Looking grim for Labour

[IC1967]

I don;t give a shit what price you claim to have with the bookies. You have a bet with me.

No I don't. If I remember rightly all you were going to do was rearrange some of your charitable givings if you lost. Under those circumstances if I remember rightly I called the bet off as you clearly weren't betting. Look, I wouldn't push it if I were you. You would clearly lose. Things looked much more favourable for you when you mooted the idea of a bet. They are looking very bad for you now so just put it down to having a narrow escape.

[IC1967]

Get in. Tories 3 points ahead in latest poll.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3495/Vote-shares-for-main-parties-unchanged-but-Green-vote-hits-record-high.aspx

[Glyn_Wigley]

So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.

[IC1967]

So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.

The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So you're so excited about a poll where there's no change for Conservatives and Labour and UKIP down 1? Weird.

The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.

Another day, another lie.

Is there EVER a day goes by when you don't lie you contemptible fool?

You know damn well that this is untrue. There have been nearly 40 opinion polls in the past month. The Tories have been ahead in precisely six of them. This is the only one of those six to give them a lead as high as 3%.

Why do you do it Mick? Is it some sort of self-destructive mental deficiency that gives you an urge to lie constantly?

[IC1967]

I was referring to the IPSOS MORI poll. The previous one a month ago showed a 3 point lead. The latest one shows a 3 point lead. Hence my point the the lead is consistent. 

You are talking about other polls. I was only talking about IPSOS MORI.

I happen to think IPSOS MORI is the definitive polling organisation. You may disagree. That is your choice.

Now, stop getting your knickers in a twist and please try to refrain from the abusive language and let's engage in a sensible debate. It is a fact that 2 years ago, Labour were over 40% in the polls and the Tories were miles behind.

 Even using your preferred polls  the gap has virtually closed. There is 5 months to go to the general election. The fact that the most reputable poll is consistently showing the Tories 3 points ahead with 5 months to go spells electoral disaster for Labour.

That is the point I'm making and it is obvious that you can see the writing on the wall for Labour and this is making you very angry.

Get over it. If Labour got in things wouldn't be that different. They have signed up to austerity in case you hadn't noticed. 2 years of Labour and they'd never get elected again. Just be glad that the Tories are going to win and Labour can regroup and have a chance at the next election.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

You are priceless. I've no idea whether you actually believe the stream of bullshit that you right, but assuming for a moment that you don't, you do a fantastic job of highlighting the unmitigated idiocy of someone whose education stopped before they got to the point where they were taught how complicated the real world is.

IPSOS is your preferred polling organisation eh?

Why is that? Is because of the way that they carefully weight their poll panel? Is it their use of newspaper readership as a metric in choosing and weighting their results? Is it their method of reallocating Don't Know results by previous voting record at the last general election?

Or is it because they've had a couple of polls that tell you what you want to hear in a mass of ones saying the precise opposite? Like the You Gov one last night giving Labour a 5% lead.

You are oblivious to polling theory. You're unaware of margins of error and confidence intervals. You take two results from a sea of data and say that those are showing a "consistent" story.

Go away you clown. I've got a busy day ahead of me doing seriously important work and I can't be distracted trying to finish off your education. My only purpose of EVER replying to you is the fear that some gullible fool might actually believe you.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Anyone who believes opionion polls right now needs their head checking.  The pattern will change and they are quite volatile.  With more parties in the mix there will be a big difference between votes and seats and nobody knows how that will work out, though I fear it will help Labour.

There is the possibility of Labour winning but perhaps with less votes than the Tories.  I didn't like the AV proposal from a few years back, but more and more as the political landscape changes you have to say that something different probably is needed.  I doubt anyone wants to do that though, it is an awkward situation.  There's also that possibility of UKIP getting lots of votes and miminal seats, I think that could cause an awful lot of criticsm from the general public.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Anyone who believes opionion polls right now needs their head checking.  The pattern will change and they are quite volatile.  With more parties in the mix there will be a big difference between votes and seats and nobody knows how that will work out, though I fear it will help Labour.

