UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[Adebesi]

There's no doubt this is true in some capacity, after all if it wasn't then advertising wouldn't work. However the way it's being used as a stick to beat people with is just plain silly and alienates.

As I said above, all I see is talk of people listening to the truth and being educated on politics, yet at the same time it's the Labour supporters in here who have been agressively shouting down anyone with a different viewpoint and calling anyone else idiots and ignorant. And I'm traditionally a Labour supporter myself.

Anyone who thinks you're an idiot for voting Tory isn't worth listening to tbh. I'd just ignore them, zero chance of missing anything worth hearing if theyre reducing the debate to those terms.

And that is from someone who has never voted Tory and can't imagine himself ever doing so. It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of priorities.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

Incredibly depressing to think we will probably have 10 years of conservatives now until another economic crash or slow down of the economy. How much damage can they do to the NHS and the most vulnerable in that time is anyone guess. The one thing ill give the conservatives is they obviously ran the far superior campaign, and ultimately that's what has won them this landslide. They attacked the lib dem seats the hardest and they made damn sure the aggressive attacks on milliband's character and image continued. ultimately its swayed the thickest of the electorate (those who don't know any real policy, but vote on the stereotype of the political spectrum) into taking what they see as the "Safe option" even though whoever had taken power in 2010 would have seen the economic recovery by this point, and able to sell it as their "correct economic policy working". just the economic cycle of peaks and troughs acting out.

 

[Bury Red]

(and also it's not only the right wing media that influences the thoughts of its readers. Some are more predisposed to the left wing agenda, or conspiracy theories, or whatever, and will be influenced by that kind of material.)

Absolutely true. Question everything you read whether it agrees with your political leanings or not.

I don't know whether it's being an Engineer or just being a cantankerous bastard but I've often fallen out with the press that more closely echoes my political leanings, I'm slightly to the left of Ken Livingstone but as a student fell out with the left wing spin in the Guardian and ended up a regular Telegraph reader. I found it easier and therefore less irritating to filter the news from the spin when the spin was opposite to my views, they also had a far better crossword.

 

[Ubik]

Arrogant and oblivious to the end eh? In London the swing toward Labour could be described as patchy and weak, rather emblematic of wider sentiment in fact. If your beloved party wishes to remain in its present state then by all means carry on, although i am inclined to think that good government is aided by a challenging opposition. I don't know anyone who cited the SNP as a reason for rejecting Labour, however i am aware of plenty who have little trust in its competence to rule.

It was definitely an issue for many people, plenty of post-voting interviews have said as much. I was concerned it was going to be an effective line for the Tories and proved as much.

Another thing I've noticed was that, similar to the shy Tory effect, most people in the polls pre-election were saying the NHS was their main priority in voting and Labour had a huge lead on the issue, whilst the economy gave the big lead to the Tories but less people said it was most important. Possibly another case of wanting to appear one way to pollsters when asked leading up to the election, but when alone in the voting booth going with how it personally affects their pocket (which is fair enough). Really does seem to be the economy, stupid. Certainly no Labour leadership will be relying on a slim lead in the polls in future to justify the direction they're taking.

 

[evra]

(and also it's not only the right wing media that influences the thoughts of its readers. Some are more predisposed to the left wing agenda, or conspiracy theories, or whatever, and will be influenced by that kind of material.)

I agree, just perusing twitter it looks to me like a significant number of people have been completely brainwashed by left-wing comedians such as Jon Stewart. It's obviously deeply unfashionable to have views that are right of centre, that's probably why the polling was so off in the lead up to the election.

 

[FortBoyard]

When you read this thread you would almost believe that we are talking about two polar parties of left and right wing politics. Labour and Tories stand for the same social policies almost entirely in 2015. If the country was in a boom the Tories would be investing in public services, if anyone doesn't believe that they are deluded.

What this election boiled down to for the average voter was who was more likely to deliver longterm economic growth. Undecided voters like myself decided that was the Conservatives.

We cannot have improved living standards without a strong economy longterm.

 

[Adebesi]

Absolutely true. Question everything you read whether it agrees with your political leanings or not.

