Polls up so let's shut up
YouGov in the Sun has the following bounce coming out of the Conference: Con 41% (-3) Lab 31% (+7), LD 16% (-4).
If we want to sustain this recovery now would be a good time for everyone to just shut up and fall into line.
I don't care about angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates about whether Gordon is radical enough or too radical on public sector reform.
I don't care about who briefed who at what time on Wednesday morning about the resignation of which minister.
I do care about the fact that a public display of unity and loyalty by ordinary delegates this week has lifted us 7% in public support.
If the great and the good in the cabinet and the parliamentary party behaved with half as much discipline as the rank-and-file over coming weeks, we might end up another 7% up.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 7:51 am
55 Comments:
it was a good conference for Labour - i was only there for a couple of days - and whilst there was talk of leadership changes - there was a real willingness for Brown to succeed and a recognition that he is the right Prime Minister to deal with the US imported financial crisis. His conference speech contrasted him well with the spin meister David Cameron - who is clearly out of his depth during this difficult financial time - US Banks going to the wall dont lend themselves to photo ops with huskies!
8:09 am, September 25, 2008
Dead cat bounce
8:11 am, September 25, 2008
I do care about the fact that a public display of unity and loyalty by ordinary delegates this week has lifted us 7% in public support.
What a damning indictment of British Politics.
8:40 am, September 25, 2008
Eh? So you don't care what your leader thinks, you just want your party to back him regardless.
You're advocating discipline over thought. Or as someone else put it "Ignorance is Strength".
I can't wait to see the back of this repulsive government.
8:57 am, September 25, 2008
"I do care about the fact that a public display of unity and loyalty by ordinary delegates this week has lifted us 7% in public support."
Errr, so when the Conservatives show a united front and wipe out your poll bounce, where do you go from there I wonder....?
9:29 am, September 25, 2008
Hear, hear. As a man who spends far too much of his time knocking on voters' doors encouraging them to chose us rather than the Tories (which is in reality the only choice on offer), it's always a little depressing when someone far higher up in the party decides to have a fifteen minutes of fame moment by slagging off the party in the glare of the TV lights or even by whispering in the ear of the journalist who’s just bought them lunch.
I prefer to have that sort of conversation in the privacy of somewhere like the back bar of the Dog and Duck.
Bloggers4labour may feel sadly indicted by the way the Great British public react to the way the media present our party to them but that's real, grown-up politics for you...
10:43 am, September 25, 2008
"far too much of his time knocking on voters' doors"
'Tis not possible.
11:45 am, September 25, 2008
Agree with Luke so far as that I don’t think it’s unreasonable of the public to want a united government! Clearly when people are concentrating on internal divisions they are less able to govern effectively.
However, we HAVE to be able to debate policy in a mature and reasonable way, without name-calling or continually questioning the motives of our opponents. It’s a very fine balance, but one that we have to strike for a healthy party.
12:09 pm, September 25, 2008
The task of establishing the support of a wider coalition of voters not start with your core vote. If Brown was serious about wining the lection he would have talked about tax cuts .Brown sacrificed Labor’s hope for his own career ,and while you may be wooping at the thought of torturing working people for another couple of years this was a leap left which is the precise reverse of what was required .
. Labour have got a 6% bounce ( as did the Libs ) but then the Liberals have relapsed by 4% leaving the Conservative Party on 41% after the Labour Conference.
After the Conservative Conference we will be back as we were but even worse with Labour heading not only for defeat but for the end of Labour as we know it.
1:04 pm, September 25, 2008
but even worse with ... the end of Labour as we know it.
In what sense could that possibly be described as worse?
2:27 pm, September 25, 2008
Luke,
Honestly, this 'unity or death' claptrap is simply insane.
Talk to people outside of politics, you know, the people who make up most of the electorate, and they roundly have no like for Brown (best case) and actively dislike him (worst).
He's an anchor in the water dragging the party back: his speech was not in any way good - banging on about the usual tractor statistics. Just because he wasn't as awful as past speeches, doesn't mean he's morphed into Bill Clinton.
The sooner he goes, the sooner the party starts to appeal to people, get it's good news across, and re-build.
Brown has given a perfect lesson in how to squander political capital in a very short space of time. Yes, the media are partly to blame, but he is such an easy target.
And don't claim that a 'bounce' which will be reversed after Cameron's speech somehow is the road to recovery for him or Labour: it's not. Dig into the polls, and Brown is still less popular than Labour, he's not trusted on the key issues. Can't you see that?