There is the possibility of Labour winning but perhaps with less votes than the Tories.  I didn't like the AV proposal from a few years back, but more and more as the political landscape changes you have to say that something different probably is needed.  I doubt anyone wants to do that though, it is an awkward situation.  There's also that possibility of UKIP getting lots of votes and miminal seats, I think that could cause an awful lot of criticsm from the general public.

That's what happened to the Liberals for years, then also the SDP, and nothing changed. Because no government who has just been elected under a particular electoral system is going to change it and shoot themselves in the foot.

[IC1967]

OK, you don't like the look of the IPSOS MORI polls. I can understand that. It makes bad viewing for you. So lets take a more general look at the polls over the last 2 and half years. Taking an average of all the polls Labour were on 44% and the Tories were on 31%. The worst scenario now is that the parties are now neck and neck. So if for the sake of argument we say both parties are now on 32% then that is a gain of 1 point for the Tories and and a huge loss of 12 points for Labour. So the logical thing to do would be to follow the continuation of this trend and we can see that in 5 months time the Tories will be well ahead of Labour.

Where has the Labour vote gone you may be asking yourself. To UKIP of course. 2 and a half years ago they were getting 8%. They are now getting around the 19% mark. The Libdems and others have remained pretty much the same at 9% and 8% respectively.

So in summary, the Tories have remained pretty stable in their share of the vote and Labour have seen a massive loss of support. UKIP have more than doubled their share. So contrary to popular belief it is Labour that have been badly damaged by UKIP not the Tories.

Now if we allow for tactical voting the picture is even worse for Labour. I suspect in the seats where the Tories and UKIP are fighting it out many UKIP supporters will vote for whichever party they think will keep Labour out. I suspect many Tories will vote UKIP in the seats where Labour and UKIP are fighting it out as they know this will be the best chance of keeping Labour out.

I don't think the Labour electorate are that sophisticated and won't vote tactically. They'll still vote labour no matter what and make it easy for UKIP and the Tories to win seats they wouldn't have if Labour voters used their vote in the most tactically efficient manner.

So to summarise, tactical voting will decide the election. UKIP and Tory voters are far more tactically aware than Labour voters. This spells doom for Labour and success for the Tories and UKIP.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Obfuscation again.

YOU said that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead. They aren't. That was a lie.

When that lie is exposed, you start pontificating about trends. You make it all about YOU again. Your ability to discern trends and make predictions from those (stop smirking at the back; actually, no - have a big f**king belly laugh.)

6 months ago you were creaming your pants over Stephen Fisher's predictions from his analysis of the trends. He was saying that IF trends in the run-up to the Election followed previous paths, the Tories were likely to win a majority. You were crowing about it. I patiently explained why his analysis was flawed in the current political environment. I explained why I didn't expect the Tories to close the gap at all, although Lab could leak support away to other parties.

I wonder why now, you give us YOUR assess my of the trends, rather than Fisher's. Oh aye! Now I remember.

http://electionsetc.com/2014/12/19/forecast-update-19-december-2014/

"With just 20 weeks to polling day and still lagging two points behind Labour, the Tories are running our of time to turn things around. Our model now puts their chances of securing a majority at just 16% – the lowest since we starting forecasting last year."

There you go. That's an Oxford academic explaining that, even using his model, the analysis of the current trends is that Labour will be the largest party in May.

But here's a thing. His predictions have gradually given Labour a larger and larger number of seats as we've got closer to the Election.

Back in August, he was predicting that the Tories would be ten seats ahead of Lab in May. By October,  he was predicting a tie. Now he's predicting Lab to be 10 seats ahead.

Why? Precisely because the changes in support have NOT followed the pattern that they do in the run-up to most elections. Which Fisher is now, tacitly, admitting.

Funny how you never mention him these days.

Actually, not funny. Typical of you. Because you mendaciously pick and choose evidence that supports what you WANT to be true, and you assiduously ignore everything else. It is that approach that disgusts and riles me. It's an MO that needs slapping down any time anyone comes across it.

Now f**k off and let me get back to work.

[wing commander]

  Trends,Forcasts,Polls are all short term,there could be a 100 things happen between now and the elections that can have a impact on the political divide...That said I have my fingers,toes and everything else crossed that Labour don't get a majority...Although with such a weak leader and frankly incompetent shadow chancellor i doubt very very much that they will....

