David Cameron's Tory govt has a record 27% lead over Corbyn's Labour shadow cabinet...

[scamander]

It's an interesting poll but not sure I can lend it much weight. Cameron has the EU issue up ahead, there's also the budget up soonish. Blaming Labour/previous govt etc becomes less of a usable soundbite these days.

In addition there's the paradox of what comes next, the higher in terms of ratings that Cameron gets then the harder it will be for his successor. The competition for it won't be pretty.

A sensible Labour strategy would be to keep Corbyn around and really let him take the party out left. See what sticks with the public, then with 18 months to go get in someone who is electable (e.g. Dan Jarvis). Jarvis could then keep anything Corbyn did which was well received whilst being proposed as a moderator and appealing to the press. For example someone who wants to take it to the banks/big companies but is fervently pro-border control and as an ex soldier has that ground he can fall back on which his opponents don't have.

The next election won't be Corbyn v Cameron and it's what happens in the last 2 years of Parliament which really resonates with the voters prior to the election. This is why normally the newly elected party does all the unpleasant stuff straight away.

 

[Stato]

Us Albion fans may take some consolation from a Frank Skinner line when I saw him in Brighton in the late nineties. At the time WBA had just been promoted and he put forward the theory that when Labour does well so do West Brom. He joked that perhaps BHA had a similar correlation with the SDP, a few years in the early eighties and nothing since. These poll showings and the state of the liberals perhaps make a new party of the centre left a possibility. If they could only get it sorted before the play offs.

 

[Notters]

Things may change when austerity really starts to bite. Found out yesterday that all support for new mothers (i.e. post-natal groups, etc.) is being cut by East Sussex County Council from April.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

What we now have is a labour party high on ideals but no intention to appeal to the electorate they require to win an election.

I could kind of understand if the leaders were geordie, scouse or Yorkshire socialists with a history of an impoverished background, but these aren't. They're north London, fairly wealthy background individuals.

Basically the lie that labour are fully responsible for the current financial conditions in this country went unchallenged for the last parliament and now has become a truism which the electorate will expect an apology for.

To win an election labour will need to demonstrate a sound economic plan with credibility. A thought out solution to health, housing and education, an honest approach to immigration and a defence policy that is robust.

What we have is a Chancellor who blows his big chance at budget statement time with a lame joke about a red book, nothing said on health housing and education, and half arsed comments about immigration with no clear narrative, before questionable comments about IS, middle East terror groups and some weird comments about nuclear subs without warheads. And don't get started on the codswallop about the Falklands.

Great post.

 

[beorhthelm]

... What we have is a Chancellor who blows his big chance at budget statement time with a lame joke about a red book, nothing said on health housing and education, and half arsed comments about immigration with no clear narrative, before questionable comments about IS, middle East terror groups and some weird comments about nuclear subs without warheads. And don't get started on the codswallop about the Falklands.

shadow chancellor surely? i think McDonnell is a bigger liability to Labour than Corbyn, he is openly Marxist and that isnt going to wash with the electorate. Corbyn is an old romantic leftie, that says things people can say "hmm, yes, sound nice idea... " before the but comes in, McDonnell just talks nonsence, as if the failure of the USSR and shift of China to a market economy never happened.

with the split on Trident, probably one on Europe (Corbyn and others are not pro-europe), no change in Scotland, failure to address the concerns on immigration and no real policy on the issues of NHS or welfare other than spend more, i cant see where the current Labour leadship will gain votes from.

 

[The Clamp]

Well, he's probably quite correct.Typical that people blame the Chinees for flooding the market with cheap steel then when The Wonderful Mr Trump blames them for taking American jobs, people ridicule him for saying it. Please make up your mind.

It's the hypocrisy that is the problem.

The problem with The Tory party (and there are problems with ALL parties, for example Blair was a money grubbing, war monger) is that they are basically the political wing of the rich. They exist solely to protect the interests of the nation's elite, the top 1%. Their policy, beyond all the bluster, is to provide just enough to just enough people in order that they can just about claim they support the average UK citizen and prevent dissent.