3:20 pm, September 25, 2008
yeha luek is riohgt
shut up evry1 yor all losars
godron brwon will in ys the nxet eletction
blogres4labir is jsut a gay. hes prat of the gay torie maffia alnog wiht ben bradshwa and gudo fawske! lol! hes jsut a crepe! lol
stop givign amunison to bimboe cocane torise
the onle reson yew dnot liek gordno is becas he didnt go to publik skolo or uxbirg and becaus your racis aganst scothc peolpe
4:13 pm, September 25, 2008
My position is not "unity or death", though I do think disunity could lead to death.
If I thought Gordon Brown was incapable of winning the next election I would want him removed.
If I thought it was likely that Labour's electoral college would elect someone from the right of the party (but NOT David Miliband) I would be reinforced in that belief.
If I thought an involuntary change of leader could be carried out without a huge internal fight, primarily between people who share my politics, and to the great detriment of the health of the Party, I would be more relaxed about it.
But I don't. The evidence at the moment does not conclusively suggest GB would lose an election. It does suggest that there is no one prepared to put themselves forward who would be any better than Brown, that the moderate wing of the party would split down the middle and that we'd probably end up with Harriet Harman as Leader.
You may consider that a desireable outcome, I don't.
In the mean time carry on indulging in the fantasy that there is some Blairite white knight about to gallop to the rescue, who will miraculously be able to win union and grassroots votes in the electoral college, whilst espousing a mantra of further marketisation of public services.
The candidate doesn't exist. The votes don't exist. It's a romantic fantasy and I'm interested in hard political realities, not pipe dreams about tall dark strangers rescuing the Labour Party.
4:24 pm, September 25, 2008
Newsmania said,
"The task of establishing the support of a wider coalition of voters not start with your core vote."
Utter tosh.
The fact is we lost two staunchly Labour seats (Crewe and Nantwich and Glasgow East), we need to motivate our core vote, after all you can't build a house without solid foundations. Labour people seem to think we are against them and if we don't correct this problem we will face annihilation.
The speech was good; I especially liked the "unbridled free market is a failed ideology".
4:30 pm, September 25, 2008
"The evidence at the moment does not conclusively suggest GB would lose an election"
Ben Page from Ipsos/Mori summed up the horric polls for Labour (uniformly poor) by saying he guessed we had a 5-10% chance of winning the election.
Seems pretty conclusive.
4:42 pm, September 25, 2008
Ravi ...I hate to gloat but I know Brown is bad for you because I see how good he is for us .
In plumping for a man regarded by anyone outside Labour as a statist left wing authoritarian whose instincts are tax spend and control, Labour handed over a fabulous weapon. Cameron can, with sincerity, claim the centre without a squeak from the right because no–one would dare risk the nightmare of an unfettered Union funded Old Labour term. You have freed him to move deep into Liberal territory .
You have made your mistake, you funked the quick election and you failed to take the remedial steps required .You used your conference to leap left which makes the job even easier and frankly that sort of triple cowardice deserves defeat. I very much doubt Cameron will play ball by offering anything to attack.
It will be ….style style …(not Brown )…… nice noise ….( not Brown)…….smile …(Not brown)…mood music …( Not Brown).
Sorry .Its not a schoolboy debate and what you say is a message built over years not in a day. The people who are to blame are the Lukes who were to feeble to tell Palaeozoic socialists it was all over .
When are you going to man up Luke . You seem like a sensible chap
5:32 pm, September 25, 2008
I think newmania forgets that the tax cuts message simply doesn't win majorities - remember that Thatcher only win her majorities because of the divided opposition.
Thats why the Tories have moved so drastically to the centre.
I don't think that Labour can continue with 'more of the same' because they have been in power for so long. Cameron offers little substantive change but a fresh face and a personality-driven appeal.
Under those circumstances it makes sense for Labour to restate their central beliefs, but I'm not entirely convinced that the conference has done this or will be able to make it sound convincing without some definitive policy changes.
5:48 pm, September 25, 2008
I think newmania forgets that the tax cuts message simply doesn't win majorities -
Its not that simple .Cameron has warned of tax rises and not promised cuts. Easy...he has Brown. What nett tax payer would vote for Brown?
6:05 pm, September 25, 2008
Have you read the details of the Poll you fool. Labour are down again, what you are refering to is whether peoples view had improved since his key speech.
The Poll clearly shows that people are not switching to Labour and also points more clearly to a conservative victory at the next general election.
