DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

Well, except for the Lib Dem total.

no

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/550pxVotInt151110.jpg

Well, that seems like a clear Labour lead for the first time tho.

"clear"

Private industry stepping in to create jobs, just like the government said.
That's ASDA price.

Related stories
Asda to close its pension scheme

See, for years the Pension Scheme was looked on as an 'emergency' fund should the need arise. The Maxwell scandal showed that. So, legislation was passed preventing company boards from using this.

Now, of course, company boards don't care about it so much. Also, why their own pensions are largely kept in separate schemes to their employees.

was expecting a bit more 'controversy' tbqh

Well, that seems like a clear Labour lead for the first time tho.

no. the polling error is 3%. even if the polling error was 0%, the change is within the fluctuations over the last few months. the latest result is not a trend or even an outlier.

I meant clear as in "in the lead for longer than 10 mins". But, hokay.

That poll doesn't mean anything, it's not front page news by any stretch of the imagination.

it's not even news.

Lib Dems going from 23% of the vote in the election to bubble around 14% for a couple of months then consistently sit between 10% and 12% looks significant to me, regardless of the error margin.

Labour going from 29% at the election to polling consistently close to 40% is significant. As is the solidifying of the Tory numbers - despite poor govt approval ratings they are still as a party polling higher than they did at the election.

Unless you mean all polls are worthless?

Unless you mean all polls are worthless?

they have more of a purpose prior to an election though, right? a poll's value now is diminished by having to attach 'if things stay JUST like this for the next four years' to their conclusions.

Two-party squeeze innit, why would anyone vote LibDem when they could vote Labour or Tory, and they have no idea which party the Liberals would end up propping up in the event of a hung parliament. So the support has fled to the other two parties.

But it's not that different to other recent polls, and it's too far ahead of the election to be front-page news, any number of things could affect that poll in the next four years. The only reason Ned is drawing attention to it and going "bet the Sun won't put this on the front page" is because Labour are two points ahead.

Also Labour enjoying poll leads over unpopular Tory governments is not exactly unknown. Most of that time the Tories have gone on to win. The problem is the old one, Labour now has no economic credibility, and in lieu of that they have to hope that the Tories wreck theirs again.

ffs I didn't actually think it was front page news. But you know way to miss the point. Which, it seems to me, is if this (Labour now has no economic credibility) is true then 42% is a pretty good showing. Also they've got a leader who hasn't really done anything except have a baby and the cuts still haven't actually happened yet.

I agree it's a good showing, but it's only two percentage points above the Tories. Massive two-party squeeze going down.

I'd argue, however, that "the leader hasn't done anything except have a baby" isn't a great thing. Firstly because he hasn't done anything, secondly because it means that Labour is a 'protest' type poll response that may not translate into votes once they put themselves in the light of increased scrutiny. That's one of the things that stopped the Tories winning an outright majority. As things stand in the polls, it's still a hung parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power, and would either they or Labour ever agree to form a coalition?

But yeah, it's years away, there are other things to worry about.

...mmm, like, will we get a day off for Wills and Kate's wedding?

xp
Like pigs being banned for instance (the actual Sun front page to-day).

The actual banning of pigs would be a pretty big deal.

Massive two-party squeeze going down

While not denying that's true, the ex-Lib Dem votes are flowing far more in Labour's direction that to the Tories. Another way of looking at it, if you combine the two coalition parties, is that at the election Labour was 30% behind (ConDem 59%, Labour 29%) and is now only 8% behind (ConDem 50%, Labour 42%).

all these numbers are meaningless with four years to go. the vast majority of people pay no attention to politics until elections.

Party pooper.

and at the risk of repeating myself, there are relatively few lib dem seats that labour could ever win, so a declining lib dem share isn't necessarily a good thing for them.

(unless AV happens)

I still think it's a good strategy to hammer the Lib Dems in the hopes of causing dissension in the ranks. But yeah, Labour basically needs to focus on winning back working class votes.

absolutely. if you weaken the lib dems you make the other half of the coalition seem weaker too. but it's all for nothing unless the conservative share of the vote is much smaller in four years time (especially if AV doesn't happen and they redraw the boundaries)

caek do you vote lib dem each time because you only live in lib dem seats

yes, i've never lived in a seat that wasn't LD vs. conservative. i would vote labour if i was somewhere they had a chance.

i was a lib dem parliamentary researcher in 2003, but that was more because i knew my mp (clegg's predecessor in sheffield) and i didn't really want to work in government, rather than any particular pro lib dem feeling. i've never been a member.

No idea what happens in LD/Con marginals in four years time. I think if the LibDems are assuming they'll get an easy ride in those seats they are spectacularly deluded. At what point in this Parliament do those concerns start to seep in? It's all faux-mateyness at the moment but the moment the Tories sense a potential majority it's going to get rocky.

otm

there are relatively few lib dem seats that labour could ever win, so a declining lib dem share isn't necessarily a good thing for them

Well, it is a good thing if it is coupled with a Labour share increasingly by more than the Tories' share, because it means Labour are more likely to win seats off the Tories.

well, yeah it might not hurt, but the party that wins the next election will not do it by winning more votes from the lib dems than the other party. there aren't enough lib dem swing votes to do that, and they won't break in one direction en masse unless cameron turns out to be a paedophile or something.

apart from weakening the tories via weakening the strength of the coalition, the lib dems are a total sideshow. it's really depressing to see labour supporters waste their energy on them via the schadenfreude of watching a minor party commit suicide when the conservative party have 300 mps and are, well, conservatives.

At what point in this Parliament do those concerns start to seep in?

When they see they are polling in single figures? I know there are >four years to go and few people care about polls outside election years, but politicians are among those few people.

"...would have saved *the party's* money...":

A source close to the PM said: “Their jobs were cross-governmental and would have saved money in the long run. But he thought about it long and hard and does accept that they sent the wrong signal to the public during difficult times.

“Andrew and Nicky will now return to Conservative Campaign HQ and they will not be replaced.”

xp, i think they're much more interested in the results of private focus groups and custom polling stuff this far from an election.

i think the breaking point for the coalition will be if (i.e. when) the lib dems lose the av referendum.

at which point, almost regardless of how the lib dems are polling, the prospect of a general election will look horrifying to them.

oh lol royal wedding. watch the conservatives get the av vote to happen around the same time.

nah lib dems would walk it in that case as all tory mps would be sleeping on the mall in anticipation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11773574

programme of two-tierification continues

Nothing like creating a market where one is completely unnecessary.

"Hey, how can we fuck over the BBC a bit more?"

Minister for equality scraps equality law

FUCK THESE FUCKING CUNTS

FUCK THESE FUCKING CUTS

Language, please.

The government's emphasis would be on ensuring "equality of opportunity" rather than "equality of outcome", May said.

I'm cool with this. Are they gonna start by making sure all newborns belong to wealthy families or all of them belong to poor families?

Presumably they'll ensure that all children have equal access to equally good education, healthcare and recreation facilities too. This is more than any Labour government's ever promised.