Although, Cameron I think, will do the party damage in his second stay in office because he seems to make no secret of his contempt for the poor. The same fate awaits him as it did Thatcher. They wield too much power, too publicly and the elite get twitchy as people start to turn against them and they get rid. A quiet, steady draining of wealth from the lower classes and ensuring it stays at the top by placing and maintaining tax law loopholes ,whilst appearing to help the nation is the policy that the elite and career Tory's prefer. A little waving of the austerity stick by Cameron and Osborne will be tolerated by the corporate elite for a while but soon it'll be "SShhh, you're giving the game away" and he'll be got rid of. The last thing the top 1% want is the poor to be alerted to the fact that they are being robbed.

Especially in light of the investigation into Cameron's alleged breaching of human rights, the two recent court victory's for people affected by the so called bedroom tax and the revelation that Labour did not cause the UK's financial problems (a claim the Tory's had been desperately hanging onto as a reason to introduce their draconian and uneccessary austerity measures). You can't tax a country out of debt. Add to these the Google tax debacle and the fact that Cameron and Osborne's own private company have paid no UK tax, EVER and this poll looks pretty shaky.

 

[BigGully]

What we now have is a labour party high on ideals but no intention to appeal to the electorate they require to win an election.

I could kind of understand if the leaders were geordie, scouse or Yorkshire socialists with a history of an impoverished background, but these aren't. They're north London, fairly wealthy background individuals.

Basically the lie that labour are fully responsible for the current financial conditions in this country went unchallenged for the last parliament and now has become a truism which the electorate will expect an apology for.

To win an election labour will need to demonstrate a sound economic plan with credibility. A thought out solution to health, housing and education, an honest approach to immigration and a defence policy that is robust.

What we have is a Chancellor who blows his big chance at budget statement time with a lame joke about a red book, nothing said on health housing and education, and half arsed comments about immigration with no clear narrative, before questionable comments about IS, middle East terror groups and some weird comments about nuclear subs without warheads. And don't get started on the codswallop about the Falklands.

Its a fair post, but what are these Labour 'ideals' that seems to precede each statement stating how rubbish they are ...

 

[halbpro]

Doesn't this mean 41% don't trust either cabinet?

 

[Guinness Boy]

No doubt at all that the Tories currently have more capable people in their leadership team than Labour. Let's face it Bolton Wanderers currently have more capable people in their leadership team than Labour. It doesn't make the Tory policies any more palatable though.

 

[Ernest]

You were cruelly exposed, politically, last time round when you repeatedly shouted down any word of Conservative strength.

Even on election day, in that delicious moment when the BBC's exit poll announced the return of a majority Conservative government, you struggled to find word that it wouldn't be so. And you looked ridiculous. And you went quiet. What a time to be alive.

You have no credibility at all. You are the soccer sauce of politics.

I'm happy to pull back quote after quote after ****ing glorious quote to illustrate it, if that is required. And I think we all know it's not.

In short: pipe down.

I LOVE it when you ACT so MASTERFUL.

 

[jackanada]

Apart from not having Jeremy Corbyn as a leader what have the conservatives done right?
Seriously I could do with some answers as it's increasingly hard to forgive people for supporting them.

 

[Titanic]

Apart from not having Jeremy Corbyn as a leader what have the conservatives done right?
Seriously I could do with some answers as it's increasingly hard to forgive people for supporting them.

Here is one for you...

See if you can correlate the Labour and Tory years to this table of Income Tax Personal Allowances... I think most people would agree that raising the allowance is a good thing for people on lower earnings?

1997-98 4,045
1998-99 4,195
1999-00 4,335
2000-01 4,385
2001-02 4,535
2002-03 4,615
2003-04 4,615
2004-05 4,745
2005-06 4,895
2006-07 5,035
2007-08 5,225
2008-09 6,035
2009-10 6,475
2010-11 6,475 (8)
2011-12 7,475 (8)
2012-13 8,105 (8)
2013-14 9,440 (8)
2014-15 10,000 (8)
2015-16 10,600 (8)

(8) The Personal Allowance reduces where an individuals income is above £100,000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit.

 

[Notters]

Here is one for you...