This really is bollocks Luke.
7:57 pm, September 25, 2008
Quite right Luke. Who do these oiky Labour members think they are, daring to question the great and the good, daring to tentatively query the Thatcherite policy of a supposedly Labour Government.
The polls say 31% grapefruit segments (+7) and that's all that matters so they should all remember their bloody place and SHUT THE **** UP.
Cecil Akehurst King has spoken.
8:03 pm, September 25, 2008
Hovedan, "Out of his depth", I don't think Gordon is actually swimming either. Only the chosen few really understand what is going on and all their speeches/meetings happen in secret a few times a year.
Gordon talks about turbulence as if it's a weather front that can be calmed through massive bailouts. The only answer to our problems is to seriously question "Capitalism". The whole concept of using stolen money to prop up the capitalist system is approaching facism at bullet speed. Just think about it.
All the problems our world faces are the direct result of capitalism. Nothing will change unless the fundamentals of economics are changed. The idea that there must be growth is flawed as inevitably things will reach capacity or what they call equilibrium. Our planet and our future rests on capitalism being able to provide solutions to our environmental problems...this surely will never happen.
9:05 pm, September 25, 2008
Newmania has given the game away
I quote.
"sacrificed Labor’s hope for his own career ,"
Did anyone nottice Labour spelled in an american fashion.
Hmmm is Newmania not really even from thus country?
Mind your onw business.
10:09 pm, September 25, 2008
"Newmania has given the game away
I quote.
"sacrificed Labor’s hope for his own career ,"
Did anyone nottice Labour spelled in an american fashion.
Hmmm is Newmania not really even from thus country?
Mind your onw business."
No way could or would I defend the Newmaniac. But I suspect his post may have more to do with "Fat Finger" rather than US of A spelling ?
WG (The dylexic version of GW)
PS "Reinforce sucess, not failure" Duke of Wellington, discussing his Penisular Campaign 1811 - 1814
PPS "Rich" is coming from yet another direction !
11:45 pm, September 25, 2008
So you want us to shut up and Unite, to campaign for another New Labour term, which is for more PFI crap-Free Market policies, massively expanding privatisation in health, education, housing, the post and every other public service.workers to accept below-inflation wage deals – at the very time that the cost of living is soaring.gearing towards making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This is what you want us to unite for is it? But the Tories are much worse, but in reality they are both anti working class parties!!
12:09 am, September 26, 2008
The problem is people sit at home see the larger bills see the electric gas water , look out and see the rain the drizzle the gloom of the financial situation and then look and listen to Brown and think god help us all. Especially when he says I know what you going through and then that sick bloody smile.
How does he know what we are going through.
He apologies for the 10p tax fiasco, look I'm thick compared to this bloke when he did this I knew that people at the bottom of the pile who pay 10p tax ends up paying 20p they will be worse off, simple maths 10p is less then 20p, he knew what he was doing, he was aiming to try and keep his loving swing voter.
But people are leaving Labour somebody told me between 500 to 600 a week, that cannot go on can it, it's a warning to Labour but Labour are in this room in London telling people come the election you will vote Labour because you know, sorry know what that our life stinks.
7:47 am, September 26, 2008
Impressions are hard to shift, despite the evidence, so I see your point Newsmania. I remember seeing a couple of Tories on the telly praying for the removal of Blair and us replacing him with Brown because "he is a socialist and will tax and spend".
That said I only think your analysis only holds true with a right leaning caucus, after all strong Labour areas moved away from us surely we would have seen a swing to Labour.
When you have fiscal conservatives over the pond wanting to effectively nationalise their failing banks I think the argument over Thatcherism/Reganism enduring legacy (no state interference in the market) and social democracy (controlled regulation/mixed economy) is swinging in our favour. The end to laissez faire economics is coming to an end so we need a new map for a mixed economy. I believe this is natual ground for us.
9:34 am, September 26, 2008
Luke
You are so funny!
10:33 am, September 26, 2008
Poor old Gordon! He's everything Newsmania says, only worse.
His whole philosophy is one of control; the more independence people have, the less likely they are to rely on the state and vote for him.
The funny thing is, he's not very good at it; instead of "robbing the rich to give to the poor", he's robbed from the working poor to give to the feckless and the middle-classes, who despise him anyway.
I suppose we're all to blame. We just rolled over and let him take the reins without so much as a murmour of discontent, and we're going to pay a very heavy price for our craven surrender to the Brownite mafia.
