Con 34% Lab 42% Lib-Dem 12% Lab Lead 8%
Con 40% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 8% Lab Lead 3%
UK Polling suspect something of a rogue poll there from ComRes, and you'd have to say that was favourite...especially with follow up responses like these:-
"In ComRes’s other questions – they found 58% disagreed with the statement that Britain was better off with a coalition government than a single party. 36% thought Ed Miliband was proving a good leader of the Labour party with 42% disagreeing (figures for Clegg were 37% thinking he was doing a good job, 52% disagree. Finally 36% thought that Labour would do a better job than the coalition on the economy, but 54% disagreed."
It can't be good news for Labour that their leader is polling worse than Clegg
As was, but now (because of their undermining of parliamentary democracy) its more like wait 5 years
Yes, when you go deeper, it is looking good for the Tories. As long as they stay ahead on economic issues they will be ok. It will take a long time for Labour to regain economic credibility after the banking crisis, recession and deficit. Labour's only hope of a swift return to power is if inflation shoots up, unemployment rises and the economy looks like being killed by the austerity measures. But if we muddle along as we are, I think the Tories are favourties to win a second term (but the Lib Dems are finished either way)
I agree. The Tories have been very canny., letting the Lib Dems take pretty much ALL the flak for the coalition's cackhanded and socially destructive policies. Their best bet now is to have an election in May. With Labour clearly unprepared for an early election, they would, I think, win a comfortable majority and leave the Lib Dems as a spent force with very few MPs left. They might have no idea how to run the country or develop well thought-through policies that actually save money in the first place, but they know how to use a naive party of political opportunists to ensure their own position in government.
Edited by user 10 January 2011 23:32:57(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
I'm really not sure if there's any appetite for a Tory government, and if they did call an election I think enough people would be genuinely angry that they'd shafted the LibDems so openly that there would be enough of a backlash to ensure that at the very least we ended up at square one (ish).
For the LibDems I fear that their standing would only be marginally higher if tehy'd entered into coalition with Labour. Coalition was always going to be the kiss of death for them because any successes/popular policies would be associated with the senior partner while there are, as noted above, subtle ways to blame the junior partner for the nasty stuff.
As a party it would have been better for them to hold the balance of power. As a nation I'm not sure that would have done the trick in relation to the markets etc, and it would probably have broken down even more quickly because the LibDems could show dissent publicly.
Until there is a clear leader in the polls I can't see the point in an election.
The next election will be on 7th May 2015 - I genuinely believe the Coalition will last that long, naturally with some bumps in the road on the way. The LDs have little interest in an early GE, since they would be voting like Turkeys for Christmas - they have to be in it for the long haul, to have some positives to show from being in Government. The bulk of the Conservative Party will grin and bear things for a few years, because there is no viable alternative on offer. Some on the left of the LDs in Parliament and some on the right of the Conservative Party in Parliament may peel away as time goes on, but I expect the Coalition to command a healthy enough majority in Parliament throughout the term.
I have my criticisms of the Coalition, but I genuinely believe it was the least worst alternative on offer following the last election result and I also believe it is governing in the genuine national interest.
I'd be interested to know if there was ever a time when that was true.
Oooh you old cynic Brogdale! But to be serious, in this case the national interest largely coincides with the interests of the Coalition partners - they have to demonstrate in the coming years that they can tackle the Government deficit and put the country back on a genuine growth path. They are getting some things right and their reforms in the fields of education, social policy, pensions and welfare should bear genuine fruit (although I know you disagree with all those policies, they are borne out of genuine conviction with a view to improving life in this country).
There are areas where I disagree with Coalition policies, but in those areas I disagree from a position to the right.
If there is any such thing as 'the national interest' I would kind of expect it to coincide with the interests of the governed, not governors.
You're quite right when you state that I disagree with the coalition policies in the areas you outline, but there was one element of their programme that I welcomed:-
"We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the ﬁnancial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk."
Pity was, the only aspect of economy they understood was that of truth.
Edited by user 11 January 2011 20:01:02(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
We shall see. Of course you don't like the Coalition, since it is Tory led and you are on the far left. That is a given.
I shall judge it over the coming years in the following terms:
1. Does the Government current account deficit come down year on year, until the books are roughly in balance by the end of the 5 year term?
2. Does the UK keep its "AAA" credit rating as promised by GO?
3. Does the private sector start to grow and increase employment?
4. Do we start to see a renaissance of genuine standards of output and discipline in the maintained education sector?
5. Do we start to tackle the long term unemployed and reduce number of those who don't find work whether it is available or not?
Those have to be the top five areas to judge them by.
Back when 'new politics' was announced in May 2010, a number of coalition politiicans opined about how they would govern in the 'national interest'.
This always struck me as a little odd since I'd thought that all previous governments were supposedly acting in the 'national interest' . But let's assume they weren't ........I also struggled to see how two parties wrapped up in the compropmise of coalition were going to be able to achieve this supposed nirvana more easily than one party with a majority .
Any, 'give them a chance' was the clarion call of those who bought into this argument.
So far as I can see, there are far more distractions to policy making in this government than in previous ones and therefore less prima facie chance that the 'national interest' will play much part in it.
A case can be made that the national interest was served by two parties sinking their differences to provide stable government during these difficult times. The argument goes that if we had a period of minority rule, or some codge up "Rainbow coalition of the losers", it would have unsettled the markets and driven up borrowing costs for Government, businesses and people.
Of course, we cannot wind the clock of history back and find out what would really have happened. However, I do buy into that particular argument myself, since deficit reduction is the most important task facing government at the moment, part of which means reassuring the markets, so they do not drive up the costs of borrowing (which in itself makes the deficit ever more painful).
So it's about delivering stable government, and we're supposed to make a leap of faith that because it's a stable government (which I don't think it is but let's pretend) it must be in the national interest even if individual policies aren't ?
Given the result of the General Election, what better alternative was there?
The national interest is not defined in a stable government, except superficially. It's surely also about what that government does in the way of policy ?
Okay, they've kept the markets and creditors happy to date - fair enough . But I'm not sure how I see 'national interest' in the following policy areas :
1. Defence and internal security
2. Constitutional change
3. Education policy / tuition fees
4. Crucially, even in economic policy, I see future problems in the failure to address health spending, bungled quango cutting, future inflation problems etc
The national interest is not defined in a stable government, except superficially.
The will of the Electorate is superficial?
It is very interesting (genuinely) to 'listen in' to this dialogue between those on the right.
One thing I would question, (as a non-rightist) is the assumption that Gideon's performance (or the "stability" of the Torylition) necessarily accounts for the calm, satisfied reaction of 'the markets' since May. 10 Yr bond yields had peaked back in February, and had already fallen significantly through to the GE.
Ben Chu (Indy) made an interesting blog wrt this back in September:-
I do agree with MM (from an earlier post) that we will, of course, never know what would have been.....but the evidence suggested that the fear of market armageddon spun by DC/GO during the campaign was just that.
To play the Devil's advocate - commentators did say at the time that bond yields were already factoring in a Tory election win before the election. But you would doubtless say that I would say that wouldn't I? But it is the truth of the matter.
What would have happened to bond yields if we had had a minority, unstable Government, with the prospect of a fresh early election? We cannot know for sure, except that we all know the markets hate uncertainty.