- Thread starter
- #2,541
Is this true? Or something you've thought of to fit your agenda? Can you quantity the "lots"?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2015
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
Is this true? Or something you've thought of to fit your agenda? Can you quantity the "lots"?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2,543
Thanks. But can you quantify the "lots of Labour votes " you stated?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I can't but I would say if your message is about restricting things like migration, and your a migrant yourself your going to vote for a party isn't so vocal about it, so Labour would be a good choice here.
http://www.britishfuture.org/articl...will-take-a-higher-price-from-tories-in-2015/
Here is a few to chew on HT. From the mouths of Labour.
From Lord Mandelson
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Labour MPs have been secretly ordered not to campaign on immigration because doing so could cost them the next election, the Telegraph can reveal.
A private strategy document circulated by Labour HQ and seen by this newspaper warns that the bigger immigration becomes as a campaign issue the more votes the party will lose.
MPs are told to focus on “moving the conversation on” if voters express concerns about border controls to topics Labour is stronger on such as healthcare or housing.
They are also urged not to send leaflets on immigration to all voters because it could be “unhelpful” and “risks undermining the broad coalition of support we need to return to government”.
The revelations are a major embarrassment for Ed Miliband, who is expected to tell voters Labour understands their immigration concerns and harden the party’s stance on cheap foreign workers in a major speech on Monday.
Some Labour MPs have reacted with fury over the strategy document, calling it an “April Fools” joke and accusing the leadership of trying to “massage” their relationship with constituents.
TomandJerry
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2013
- 12,323
Labour's election hopes raised by four-point lead over Tories
Ed Miliband’s hopes for the election have been boosted by a poll showing Labour has opened up a four-point lead over the Tories following last week’s televised contest between him and David Cameron.
The YouGov poll for the Sunday Times, taken after Thursday’s Channel 4/Sky TV grilling for the two party leaders by Jeremy Paxman put Labour on 36%, and the Conservatives on 32%. If replicated on 7 May, this share of the vote could give Labour a lead of more than 60 seats in the House of Commons.
Ed Miliband’s hopes for the election have been boosted by a poll showing Labour has opened up a four-point lead over the Tories following last week’s televised contest between him and David Cameron.
The YouGov poll for the Sunday Times, taken after Thursday’s Channel 4/Sky TV grilling for the two party leaders by Jeremy Paxman put Labour on 36%, and the Conservatives on 32%. If replicated on 7 May, this share of the vote could give Labour a lead of more than 60 seats in the House of Commons.
And God help the country in a year or two's time.
Flex Your Head
Well-known member
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
It could be as simple as some of those who were considered "don't knows" have made their mind up which way they intend to vote. A new potential scenario is if Labour are short of an overall majority they could enter a coalition with the LibDems which would really piss of the SNP.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,274
But the audience weren't laughing at Cameron because they thought the idea of him being a firm leader was ludicrous.
I'm not a Tory voter but by Christ this is no time to have a buffoon like a Red Ed in charge, especially with the antics of Putin in Europe and the fallout following a possible EU Referendum. Cameron's had 5 years of this, he's experienced, Ed would be so far out of his depth it would be dangerous.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
It turns out that 5% of the voting population watched Jeremy whereas of the group the pollsters questioned, 20% had watched the show. And now we have a big shift poll.
Let's all speculate on how this could bias things, I'll kick off with all the older, more likely to vote (and more likely to vote Tory) had all had their Ovaltine and were tucked up with their hot water bottles come 10pm and swerved it whereas the young that don't know better (& vote Red) were still jumping on the sofa & guzzling WKD, happily responding to inane voting intentions questions as it makes them feel all wanted.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Blimey do you really believe that ? Cameron ran scared from a confrontation with a guy unable to eat a bacon buttie so how is he going to stand up to Putin ? There is only one buffoon and unfortunately he has been at No.10 for the last 5 years
- Thread starter
- #2,553
Cameron, a firm leader? What planet are you on? He plots a EU referendum purely to appease the far right of his party. He organises a Scottish referendum due to other pressures. He runs scared of Ed. A true leader would have brought his party into line (ie led) dealt with the pressure and stood up to the opposition. He'll be mincemeat come June regardless of the election outcome.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Don't forget Cameron's embarassing ( cringeworthy
) and manufactured 'spats' with Europe to make him look more UKIP-y.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,274
Do you not think he might have agreed to the Referendum partly because he thinks it might be time to have one? It's a gutsy call to make politically. I think you're wrong to say he called it purely to appease some in his party. There are a lot more factors at play than just that.
- Thread starter
- #2,556
Don't forget Cameron's embarassing ( cringeworthy
Oh yeah, forgot about that charade.
- Thread starter
- #2,557
No. The timing leads me to think he did it to try and head off the rise in UKIP support and the associated disquiet within the far right of his party. And if he did want a referendum why add all the caveats and delay it to 2017?
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
I suspect that is true. He is as cynical a politician as the next one
I'm engrossed in watching Louis T, so will spare NSC another political thread and poll, and ask my question here:-
Does anyone actually believe their life will be noticeably different AFTER the general election, irrespective of the outcome.
Does anyone actually believe their life will be noticeably different AFTER the general election, irrespective of the outcome.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
Lol. I too am watching that and its a but disturbing. Great question. No, not noticably i suspect. Just poorer