[IC1967]

Obfuscation again.

YOU said that the Tories were consistently 3% ahead. They aren't. That was a lie.

When that lie is exposed, you start pontificating about trends. You make it all about YOU again. Your ability to discern trends and make predictions from those (stop smirking at the back; actually, no - have a big f***ing belly laugh.)

6 months ago you were creaming your pants over Stephen Fisher's predictions from his analysis of the trends. He was saying that IF trends in the run-up to the Election followed previous paths, the Tories were likely to win a majority. You were crowing about it. I patiently explained why his analysis was flawed in the current political environment. I explained why I didn't expect the Tories to close the gap at all, although Lab could leak support away to other parties.

I wonder why now, you give us YOUR assess my of the trends, rather than Fisher's. Oh aye! Now I remember.

http://electionsetc.com/2014/12/19/forecast-update-19-december-2014/

"With just 20 weeks to polling day and still lagging two points behind Labour, the Tories are running our of time to turn things around. Our model now puts their chances of securing a majority at just 16% – the lowest since we starting forecasting last year."

There you go. That's an Oxford academic explaining that, even using his model, the analysis of the current trends is that Labour will be the largest party in May.

But here's a thing. His predictions have gradually given Labour a larger and larger number of seats as we've got closer to the Election.

Back in August, he was predicting that the Tories would be ten seats ahead of Lab in May. By October,  he was predicting a tie. Now he's predicting Lab to be 10 seats ahead.

Why? Precisely because the changes in support have NOT followed the pattern that they do in the run-up to most elections. Which Fisher is now, tacitly, admitting.

Funny how you never mention him these days.

Actually, not funny. Typical of you. Because you mendaciously pick and choose evidence that supports what you WANT to be true, and you assiduously ignore everything else. It is that approach that disgusts and riles me. It's an MO that needs slapping down any time anyone comes across it.

Now f*** off and let me get back to work.

Here's what I actually said, 'The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead'. This was in the context of the last 2 IPSOS MORI polls. This is the truth and not a lie.

Now you obviously weren't happy with me using the latest polls so I decided to give you the bigger picture from the last 2 and a half years. You're still not happy! 

You are trying to say that I am lying that the Tories have got a 3 point lead. I'm not lying. I've produced the most current evidence to prove this point. I've also said the 3 point lead is purely what IPSOS MORI are saying. It is my opinion that they've got it bang on. You don't have to agree with me. I don't mind.

I was even magnanimous enough to state that overall, the other polls have got both parties neck and neck. What more do you want from me?

Anyway, anyone with half a brain can see the trend. Labour are losing support and the Tories and UKIP are gaining support. This spells disaster for Labour, especially given the unbridled good economic news we're going to be getting over the next 5 months.

Now, take a chill pill, relax and just accept defeat. You'll feel so much better for it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

1) You originally said that the Tories have a consistent 3 point lead. When brought up on that claim, you said that it was consistent from 2 polls, spread one month apart by one polling company. Your original comment was, in the most generous interpretation, lacking in a bit of detail. It's actually an attempt to deceive.

2) You state that IPSOS-MORI are your preferred polling company. You don't explain what it is about their approach that gives you such confidence in them. Or why you never mentioned that they were your preferred one over the past 3 years when they were regularly giving Labour bigger than average leads. You've chosen them because they tell you what you want to believe to be correct.

3) You then go on to give us YOUR opinion about the trends over the last 2 years. When I point you in the direction of the Oxford academic that YOU yourself were quoting 6 months ago, who is now saying that the trends are NOT going strongly enough to give the Tories a victory, you simply ignore that. Par for the course.

4) You say that the other polling companies have Labour and the Tories neck and neck. Another lie. Over the last 3 months,  the other polls have had Labour consistently 2-ish% ahead on average. They vary from poll to poll, because that is what happens with polls. A tiny number have the Tories 1% ahead or level. A tiny number have Labour 5-7% ahead. But the overwhelming majority and the average have Labour 1.5-2.5% ahead. That is not neck and neck. That is Labour majority territory (and before you start yelping about your assessment of trends, go and read Stephen Fisher's latest post).