I don't know whether it's being an Engineer or just being a cantankerous bastard but I've often fallen out with the press that more closely echoes my political leanings, I'm slightly to the left of Ken Livingstone but as a student fell out with the left wing spin in the Guardian and ended up a regular Telegraph reader. I found it easier and therefore less irritating to filter the news from the spin when the spin was opposite to my views, they also had a far better crossword.

I'm actually with you on that to some extent. I enjoy reading things that don't simply confirm what I already think. Though I also enjoy reading things that do.

For me personally the publication with the biggest influence on my thinking is probably The Economist. Though I also disagree with that paper on some things, and don't listen to its endorsements, for example not voting Tory in the recent election.

 

[Ubik]

When you read this thread you would almost believe that we are talking about two polar parties of left and right wing politics. Labour and Tories stand for the same social policies almost entirely in 2015. If the country was in a boom the Tories would be investing in public services, if anyone doesn't believe that they are deluded.

What this election boiled down to for the average voter was who was more likely to deliver longterm economic growth. Most people decided that was the Conservatives.

We cannot have improved living standards without a strong economy longterm.

Well, more people did, but still far less than half.

 

[Redlambs]

Incredibly depressing to think we will probably have 10 years of conservatives now until another economic crash or slow down of the economy. How much damage can they do to the NHS and the most vulnerable in that time is anyone guess. The one thing ill give the conservatives is they obviously ran the far superior campaign, and ultimately that's what has won them this landslide. They attacked the lib dem seats the hardest and they made damn sure the aggressive attacks on milliband's character and image continued. ultimately its swayed the thickest of the electorate (those who don't know any real policy, but vote on the stereotype of the political spectrum) into taking what they see as the "Safe option" even though whoever had taken power in 2010 would have seen the economic recovery by this point, and able to sell it as their "correct economic policy working". just the economic cycle of peaks and troughs acting out.

I agree with a lot of this. It's entirely Labour's fault on that one though, why wasn't they banging the economic drum? Why didn't they clarify their stance on immigration and try to sway people who protest voted Ukip last time but really didn't want to vote them in the election? I think a lot of us were concerned when Milliband was made leader and first opened his mouth that he was weak, a pushover, and this election seems to have proved exactly that.

I think many more people than Labour would like to believe just didn't see them as a viable government. I know I didn't, and that was a large contributing factor in why I switched for the first time.

 

[FortBoyard]

Well, more people did, but still far less than half.

Yeah I rephrased that straight after reading it.

 

[noodlehair]

The SNP has done one good thing in exposing that people south of the border don't actually have a legitimate socialist party to vote for. The closest is the Green Party but they just aren't really credible enough to be taken seriously.

Labour needed to show they were willing to go back to their old values in order to make any headway imo, and they barely showed an interest in doing that. It's more like they just want to be the left wing of the Tories. The SNP have really exposed them.

I voted Labour but it was more to keep UKIP out and in the slight hope they might get in ahead of the Tories and cause slightly less of a shit fest. It had literally nothing to do with any faith I had in them representing what I wanted. If we had a party similar to the SNP here I'd have had an easy choice. I don't even think they're perfect but at least they come across as having a genuine desire to look after the people they represent.

I think the big problem will be that there are more people in this country now, which means the resource, wealth etc. HAS to be distributed more downwards. Otherwise things just wont be sustainable for anyone. The Tories have zero interest in doing that, yet can't and wont do anything to stop the growth...in fact they want it. THey don't have a fecking clue what they're doing and their solution is to just sort of pretend a percentage of the population will just disappear if they ignore it long enough. There will be a breaking point/trainwreck at some point I reckon.

 

[soap]

When you read this thread you would almost believe that we are talking about two polar parties of left and right wing politics. Labour and Tories stand for the same social policies almost entirely in 2015. If the country was in a boom the Tories would be investing in public services, if anyone doesn't believe that they are deluded.

Pretty much agree with that. Its not as though they're going to run the country into the ground. I'm still quite disappointed they won by such as margin, because to me that says more people actually think they're doing good job rather than just prefer them to Labour than I expected.

 

[Redlambs]

Anyone who thinks you're an idiot for voting Tory isn't worth listening to tbh. I'd just ignore them, zero chance of missing anything worth hearing if theyre reducing the debate to those terms.

And that is from someone who has never voted Tory and can't imagine himself ever doing so. It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of priorities.