See if you can correlate the Labour and Tory years to this table of Income Tax Personal Allowances... I think most people would agree that raising the allowance is a good thing for people on lower earnings?

1997-98		4,045
1998-99		4,195
1999-00		4,335
2000-01		4,385
2001-02		4,535
2002-03		4,615
2003-04		4,615
2004-05		4,745
2005-06		4,895
2006-07		5,035
2007-08		5,225
2008-09		6,035
2009-10		6,475
2010-11		6,475	(8)
2011-12		7,475	(8)
2012-13		8,105	(8)
2013-14		9,440	(8)
2014-15		10,000	(8)
2015-16		10,600	(8)

(8) The Personal Allowance reduces where an individuals income is above £100,000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit.

Well it's not really telling the whole story is it? Not point in poorer people in society paying less tax if all of their essential services have been cut. And it doesn't mean they're better off overall if their (working) benefits have been cut.

 

[Titanic]

Well it's not really telling the whole story is it? Not point in poorer people in society paying less tax if all of their essential services have been cut. And it doesn't mean they're better off overall if their (working) benefits have been cut.

What is the point of taxing people on such low pay... only to give it back to them through benefits which are hugely inefficient and expensive to administer?

 

[Igzilla]

Here is one for you...

See if you can correlate the Labour and Tory years to this table of Income Tax Personal Allowances... I think most people would agree that raising the allowance is a good thing for people on lower earnings?

1997-98 4,045
1998-99 4,195
1999-00 4,335
2000-01 4,385
2001-02 4,535
2002-03 4,615
2003-04 4,615
2004-05 4,745
2005-06 4,895
2006-07 5,035
2007-08 5,225
2008-09 6,035
2009-10 6,475
2010-11 6,475 (8)
2011-12 7,475 (8)
2012-13 8,105 (8)
2013-14 9,440 (8)
2014-15 10,000 (8)
2015-16 10,600 (8)

(8) The Personal Allowance reduces where an individuals income is above £100,000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit.

That would be the Lib Dem policy then?

 

[Notters]

What is the point of taxing people on such low pay... only to give it back to them through benefits which are hugely inefficient and expensive to administer?

Good question! But that's how it has worked and still works today.

 

[beorhthelm]

And it doesn't mean they're better off overall if their (working) benefits have been cut.

should have working benefits in the first place. how about cutting the tax of lower earners instead? working benefits just create dependency on the state where there shouldn't be.

 

[jackanada]

I agree with raising the limit before any tax is paid, though the increase in families living in poverty clearly indicates any benefit has been more than outweighed by other policies.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Apart from not having Jeremy Corbyn as a leader what have the conservatives done right?
Seriously I could do with some answers as it's increasingly hard to forgive people for supporting them.

I'm sure Conservative voters would be mortified to hear of your disapproval.

You would almost certainly blame them if there was record unemployment perhaps the fact there are record numbers of people in employment could be considered something they've done right. Halving the deficit, overseeing an economy doing better than most of our major competitors, introducing a living wage, EU referendum are some other examples.

Let's be honest even if they had the best record of any government in history you would still not vote for them just because they are Tories.

 

[ROSM]

Here is one for you...

See if you can correlate the Labour and Tory years to this table of Income Tax Personal Allowances... I think most people would agree that raising the allowance is a good thing for people on lower earnings?

1997-98 4,045
1998-99 4,195
1999-00 4,335
2000-01 4,385
2001-02 4,535
2002-03 4,615
2003-04 4,615
2004-05 4,745
2005-06 4,895
2006-07 5,035
2007-08 5,225
2008-09 6,035
2009-10 6,475
2010-11 6,475 (8)
2011-12 7,475 (8)
2012-13 8,105 (8)
2013-14 9,440 (8)
2014-15 10,000 (8)
2015-16 10,600 (8)

(8) The Personal Allowance reduces where an individuals income is above £100,000 - by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit.

I think you'll find that was a lib dem policy in coalition that Osborne tried to block but ended up in the coalition agreement (alongside pupil premium)

However even the lib dems now say that on its own it wasn't as effective because the tories cut the rate for the highest paid by more making it a regressive taxation step wnd also because wider public services weren't protected