Same old same old. Every boring time.

[IC1967]

Mick

1) You originally said that the Tories have a consistent 3 point lead. When brought up on that claim, you said that it was consistent from 2 polls, spread one month apart by one polling company. Your original comment was, in the most generous interpretation, lacking in a bit of detail. It's actually an attempt to deceive.

2) You state that IPSOS-MORI are your preferred polling company. You don't explain what it is about their approach that gives you such confidence in them. Or why you never mentioned that they were your preferred one over the past 3 years when they were regularly giving Labour bigger than average leads. You've chosen them because they tell you what you want to believe to be correct.

3) You then go on to give us YOUR opinion about the trends over the last 2 years. When I point you in the direction of the Oxford academic that YOU yourself were quoting 6 months ago, who is now saying that the trends are NOT going strongly enough to give the Tories a victory, you simply ignore that. Par for the course.

4) You say that the other polling companies have Labour and the Tories neck and neck. Another lie. Over the last 3 months,  the other polls have had Labour consistently 2-ish% ahead on average. They vary from poll to poll, because that is what happens with polls. A tiny number have the Tories 1% ahead or level. A tiny number have Labour 5-7% ahead. But the overwhelming majority and the average have Labour 1.5-2.5% ahead. That is not neck and neck. That is Labour majority territory (and before you start yelping about your assessment of trends, go and read Stephen Fisher's latest post).

Same old same old. Every boring time.

Here's what I actually said, 'The Tories are now showing a consistent 3 point lead. This shows the last poll was not a flash in the pan. A 3 point lead at this stage of the electoral cycle is devastating news for Labour. Lets be clear, 1% up or down for UKIP is neither here nor there. I'd prefer UKIP to win the election but it isn't going to happen. Given that, I want the Tories to beat Labour.'

The key word is 'now'. I have taken the meaning of now to be a period of one month. Perfectly reasonable. Now things can change. I accept that. But the latest poll has shown a consistent 3 point lead. I've taken 'consistent' to mean over a period of one month where there has been more than one poll. Both polls showed the same result. Therefore it was 'consistent'. I hope that clarifies this matter for you.

I tried to deceive no-one. Do you really think people are so stupid as to blindly take at face value what I post? It is so easy for people to check what I post that I'd have to be incredibly stupid to try and deceive people in the way you claim. I may be a lot of things but I am not incredibly stupid. I wish I could say the same about you.

I prefer IPSOS MORI. Why do you think I have to justify that? If we all had to justify everything we posted we wouldn't be able to see the wood for the trees. I really do think you have this problem. You get so bogged down in the minutiae of an issue that you really struggle to see the wood for the trees. Luckily for you I am a big picture sort of person and can help to point you in the right direction.

As far as the Oxford academic goes, he is just one source of information. I hear what he says and after giving consideration to his views decide I was right all along.

As far as neck and neck goes I'll have to disagree with you on your version of what the phrase means. The parties are very close together now and in my world that means they are neck and neck. I also factor in the long term trend of Labour losing support. Something you don't like to do. Going from 44% to low 30's in 2 and a half years in my book means that they are at best neck and neck. It won't be long before they will be comfortably behind. I'm being very generous saying they are neck and neck. You are extrapolating a Labour majority on your figures today. Well I've got news for you. The general election is 5 months away. The trend is against you. You most definitely won't be in Labour majority territory then.

Relax, accept defeat and lets move on. You are starting to bore people.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.

For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval  margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means  that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.

So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.

Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.

Done. Finished. Goodbye.

[IC1967]

Mick.

I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.

For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval  margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means  that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.

So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.

Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.

Done. Finished. Goodbye.

Like I say, you can't see the wood for the trees. Your last post is a classic example of you getting bogged down in the minutiae of a debate. I accept there are variances in polls and the data does not 100% represent what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow. However as I am a big picture sort of person, I can see what is happening. I can then make an informed judgement of what will happen in 5 months. You base all your prognostications on the general election happening tomorrow. Not a good idea.

The Labour lead has fallen over the last few months. Being a bit economical with the truth there aren't we? Taking your statement literally anyone would think Labour have held a steady lead for years and it has only just started to fall over the last few months. It's fallen over the last 2 and a half years from 44% to around 32% now.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Mick.