The problem isn't a matter of me taking it to heart, I couldn't care less. But it does highlight an appaling hypocrisy amongst a lot of Labour voters who claim to want people to listen and understand more. If I was a full on Tory, I'd happy watch it happen, but I'm not and it is a concern. Ignoring and/or attempting to belittle people gives rise to shit like Ukip and all that, it's just not the best way to behave if you genuinely want people to take an interest.

 

[FortBoyard]

I think the big problem will be that there are more people in this country now, which means the resource, wealth etc. HAS to be distributed more downwards. Otherwise things just wont be sustainable for anyone. The Tories have zero interest in doing that, yet can't and wont do anything to stop the growth...in fact they want it. THey don't have a fecking clue what they're doing and their solution is to just sort of pretend a percentage of the population will just disappear if they ignore it long enough. There will be a breaking point/trainwreck at some point I reckon.

We have social housing, free healthcare, unemployment benefit. We do have a welfare state.

The real way to have people better off is through a strong economy. Unfortunately it is business that creates jobs. An SNP style government would not be able to promote enterprise or encourage enough companies to stay or grow. Sadly companies don't like taxation.

The Tories are not a party which is against the welfare state. I think people are talking in extremes maybe.

 

[noodlehair]

Pretty much agree with that. Its not as though they're going to run the country into the ground. I'm still quite disappointed they won by such as margin, because to me that says more people actually think they're doing good job rather than just prefer them to Labour than I expected.

It's not true though.

I mean I definitely agree to an extent but to say there is no different is way wide of the mark. I work in Public Sector and the difference has been VERY noticable indeed in the last few years. The Tories don't just not invest. They take money out of the pot that isn't there to take. We were told before the election that IF the Tories won the money would be cut by a third again...there is nowhere left to take this money from so what will happen is there wont be a public sector anymore. There'll be bits of it, other bits that are semi-privatised, and other bits that either just don't exist at all or are run by someone who can charge you whatever they want for the privelidge.

This would 100% not have happened under a Labour government, and you can't tell me it wont happen anyway because it already has happened. Half the services at Local government level have either been dwindled or are now run by or contracted out to private firms. Some have disappeared completely. It's started with bin collections, closing libraries, school/road safety assistants, etc. But now you'll get down to stuff that has a big impact on people, like social services, walk in medical centres, local planning, housing and disabled care, etc. Because those are the only things left to take from.

Under Labour you'd be paying for an under funded public sector. Under the Tories you're going to be paying for a public sector that by next election time practically wont exist. That's not theoretical it's what WILL happen unless they change their current policies...the ones everyone just voted for.

They might not be fundamentally different like they should be, but there is a sigificant difference in ho extreme one is to the other.

If they carry on as they have been there is also every chance they will run the country into the ground. They're already trampling all over some of it. The growing numbers who can't find work, or are forced on to minumum wage zero hour contracts and then dicked on by their employer...and who can't turn to their government for help because the person who would help them also had their job taken away as an "effeciency saving". Or the ones who are taxed money they don't have for having an extra bedroom, in a property the government put them in, in the first place. I guess it's just easy for people to ignore until they're one of those being stepped on.

The irritating thing is the sheer volume of people who just can't seem to get any understanding of their own scenario, let alone anyone elses. People at work were telling me they voted for the Tories because they were "better off" under them than Labour. The exact same people who the SAME day were whining and acting depressed about being under staffed due to job cuts. Who were at the SAME meetings as me where it was very clearly explained to them what would happen if Cameron won the election. The mind boggles. Even if we did have a genuine socialist party, this lot would still vote Tory, then when they end up being shat on as a result half of them would probably swing to someone like UKIP. What always irritates me about elections, more than the parties themselves, or even who wins, is the sheer amount of people who vote despite openly demonstrating zero understanding of what it is they're voting for. That is what has allowed the two main parties to just merge into one ideal, and what allows people like Farage to spout whatever nonsense they want and somehow rally up support for it.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

It was definitely an issue for many people, plenty of post-voting interviews have said as much. I was concerned it was going to be an effective line for the Tories and proved as much.

Another thing I've noticed was that, similar to the shy Tory effect, most people in the polls pre-election were saying the NHS was their main priority in voting and Labour had a huge lead on the issue, whilst the economy gave the big lead to the Tories but less people said it was most important. Possibly another case of wanting to appear one way to pollsters when asked leading up to the election, but when alone in the voting booth going with how it personally affects their pocket (which is fair enough). Really does seem to be the economy, stupid. Certainly no Labour leadership will be relying on a slim lead in the polls in future to justify the direction they're taking.

