Do you think the Tories will get a majority in 2015?

[lottieandmia]

?

Or are we more likely to have another coalition?

Larrygrylls…..there is no cross party agreement on immigration at all, the fact is we have little controls over the EU ‘freedom of movement’ as it is enshrined in British law until we leave the EU.

But we do on non-EU citizens that were controlled prior to 1997 by the Conservatives and since coming back in 2010 as the figures within the table on the previous page I provide PLUS those of the last few years, shows.

So the longer we stay in the EU, that Ukip have no control over, the longer the EU immigration will continue UNLESS the EU largest members put their foot down to change it, which is a possibility, but one we should not rely on.

If the Conservatives place an EU Referendum in their 2015 General Election manifesto, if they get a majority in 2015 it will happen, the people demand it. Any EU concessions that Cameron obtains prior to the Referendum is immaterial, other than it MAY strengthen the ‘IN’ vote currently larger in the polls than the ‘OUT’ vote, albeit with loads undecided.

I’m sorry but Ukip’s “challenge” days are over, as the 3-main parties have stated their position and Ukip can do diddly squat to change the Labour or Lib Dem ‘IN’ policies – but as the Conservative’s need to be several points AHEAD in the polls to get a majority due to dodgy electoral boundaries and both other parties are firmly ‘IN’ – the ONLY chance by policy the UK will have to leave the EU is via a Conservative government and that is doubtful.

Ukip is indeed a “single issue” party, but they can change nothing and voters have to choose between Labour and the Conservatives on who they trust to manage EVERY OTHER domestic issue when the economy is turning the corner.

WetAugust….did you write your last post under the influence of something, as I wasn’t misquoting you, I just summarised what you were saying and I can understand that in plain language, it indicates anyone voting for Ukip for ‘changes’ to anything, is a complete waste of a vote YET WILL influence if Labour or the Conservatives forms the next administration – as like it or not, that is the only outcome.

Frankly I don’t get how one doorstep experience with a politician can colour someones judgement on such a party divisive issue as the EU enough to make them waste a vote when there is only ONE way we will leave the EU e.g. via a referendum.

But I do now understand how many people followed various political parties deemed ‘radical’ in the 1930’s etc – when voters defied basic common sense to follow 'great leaders’ promising change – although back then, they actually had the means.

Ismebut

First you misquote me.

Then you insult me.

That's not the way to influence people to vote Tory.

I don't give a flying who you vote for, just trying to open U-kippers eyes to the truth - as I don't mind the Conservatives losing to any party with better policies - it's losing to political parties with NO POLICIES OR POWER TO CHANGE WHAT THEY PROMISE, that gives me the right hump, as you may have noticed.

P.S. Feel free to challenge the subject facts of any of my 'misquotes' of yours and if I'm factually wrong, I'll apologise to you.

I don't give a flying who you vote for,

Yes you do. You're being paid to try to influence people to vote for the Tories.

Actually, I take that back.

Technically, it's true. You personally may not care who people vote for. Yet again, though, your statement is leading.

You're obviously trying to influence people to vote Tory, and you're almost certainly being paid to do so.

and you're almost certainly being paid to do so.

What makes you think that?

WetAugust...in answer to your question, ttosca-ca-ca who certainly isn't paid for his rubbish (or they'd ask for their money back), can't believe anyone who is this good, isn't. lololol

I don't care what anyone else thinks, I'm not, I am just very angry at Labour for their policy record in power, and unlucky for him, I have a decent political and economic knowledge, been around nearly 6 decades and have a very good memory.

ttosca doesn't think the unqualified lies he writes is 'leading'. Idiot.

P.S. If anyone DOES want to pay me, even to shut up, I'd think about it, lol

I'll arrange a whipround later this afternoon

Wet August…Hopefully you socialise with Ukip’s big wealthy ‘swinging dick’ backers, as I won’t sacrifice my high moral compass and life long crusade to inform ‘the people’ about dodgy political parties….cheaply. lol

Nah - it'll be a pie and a pint.