I really do give up this time. I'll just leave you with one parting shot which I expect you to not read, understand, assimilate or consider because it doesn't tell you what you want to know, but it might help other people cut through your bullshit.

For the sample size that IPSOS use, there is a 95% confidence interval  margin of error of about +/-4% on the Lab & Tory vote figures. That means  that 95% of the time, they will get the results right to within about +/-4%.

So, if they are saying that Lab are on 29% and Con on 32%, you can take that as suggesting that there is a 95% probability that the actual figures are Lab 25-33% and Con 28-36%. Note that none of that is certain - there still could be the 1in20 outliers.

Now, the AVERAGE of all the recent polls over the past couple of months (most of which use larger samples, and have a 95% CI range of ~+/-3%) is around Lab 33%, Con 31%. When you take averages, you do get a bit smaller spread of the 95% CI range - it's difficult to work out and you wouldn't understand it, so let's ignore that and simply assume that these averages are the actual values of the parties' support. Note that these values are within the 95% CI range for the IPSOS polls. So, just because TWO IPSOS polls say that Lab is on 29% and Con on 32%, that does not mean that they actually ARE on those values. And when you consider all the other polling data (dozens and dozens of them) it becomes exceedingly likely that the actual figures are a small and stable lead for Labour. A lead which HAS fallen over the last few months, but, as Stephen Fisher points out, is not falling fast enough to lead to the likelihood of a Con victory in May.

Done. Finished. Goodbye.

Like I say, you can't see the wood for the trees. Your last post is a classic example of you getting bogged down in the minutiae of a debate. I accept there are variances in polls and the data does not 100% represent what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow. However as I am a big picture sort of person, I can see what is happening. I can then make an informed judgement of what will happen in 5 months. You base all your prognostications on the general election happening tomorrow. Not a good idea.

The Labour lead has fallen over the last few months. Being a bit economical with the truth there aren't we? Taking your statement literally anyone would think Labour have held a steady lead for years and it has only just started to fall over the last few months. It's fallen over the last 2 and a half years from 44% to around 32% now.

Funny, that. The question your favourite pollsters ask to compile the figures that you're happy to wave about is 'who would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow'. Work that one out, folks.

[IC1967]

Polls mean very little, it's like holding a betting slip, and just because you think say Donny Rovers will win the league, it doesn't make it necessarily so.
The Tories are out to cripple the poor by any means possible, how many food banks and soup kitchens have opened since they came in to power?.
Labour know the mistakes they made under different leadership, under Ed Miliband the country will be ran by a Decent family man, who doesn't make promises he can't keep.

People take him not commenting on everything as having no ideas, i take it that he doesn't have all the information, so doesn't promise to fix everything if he is put in power, as it isn't possible, under any government there will be hard times, but under Labour they will cut things in a slower more manageable way.
The Conservatives have stunted progress.

Where do I start. Polls do mean quite a lot actually. They give us a good idea of how the political landscape is shaping up. Labour at 44% 2 and a half years ago and now in the low 30's tells us quite a lot. UKIP's support more than doubling over this period also tells us quite a lot.

You say the Tories are out to cripple the poor by any means possible. Typical leftie class war drivel. There is one thing that cripples the poor and that is something Labour are very good at providing. Unemployment. Every Labour government in history has always left unemployment higher at the end of their term in office than it was when they took over. It has happened very single time. Labour are the party that cripple the poor. Contrast that with the coalition's current record.

Despite taking over an absolute basket case of an economy from Labour they have created more jobs than the rest of the EU put together. The Tories create wealth.  Labour destroy it and create poverty.

Labour know their mistakes! Then why do they always repeat them? They always borrow too much and spend too much. They never learn.

Ed  Milliband a decent family man! Then why didn't he have a clue as to what the average family shop costs. He is so out of touch with life for decent families it is untrue. He doesn't make promises he can't keep! Listen, he's a politician. They all make promises they can't keep to fool the gullible into voting for them. Let's take immigration. He promises to control it by making benefits harder to claim. Massive lie. Making benefits harder to claim will not control immigration. All it will do is reduce it by an extremely tiny amount that will make virtually no difference. Labour opened the floodgates. They most definitely have not learned lessons from past mistakes.