I am not suggesting that the SNP's increased influence played no part at all, however i think it would be decidedly unwise of Labour to attribute the result to something so reactionary. I think you are right to focus on the economy, where the actions taken by voters are as much of a judgement against Miliband/Balls, as they are approval of all that the Tories have done. In hindsight, i wonder that the Leader's Question Time had a greater impact than many believed possible.

 

[FortBoyard]

@noodlehair

Can I just say that post is very well informed and interesting.

I would like to provide a counter argument based on working in the private sector. I 100% am a humanist and extol the virtues of looking after vulnerable members of our society and the welfare state.

The simple fact is that the money has to come from somewhere. To create an effective form of social capitalism the key is equilibrium.

The world economy is global and companies are transient. For the UK this is more true than for anywhere, with our lack of primary industry and our heavy reliance on services sector for jobs.

I manage a manufacturing site for a large overseas company. I directly employee 40plus people from working class and middle class backgrounds who are paid well and provide for their families as a result.

I can tell you now that my company would close my plant at the very moment I would start to make losses. They have no principled ties to the UK. This is true for the 1000+ employees in the UK who work in various manufacturing sites in my organisation.

We manufacture packaging. We deal business to business. We need a strong economy to keep our customers alive. We then generate income and employee people. These people pay tax and we pay tax and this funds the welfare state and public sector.

If you increase public sector spending by taxing businesses too heavily you would run the risk of destroying small business. Which in turn would cause a business like mine to lose customers. Which would mean we leave and more people are out of work.

There needs to be balance. My company breathed a collective sigh of relief at the election result, because we need a stable economy to continues to operate and therefore pump millions into peoples pockets, and into the tax system.

 

[noodlehair]

We have social housing, free healthcare, unemployment benefit. We do have a welfare state.

The real way to have people better off is through a strong economy. Unfortunately it is business that creates jobs. An SNP style government would not be able to promote enterprise or encourage enough companies to stay or grow. Sadly companies don't like taxation.

The Tories are not a party which is against the welfare state. I think people are talking in extremes maybe.

Social Housing here is semi contracted out already and in the process of fully being. Emergency work to council housing is all also contracted out to a private company who then contract it out again to people who do it as and when they please. I don't have free healthcare either. I have a local GP who couldn't even provide me with an asthma pump for 4 months, and a walk in centre that the Tories have said they are going to close. If I walked into a hospital and collapsed in the reception maybe I'd get some form of healthcare. When my mum was on unemployment benefit I was paying her heating bills and she had to borrow money to get to interviews.

So no, we have a pitiful excuse for all three of those, which I can personally vouch for...and which will become even more pitiful in the coming years. I see myself as fortunate that I stumbled into a decent job and feel I can back myself to keep it or find another one...but I'm not ignorant of others because I see the effects all the time through my job if nothing else..

The jobs you speak of are mostly minimum wage zero hour contracts in places such as a Tesco Warehouse, where half the jobs are taken by people who don't put the money back into the economy anyway (e.g. polish people who need the money to take back to their families in Poland), and the other half by people who can barely afford to live on it, but have to because it's near impossible for them to find a better job. A tiny percentage of the benefit of this actually makes it into our economy. Most goes straight intothe Private company pocket then disappears from the system, because it is so poorly managed. That's why the work is here and not elsewhere...and that's why we have an unsustainable economy. Bring in the growth but don't bring in the benefit that comes with it, and all you create is a massive fecking problem. A problem which the Tories completely ignore and which Labour at best pussy foot around.

 

[Ubik]

I am not suggesting that the SNP's increased influence played no part at all, however i think it would be decidedly unwise of Labour to attribute the result to something so reactionary. I think you are right to focus on the economy, where the actions taken by voters are as much of a judgement against Miliband/Balls, as they are approval of all that the Tories have done. In hindsight, i wonder that the Leader's Question Time had a greater impact than many believed possible.

