From The Evening Standard (much better value now it's free):
More than half the public, 53 per cent, think the economy will get worse in the next 12 months, compared with 24 per cent who think it will improve - a negative "optimism index" of minus 29, the worst for nearly two years.
Conservative support crashed five points in a month from 38 to 33 per cent. Labour increased its lead by four to 43 while the Lib-Dems climbed two since the student fees row, to 13 per cent.
AFAIAC, the Lib-Cons are every bit as bad as Labour, just in subtly different ways. But above all else, I'm a democrat. Eight months ago, the Lib-Cons got a decent majority at a General Election - about sixty per cent of the popular vote; the deeply unpopular outgoing Labour government got about thirty per cent - they were elected to serve for the next five years and that is the end of that.
A grim document
7 hours ago
8 comments:
Bonkers isn't it? I could see the coalition breaking up though once the electoral reform laws are passed.
A 'No to AV' vote for the libs and more level playing field for the tories could easily see a split as the tories start to get the knives out for Cameron.
I'm not sure I want to vote for any of them TBH. Labour would fund my job more, and the tories have backed down on housing benefit reform.
Sod the lot of them, I'd be better off not on the electoral roll anyway as it compromises my personal safety.
XX But above all else, I'm a democrat. Eight months ago, the Lib-Cons got a decent majority at a General Election XX
Really?
Show me, if you will be so kind, WHERE it said "Co-Lib Coalition" on the betting slip.... ah sorry voting paper.
SL, in that case don't vote for any of them. And under AV you'll have even more votes which you can refuse to use :-)
FT, fair point, but they were perfectly entitled to form a coalition, those are the rules.
FT, and there I was thinking that the votes were to elect an MP, not a party.
XX Bayard said...
FT, and there I was thinking that the votes were to elect an MP, not a party.XX
They are voted on for what the manifesto sais. Therefore the theory is nice, but that is not how most of the people I have ever met think when they go to vote. They vote for what the PARTY will do.
The old saying "They would vote for a monkeys turd if it was wearing the correct rosette".
(O.K, you get the Granny Smiths voting for the one with the nicest haircut, but....)
60%? 60% of what? The electorate? Or those that could be arsed to go out and vote? (Hint: It's the latter.)
I do wish these figures bandied about would take into account the fact that a vast majority of the country didn't vote (through apathy, lack of interest or not having someone decent to vote for, or whatever reason. When the proportion of the electorate voting approaches 95%+ I'll start taking seriously politicans who say things such as "60% of the public....")
B, most people vote for the party not the candidate.
FT, do you imagine that the big parties mean what they say in their manifesto..?
PJH, don't blame me, I voted UKIP.
But the rules are that if you don't bother to vote, you allow the system to perpetuate itself.
"a vast majority of the country didn't vote"
That is simply not true. If you could even be bothered to follow the link in the post, you would see that something like sixty five per cent of eleigble voters cast their vote.
"When the proportion of the electorate voting approaches 95%+..."
Back in the 1950s, turnout was about eighty five per cent, so what? It was still the flabby LibLabConsensus who were in government.
Oh, and don't forget those that are only to willing to roll over and spread their arse cheeks for ANY party that gives them a 2% income tax cut instead of the 1,99% that the OTHER party offers.
(Regardless of the fact that at the same time the 2% is MORE than wiped out by increases on Benzin, tobacco alcohol, and a whole fit full of other asorted taxes.)
Post a Comment