WetAugust:

"Tories say one thing and take the diametrically opposed action."

Have to agree:

David Cameron said he wanted a third of his government to be women by the next election: there are three women out of 22 cabinet members.

Nice to see you have your priorities right; in 2015 'the people' will have two choices in who will form the next government.

The party who rescued the UK economy from 1979, then handed over to Labour in 1997 the fastest growing economy in Europe, before Labour crashed it again, and ONCE AGAIN it is the fastest growing G7, not just European. economy.

or

The incompetent party who has not got a clue how to create jobs, other than 100% tax funded Public Sector ones, BUT HAVE MORE WOMEN in their cabinet ?????

Conservative or Labour, a vote for Ukip who cannot change a thing will put pro EU and immigration Labour back in and once again to trash the economy, this time faster as we are only just recovering - but at least they have more women. Marvellous.

Are you saying that women are less politically competent than men, as you seem to accept that only 3 women in the coalition are competent enough to be members of the government compared to 19 men. Do you see any problem with having so few women?

C-l-e-a-r-l-y I’m not saying that, the point I was making was in the first line re “priorities”, the state of the State in 2010 with how many of the ‘Blair’s babes’ of 1997 that survived and Labour women MP’s that have followed, or the 2014 with 1.5 million more jobs, manufacturing order books at multi decade highs and huge reforms to reduce our national debt that happens to have only 3 women?

Most women I know have their own views on their life/work balance and want to get where they are on merit, rather than just be shipped in as a gender statement sitting there never saying boo to their glorious leader goose, mouthing the whips class attacks on the government.

Arguably the fact a coalition was formed has had SOME bearing on the numbers of women within the current government, as there will be twice as many males egos to stroke and some like the Lib Dem Sarah Teather(?) might not want to be in a cabinet that she does not fully support re their Agreement policies.

As to my personal opinion, as a ‘child of Thatcher’ from a council home, with an inner city comprehensive school education who believed anything was possible and worked hard/did well (until now lol), I firmly believe in a meritocracy - so I’d have no objections if EVERY MP was a women, IF they were good enough. Poster women MP’s without a brain, or all women (or men) shortlists, I have no time for them, on either side of the House.

I just looked at the Constituency predictor website. Tories have an 89% chance of keeping the seat. I do think I live in the most Conservative place in the country!

Rejoice poster lol.

Talking about ‘the country’ and your apparently sad situation, if you click on the electoral link here and look at the map, you’ll see that for now that the Conservatives are THE party of England, which really makes you think about dodgy electoral boundaries – but as Labour only needs around 36% of the vote to get a decent majority, you’ll get your wish soon enough.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

I hope not.

Can I just point out to all those who talk about Labour 'recklessly spending' that prior to the GLOBAL financial crash, George Osborne stated;

"WE WILL MATCH LABOUR'S SPENDING PLANS, POUND FOR POUND'.

At no point did he say 'hang on, shouldn't you be fixing the roof while the sun shines'.

Which to my mind, means they can say NOTHING about historic spending, because they supported those plans.

In September 2007, as you say, it was JUST prior to the financial crash, which led to the Great Recession, when we had a budget deficit of around £30-£35 billion.

Don't you think that it is more of a problem when Brown was saying in 2010 'what deficit' when it was approaching £157 billion, that Osbourne and the Conservatives were losing votes saying we need to get the finances under control - as they were in 1997 before the Tories left power, leading to NO deficit a few years later as Brown was forced by markets to accept the previous Tory spending plans?

What did Ukip plan, apart from fire nearly 2 million public sector workers back to 1997 levels AND have a combined income tax and national insurance of 31p - stuffing the poor, helping the rich - can someone tell me?

Isitmebut: Which standard indicator do you think is the best to measure a government's performance on public finances: the debt, the annual balance, the annual structural balance, or maybe you prefer another one?

agirlwithwings .... I am a big believer in a fairly simple measurements; the economy and social structure when they came in, and then when they leave - with the sustainability of their policies - weighed up with the financial and political recourses they had whilst in power.