Of course, as Alastair Campbell said on QT last night there was no single reason for the loss that can be easily rectified so that elections can be won again, there are many that need to be analysed. I don't think it was that leaders QT in itself was the problem, it was more the failure to repel the Tory economic narrative years ago (Campbell and Alan Johnson have both said this as well).

 

[HabeasC]

So, Tory voters, now that you somehow won a majority, how do you feel about bringing back fox hunting, scrapping the HRA, a referendum on Europe that will dominate your term in power, a Scotland that looks more likely than ever to leave the union and the so called 'snooper's charter'?

 

[HabeasC]

I am not suggesting that the SNP's increased influence played no part at all, however i think it would be decidedly unwise of Labour to attribute the result to something so reactionary. I think you are right to focus on the economy, where the actions taken by voters are as much of a judgement against Miliband/Balls, as they are approval of all that the Tories have done. In hindsight, i wonder that the Leader's Question Time had a greater impact than many believed possible.

To be honest, labour can only blame themselves for what happened it Scotland. In recent history, we have assumed the support of the Scottish and then left them unrepresented. Cannot blame them from voting snp.

The big reason for such a loss is that people bought into the fear mongering by the Tories and the sun/mail about how a labour + snp coalition would be horrific. They also bought into the mistruth that labour was to blame for the global recession. It essentially came down to message and the Tories' one of security and continuity triumphed over labour's one of change.

 

[Redlambs]

To be honest, labour can only blame themselves for what happened it Scotland. In recent history, we have assumed the support of the Scottish and then left them unrepresented. Cannot blame them from voting snp.

The big reason for such a loss is that people bought into the fear mongering by the Tories and the sun/mail about how a labour + snp coalition would be horrific. They also bought into the mistruth that labour was to blame for the global recession. It essentially came down to message and the Tories' one of security and continuity triumphed over labour's one of change.

And it's Labour's fault for completely failing to fight off those fears and not presenting a path to change.

 

[EricaNo7]

So, Tory voters, now that you somehow won a majority, how do you feel about bringing back fox hunting, scrapping the HRA, a referendum on Europe that will dominate your term in power, a Scotland that looks more likely than ever to leave the union and the so called 'snooper's charter'?

I'm very much against fox hunting , that would have been my only comfort if Labour had won . I didn't expect it to be quite such a resounding victory though

 

[Sweet Square]

I'm very much against fox hunting , that would have been my only comfort if Labour had won . I didn't expect it to be quite such a resounding victory though

Replacing the Human Rights act is another biggie that people are forgetting about.

 

[saivet]

I voted Labour, but this is all a bit silly in my opinion.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

So Mr Cameron has already stated that he intends to repeal the fox hunting ban, 5 years of hell have started.

 

[evra]

I'd rather he concentrated on tax cuts than killing animals.

 

[Ubik]

I voted Labour, but this is all a bit silly in my opinion.

What are they expecting, another election?

 

[Ducklegs]

So, Tory voters, now that you somehow won a majority, how do you feel about bringing back fox hunting, scrapping the HRA, a referendum on Europe that will dominate your term in power, a Scotland that looks more likely than ever to leave the union and the so called 'snooper's charter'?

I feel the same about it as when labour proposed the same thing when the they were in government last time:

Starting with The Times, who broke the story in May 2008, several media reports have claimed that as part of this programme a new national database would be created to centralise the electronic communications data (some of it collected and retained by ISPs and other communications service providers under Data Retention legislation passed down from Europe, others of it not collected or retained under any existing statute) of the entire population[2].

The BBC added some substance to the speculation in May 2008 when it ran an interview with Stuart Ward, a telecoms security engineer, who says the government has been in conversation with mobile phone operators about the best way to implement a centralised database[3]. Since the stories started appearing the proposals have been criticised by a number of sources, including the former Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas[4].

A written answer[5][6] to the Earl of Northesk on 8th July 2008 by the Lord West of Spithead, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office, reads:

"The objective of the interception modernisation programme (IMP) is to maintain the UK's lawful intercept and communications data capabilities in the changing communications environment. It is a cross-government programme, led by the Home Office, to ensure that our capability to lawfully intercept and exploit data when fighting crime and terrorism is not lost. It was established in response to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's national security remit in 2006."
The Queen's speech in 2008 did not include the Communications Data Bill in response to public controversy, and Jacqui Smith spoke about the plans on 15 October 2008 at an ippr event. She said that although the original plans had been due to go before the House of Commons in the Communications Data Bill in November, she was now holding back this Bill "in order to expand the extent of surveillance powers open to the security services, while consulting further on the best way to win public support for the plan" (Daily Telegraph report). She did not reveal the substance of the original plans.