People take him not commenting on everything as not having a clue more like. They take it that he wants to avoid discussing difficult issues. They take it that he would rather avoid problems and hope they will go away on their own without him having to tackle them head on. Not the qualities you want in a leader.

Labour will cut things in a very similar way to the Tories if by some fluke they get into power. Don't be fooled into thinking they won't. We are so heavily in debt that they have no choice. They claim they will do it more slowly. Hogwash. If they are going to get rid of the deficit in the next parliament then they will be doing just the same as the Tories. The difference is that under Labour things would be worse because they are not as good at creating employment as the Tories so they wouldn't have as much money coming in. The cuts will still have to be made but would feel a lot worse under Labour because of their lamentable unemployment record.

The Tories far from stunting progress have done the exact opposite! We are the fastest growing major economy! Our unemployment situation is brilliant compared to the rest of the EU! I could go on.

Now take some advice. Take those rose tinted spectacles off and get rid of your class prejudices and examine the facts. Labour are a disaster for the country. Vote UKIP or Tory and let's get this country sorted (when I say vote UKIP or Tory I mean vote for whichever party has the best chance of keeping Labour out).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Aye, aye. I guess he got Ideas Constipation during that sabbatical. Looks like the mind bomb had gone off. Like an explosion in a pub bore factory.

[Filo]

We're all in this together the Tories told us, thats how we'll reduce the defecit Gideon said.

I think this chap got an exemption

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrison


And that defacit is really coming down isn't Mick

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-needs-miracle-after-4842676

[BillyStubbsTears]

It has been reported that Harrison has been courted by various hedge funds, and the pay rise, tucked away in a footnote to the salary list, may have been an attempt to take his earnings closer to what he might earn in the private sector.

Looks like he's got a good agent.

[IC1967]

We're all in this together the Tories told us, thats how we'll reduce the defecit Gideon said.

I think this chap got an exemption

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrison


And that defacit is really coming down isn't Mick

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-needs-miracle-after-4842676

The deficit is not coming down nearly as fast as I would have liked. I blame all you leftie moaners. You want the deficit cutting but you don't want spending reducing. You can't have it both ways like you always want to. Bear in mind Labour have opposed every decision by the Tories to cut it. If you lot got onside we'd have cut it by a lot more.

[jonrover]

Spending doesn't need to be cut like all the right wing nut jobs would have you believe. Deficit = £90 billion,  tax avoidance by the rich and corporations = £120 billion. Done n dusted...piece of piss.

[IC1967]

Spending doesn't need to be cut like all the right wing nut jobs would have you believe. Deficit = £90 billion,  tax avoidance by the rich and corporations = £120 billion. Done n dusted...piece of piss.

I didn't realise that red Ed had suddenly become a right wing nut job. Only very recently he promised to tackle the deficit with sensible cuts. I suggest you get in touch with him because he is obviously unaware of your brilliant plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30417955

[MachoMadness]

[IC1967]

As we enter a new year and a general election not too far away I thought I'd give Labour supporters some more bad news. There's never been a case when a party has won an election when it's been behind on both leadership and the economy - and that's where Labour is now. This is not going to change. So I would urge all Labour supporters to vote UKIP in seats where Labour normally have the sitting MP. You are not going to win the election so lets get as many UKIP MPs elected as possible to give the political elite a good kicking.

[IC1967]

More bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.

Get in.

[Muttley]

More bad news for Labour. During 2013 their lead in the opinion polls fell from 10 points to 6 points. During 2014 it fell from 6 points to 0 points. The last Populus poll of 2014 now shows Labour and the Tories neck and neck on 35%. The trend is unmistakeable. Labour will continue to lose support and will fail to win the general election.

Get in.

Michael you sir are a plank, carrying all this political stuff on your back all these years, you must be in need of some psychotherapy.

Sorted the typos for you Sammy.

[IC1967]

I prefer Sammy's original description of me as an oak. Oaks are dominant in many north temperate forests. I like to think I dominate all the lefties on this forum.