasts short of a majority.*

*As with all of strings' (tm) election predictions, this result presumes a uniform national swing, which, to say the least, is pretty unlikely.

YouGov poll sees the Tories lead drop by 2 from 8 to 6.

 

[Greyrun]

Listened to the launch of the Labour manifesto which was held at a new hospital,Adam Boulton the sky reporter pointed out that the cost of the new building was 650 million but under pfi would end up costing us 2.5 billion,Gordon defended the cost and was cheered on by his supporters,to me this appears to be a poor deal for the taxpayer am i right to have misgivings or is Gordon doing the right thing?

 

[driller]

Many people forget that when the Tories came to power in 1979 , they raised VAT from 8% and 12% (two bands) to 15%. If they win in May expect VAT to increase from 17½% to 20% with food no longer zero rated and gas & electricity uprated from 5% to 20%.

and your source is

speculation and bias

 

[beorhthelm]

Listened to the launch of the Labour manifesto which was held at a new hospital,Adam Boulton the sky reporter pointed out that the cost of the new building was 650 million but under pfi would end up costing us 2.5 billion,Gordon defended the cost and was cheered on by his supporters,to me this appears to be a poor deal for the taxpayer am i right to have misgivings or is Gordon doing the right thing?

PFI is a delicious fudge, it gets private investment into public services without any of the (supposed or expected) efficiencies of private sector operations. very poor deal except for the companies funding them that make a massive profit very easily.

 

[drew]

PFI is a delicious fudge, it gets private investment into public services without any of the (supposed or expected) efficiencies of private sector operations. very poor deal except for the companies funding them that make a massive profit very easily.

Personally, I think the whole PFI has been badly managed but is, to some degree, a necessary evil. Having said that, let's not forget it was introduced by Major!

 

[SICKASAGULL]

After Labours rule our schools,Hospitals and pensions perform badly against most of Europe add to this the war we were dragged into should be more than enough to say give someone else a chance.Brown stated no rise in taxes they broke that pledge last time so no reason to think we can trust them now.
Its obvious that whoever gets in will have to pay off the huge debts we owe which will mean cut backs leading to more unemployment but we have no option however Labour have had their chance and now is the time to back another party to get us out of the mess this country is in.

 

[drew]

After Labours rule our schools,Hospitals and pensions perform badly against most of Europe add to this the war we were dragged into should be more than enough to say give someone else a chance.Brown stated no rise in taxes they broke that pledge last time so no reason to think we can trust them now.
Its obvious that whoever gets in will have to pay off the huge debts we owe which will mean cut backs leading to more unemployment but we have no option however Labour have had their chance and now is the time to back another party to get us out of the mess this country is in.

That's all very well but exactly who are you going to vote for. The economy is not like a game of pass the parcel. If you are going to vote for change then you must qualify why that change will be better, or at least why you think it will be better.

 

[beorhthelm]

at the end of the day its credibilty.

now i dont think Cameron or the Tories comes in strong here, with a distinct lack of contcreate policys. and if someone says they do have lots, then they havent done a good job of projecting them, the perception is they are light on substance. the manifesto today might change this.

anywho, Labour on the other hand has two problems. one, for those that pay attention is that they re-announce everything and i think people have cottoned on to this and wonder why its not done yet. secondly, how can a party after 13 years in power say they are going to improve/fix/correct anything? they've had 13 years to do so. so where does that leave their credibility, in the next 5 years and with no money they are going to do more than the past 13? doesnt wash does it.

what i note in the polls is that Tories are static and Labour is losing ground to Liberals and other.

 

[Gwylan]

at the end of the day its credibilty.

now i dont think Cameron or the Tories comes in strong here, with a distinct lack of contcreate policys. and if someone says they do have lots, then they havent done a good job of projecting them, the perception is they are light on substance. the manifesto today might change this.

anywho, Labour on the other hand has two problems. one, for those that pay attention is that they re-announce everything and i think people have cottoned on to this and wonder why its not done yet. secondly, how can a party after 13 years in power say they are going to improve/fix/correct anything? they've had 13 years to do so. so where does that leave their credibility, in the next 5 years and with no money they are going to do more than the past 13? doesnt wash does it.

Labour's pitch is based around consistency, not that things need to be fixed - their argument is that the country's on the mend and don't dick around with it.

The Conservatives' problem is that one minute they say that the UK's in the crapper, with a massive public sector deficit, and the next minute they're proposing cutting NI rises and getting rid of other taxes (not to mention introducing a marriage benefit). They have to make up their minds as to whether they're saying Labour's damaged the economy and they need to fix it or that Labour's done a pretty good job with the economy but we believe that all the money we've got could be spread differently.

IMHO, the former is a much better approach but it seems that they want to concentrate on the latter.

The Lib Dems do seem to be picking up in the polls - although if they do eat into Labour's vote, that's not necessarily good news for the Tories.

 

[beorhthelm]

wouldnt disagree with that assessment, but i was thinking rather the issues outside of the economy, their alround offerings.

 

[Gwylan]

wouldnt disagree with that assessment, but i was thinking rather the issues outside of the economy, their alround offerings.

Yes. I think Labour have done OK-ish on the economy. Clearly they could have regulated banking better and could get tougher still but the Tories believe in even less regulation so I can't see them having a moral advantage here.

Where Labour have been appalling is on the erosion of civil liberties (DEB, ID cards etc). They clearly lag behind the Tories here - something that I would be exploiting if I were Tory strategist.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Yes. I think Labour have done OK-ish on the economy. Clearly they could have regulated banking better and could get tougher still but the Tories believe in even less regulation so I can't see them having a moral advantage here.

Where Labour have been appalling is on the erosion of civil liberties (DEB, ID cards etc). They clearly lag behind the Tories here - something that I would be exploiting if I were Tory strategist.

I would agree with that assessment. On the issue of the causes of the recession they cancel each other out. The Tories introduced the model which emphasised the role of financial services and Labour perpetuated it. When it imploded Labour actually responded well, but the Tories gave a good impression of a rabbit caught in the headlights and had no coherent response.
I agree that Labour have introduced, or been keen to introduce, legislation which takes little consideration of civil liberties.