Over the Summer of 2009, the Home Office responded to speculation with statements that the details of the Communications Data Bill are yet to be released.

In November 2009 the Home Office published a summary of the public consultation, admitting within that the majority of respondents were against the plans to extend the current data retention requirements. Half of the respondents thought the safeguards weren't good enough. This was the point where commentators started to think that the proposal had been abandoned.


Labour appeared to drop the programme in December 2009, after the public consultation where concerns about the cost, feasibility and morality were expressed by service providers and members of the public. They were saying that firstly, many of the service providers did not have the capability to store the data required, or even collect it in some cases, and so the cost would be considerably higher than the government suggested. And secondly, they said that the technology to collect the specific information, in some cases (especially mobile ISPs) didn't even exist. And of course the morality and legality of the programme were in question.

But also really glad that the evil Tories repealed the "progressive" and "libertarian" identity card act of 2006 that labour were going to force on us:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006

And a lot less threaten by not having a party in power that introduced THREE THOUSAND criminal offences between 1997 and 2009:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nce-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

Also a lot safer that there isn't a party in power who tried to remove our right to trial by Jury under the guise of "protecting jurors from intimidation"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...volt-over-Bill-for-trials-without-juries.html

But then that wouldn't of been a problem because we would of most likely broken and confessed to anything after we had spent 42 days in police custody without charge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

But that of course was for "terrorists only" as described here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

But which actually ended up being used it to do things like this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...d-their-abuse-of-anti-terror-legislation.html
And this:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-28461278.html

And although it's a little rough and a bit tin foil hat, the web site below gives a brief outline on just where the wonderful party of the people stood in regards to civil liberty:

http://www.trevor-mendham.com/civil-liberties/new-labour/

Tl;dr

A damn site fecking better than if labour were back in charge.

 

[Marching]

What are they expecting, another election?

A yawn of a demonstration.

 

[Ubik]

Labour's economic detoxification strategy begins - http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election

 

[Ducklegs]

Labour's economic detoxification strategy begins - http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election

A bit late for this Liam, the time for trying to get this across was five years ago rather than ignoring the issue completely.

 

[Sweet Square]

A damn site fecking better than if labour were back in charge.

I didn't think anyone is saying this Labour Party(The links your talking about are from the old 'Blairites' Labour not the current party) is really any good. Just that they aren't moral bankrupt(e.g. A bunch of cnuts) like The Tories.

Although I image you'll disagree.

 

[Ubik]

A bit late for this Liam, the time for trying to get this across was five years ago rather than ignoring the issue completely.

He'll be used as a bit of a sacrifice I imagine, can't see him getting back in the shadow cabinet.

 

[LeChuck]

David Cameron was visiting a Glasgow primary school and the class was in the middle of a discussion about words and their meanings.
The teacher asked Mr Cameron if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'Tragedy'.
So the the prime minister asked the class if they could think of an example of a tragedy.
A little boy stood up and said, 'If my best friend is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.'
'Incorrect,' said Cameron, 'That would merely be an accident.'
A little girl stood up and said 'If a school bus carrying thirty children drove over a cliff, killing everybody inside, that would be a tragedy.'
'I'm afraid not', said Cameron, 'That's what we would call a great loss'.
The room went silent. No other kid volunteered. Cameron searched the room.
'Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?'
Finally, little Johnny raised his hand from the back of the class and said, 'If a plane carrying you and all the Tory M.P.s was hit by a missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.'
'Fantastic!' exclaimed Cameron, 'And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?'
'Well,' said little Johnny, 'It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be a fecking accident either!'

 

[Cheesy]

I'm assuming this is made up?

 

[bishblaize]

Ive been looking at the Greater Manchester results. There's one really interesting thing that jumps out. The UKIP vote across the board has shot up, typically polling at between 5K and 15K. But the interesting thing is that the Tory vote has largely held up. Those UKIP votes arent from the right wingers. Numerically speaking, they appear to come from the Lib Dems. In reality it may be that the Lib Dem vote has gone to Labour and its Labour voters that have gone to UKIP, or a bit of both.