As an example of this, from 1997 Labour had inherited an economy from the Conservatives, growing albeit slowly for around 26 conseq quarters from the previous western recession. Labour also had the best global decade of global growth and low inflation/interest rates in probably a century - and a huge parliamentary majority of 140 seats ish to implement their visions on our economy and social structure - and they SCREWED EVERYTHING UP, prior to the crash, that their policies had made worse.

The Conservatives in 2010 got back from Labour a economic and social train crash unrecognizable from 1997, a £157 billion annual deficit, an economy that had LOSt around 7% of national output in 2007/8 AND had to FIRST form the first UK coalition in several decades with a leftie political party.

In other words, you may silly financial numbers that prove something or other about Labour's fitness to have another crack at running the country with a huge deficit (when they couldn't do it with a few £trillion to spend), but we could look at anything else re Labour's record in power, and with qualified facts, shoot you down conclusively.

So please go for it.

Isitmebut:

Thanks for your response and apologies for taking so long to reply.

I agree that the economic climate determines how easy it is for a government to budget. However, there is a measure of government budgeting which takes this into account: the structural budget balance. This says, basically, that you can measure how well a government
has done in balancing the books, irrespective of how well the economy has done.

The Conservative Party clearly prefers this measures as they set a target for it in their 2010 manifesto. They said that they would reduce 'the bulk' of the structural deficit before the next election (2015).

Unfortunately, this hasn't happened. The strutural deficit has hardly been reduced over the last four years and it is unlikely that it will be reduced further before the next election because of the
pre-election tax reduction/spending hike that the Coalition government is about to deliver (hardly original),
and the fact that the economy is expanding.
www.bbc.com/news/business-25944653

I would say more but a Conservative MP has already said it: www.douglascarswell.com/downloads/after-osbrown.pdf.
The Conservative led government has not improved
public finances over their term. Far from it, they've got worse in terms of the debt the government owes
and the annual overspend. The growth we have now has been paid for on the government's credit card. We all know how this works and ends up.

None of this is that surprising. What grates is the governmment's constant statements that they have done the opposite.
If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a big one because no one will believe you would have the audacity to make it up.

The government already has the invoices for the growth we see in the economy; the problem is that British people will have to pay for it
in future with higher taxes. Buying peoples' votes before elections is the oldest trick in the book in politics.

On the wider economic front, the current coalition has been a disaster by their own standards. In their manifesto the Conservatives talked
about rebalancing the economy, boosting exports, rebuidling industry. None of these things have happened.

Don't take it from me.
I invite you to read the first section of the paper written by the Conservative MP.

The Tories will not get in with a majority. The Tories have lost half of its members. Cameron's not a Tory and the those who did vote for him last time know this now.
UKIP polled 950.000 votes at the last election and will do better in the next general election, taking many votes from the Tories.

Cameron's been a disaster for the Conservatives, not even being able to get a majority in the last election, despite the labour party creating mass
immigration, and making a complete mess of the economy.

A majority? Not a hope!

I do agree that if Cameron couldn't get a majority in 2010, with that set of circumstances, he will never get one, especially having alienated half of his core vote.

*If half his vote was worried about the few things you mentioned earlier rather than the key ideology from 1979 to 1997 - that resulted in the SUSTAINABLE prosperity of this country that Labour reversed over 13-years - then there weren't "core"."

The choice in 2015 is simple; Cameron who is fixing the problems, or Miliband's current parliamentary party that were the cause of our economic and social problems; from Brown's banking crisis where his tripartite regulatory experiment failed and some our over leveraged banks had to be part nationalized (but didn't anywhere else), to immigration, lack of housing builds and general unbalancing of the economy - thinking a big fat expensive State with 1 million new employees, was sustainable 'growf'.

_Labour will get back in power in 2015 due to 'fixed' boundaries that only need 36% of the vote, while Cameron got 35% of the vote in 2010 but was over 20 seats short.