The three Bolton seats are perfect examples of this. The Tory vote was within +/- 2000 of the 2010 result, as was Labour. But UKIP went up by more than 7K in 2 seats and 6K in the other, with the Lib Dems losing slightly less than an equivalent amount.

I think UKIP are a far bigger threat to Labour than they suspected, say, 2 years ago. At that point the hope was that UKIP would split the right wing vote in the same way that the Lib Dems have historically split the left wing vote. But I think in Manchester UKIP is attracting a large working class vote, and that poses a real threat to Labour in the future.

 

[Cheesy]

Ive been looking at the Greater Manchester results. There's one really interesting thing that jumps out. The UKIP vote across the board has shot up, typically polling at between 5K and 15K. But the interesting thing is that the Tory vote has largely held up. Those UKIP votes arent from the right wingers. Numerically speaking, they appear to come from the Lib Dems. In reality it may be that the Lib Dem vote has gone to Labour and its Labour voters that have gone to UKIP, or a bit of both.

The three Bolton seats are perfect examples of this. The Tory vote was within +/- 2000 of the 2010 result, as was Labour. But UKIP went up by more than 7K in 2 seats and 6K in the other, with the Lib Dems losing slightly less than an equivalent amount.

I think UKIP are a far bigger threat to Labour than they suspected, say, 2 years ago. At that point the hope was that UKIP would split the right wing vote in the same way that the Lib Dems have historically split the left wing vote. But I think in Manchester UKIP is attracting a large working class vote, and that poses a real threat to Labour in the future.

At the time of vote, it was assumed that despite their protests against the coalition, a lot of Lib Dems voters switched to the Tories.

I'm kind of wondering whether that maybe wasn't the case: a lot of Lib Dems voters did go to Labour, but a lot of Labour voters then went to UKIP, as well as the predicted Tory voters doing so. In addition, Labour voters who felt the party had drifted to the left again may have switched to the Tories.

 

[Ducklegs]

I didn't think anyone is saying this Labour Party(The links your talking about are from the old 'Blairites' Labour not the current party) is really any good. Just that they aren't moral bankrupt(e.g. A bunch of cnuts) like The Tories.

Although I image you'll disagree.

But that's the only evidence we have for what they are like.

The majority of their commons MPs are from the Blair years, their front bench consisted of such premium sorry prominent new labour cnuts as Ed Balls, Eyvette Cooper, ******* harman, Andy Burnham etc.

We couldn't really think they were going to be any different.

Rather like the Tory party with the the defeated major era MPs, labour need to dump them and bring some less abhorrent characters in to replace them.

 

[Ubik]

Ive been looking at the Greater Manchester results. There's one really interesting thing that jumps out. The UKIP vote across the board has shot up, typically polling at between 5K and 15K.

But the interesting thing is that the Tory vote has largely held up. Those UKIP votes arent from the right wingers. Numerically speaking, they appear to come from the Lib Dems. In reality it may be that the Lib Dem vote has gone to Labour and its Labour voters that have gone to UKIP, or a bit of both.

The three Bolton seats are perfect examples of this. The Tory vote was within +/- 2000 of the 2010 result, as was Labour. But UKIP went up by more than 7K in 2 seats and 6K in the other, with the Lib Dems losing slightly less than an equivalent amount.

I think UKIP are a far bigger threat to Labour than they suspected, say, 2 years ago. At that point the hope was that UKIP would split the right wing vote in the same way that the Lib Dems have historically split the left wing vote. But I think in Manchester UKIP is attracting a large working class vote, and that poses a real threat to Labour in the future.

You're right that more of the UKIP vote has come from Labour than was previously thought, but also a lot of the Lib Dem vote that was supposed to go Labour I think actually went Tory. This actually presents an opportunity for Labour, who suffered (as has been referenced above) on the civil liberties issue in the Blair years, so there's a chance for Labour to reaffirm their liberal values and peel that soft-Tory, ex-Lib Dem support away before it goes back.

The right of Labour seem to have got a head-start in the leadership stakes, now articles from both Blair and Umunna in the Observer tomorrow as well -
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...what-labour-must-do-next-election-ed-miliband
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-power-is-to-recognise-the-mistakes-we-made