1:16 pm, September 26, 2008
Shamik, are you a member of the Labour Party or just of Progress?
2:17 pm, September 26, 2008
I'm a member of the Labour party but not a member of Progress nor have I ever been.
2:41 pm, September 26, 2008
Sham said,
"I suppose we're all to blame. We just rolled over and let him take the reins without so much as a murmour of discontent, and we're going to pay a very heavy price for our craven surrender to the Brownite mafia."
If I recall correctly there was no one from your wing of the party ready to stand against him, probably because next to him none of them could offer an alternative.
Shams please accept this; we have a leader, sure we both don't agree with him (from different ends of the Labour spectrum) but out of the candidates in cabinet he is the best of a bad bunch.
I don't know if you watch Newsnight, but their American pollster, Frank Lunst took a cross section of voters who voted Labour a number of times but were uncommitted this time. After being given the choice of replacing Brown with with Johnston or Straw (they rejected Miliband, Purnell and Harman) the voted that they would rather have Brown, this was even true from the most anti-Brown members of the audience.
They thought Cameron was inexperienced and was probably unfit to be PM, Nick Clegg was only recognised by a handful.
We have the right man in charge, let him get on with his job and he might turn you around.
By the way I am glad you've been making posts on this blog again, where have you been these past few months?
2:42 pm, September 26, 2008
Yes, I did see those Newsnight reports, and from what I recall 26 out of the 27 members of the audience - all Labour-supporters or sympathisers - believed that Gordon Brown was doing a bad job and that things would get worse in the next two years.
To say that we should keep him because there's no one else - a premise I don't accept in the first place - is a pretty damning indictment barely 15 months into his premiership.
Unfortunately for the Labour party, the public do have an alternative, and each day Gordon Brown stays in office, the more David Cameron grows stronger, his confidence rises and he begins to look unbeatable.
In answer to your question, I was on holiday! Offline and blissfully unaware of all that was going on in the world!
3:12 pm, September 26, 2008
I really don't think that Cameron has much to offer except the photogenic Blair appeal. If people are too naive to see through that, their lookout.
3:17 pm, September 26, 2008
Except that it's not just their lookout, it's everyone's lookout.
3:47 pm, September 26, 2008
Sham said,
"Unfortunately for the Labour party, the public do have an alternative, and each day Gordon Brown stays in office, the more David Cameron grows stronger, his confidence rises and he begins to look unbeatable."
Only because we are taking lumps out of each other rather than focusing our attention on the oppostion.
Mike is right, Cameron = Bimbo politics. Very light on the policy front.
I do agree with you on this; Gordon does not really know how to handle the press. Give Blair his due; he knew how to spin himself out of a crisis. I think the people who nominated him (Brown) expected more substance, quelle domage!!
As for the Newsnight programmes, I appreciate what you are saying, but the last vote to me is telling, if there is no one who can fill the post of PM right now why create a political vacuum whilst we enter a financial melee?
Another thing why is (Tory) Newmania suddenly giving a toss about the Labour Party? Why are you so upset? Is this some elaborate double Tory bluff?
On a lighter note you also said,
"In answer to your question, I was on holiday! Offline and blissfully unaware of all that was going on in the world!"
That sounds nice, anywhere good?
4:06 pm, September 26, 2008
'really don't think that Cameron has much to offer except the photogenic Blair appeal. If people are too naive to see through that, their lookout.'
Really:
National debt out of control
3,000 000 new jobs all for immigrants and public sector pen pushers
Social mobility stopped dead
Education sliding down the tables
Government spending up 80%(55% adjusted)
Immigration and unheard and unsustainable levels
3,000,000 new homes now not being built and would have been inhabited by 2,000,000 new immigrants
Faith in GOvernment gone
Belief in a word Brown says non existent
Government not functioning at all ( Speccie and New Statesman agree on this today)
A leader happy to sacrifice any hope of saving seats to save himself by moving left.
How can you say the Conservatuve Party has nothing to offer Nothing to offer commited socialists maybe but plenty for working people families , people needing a decent school law and order and LESS TAX.
The Conservative Party offer a fresh approachand a bit less arrogance.
4:14 pm, September 26, 2008
I do not give a toss I am just interested and enjoying your discomfort. Also I like Luke`s blog as I suspect he is working his way to the realisation he is a Conservative.
I enjoy watching his increasing un ease with Labour
4:17 pm, September 26, 2008
Newsmania said,
"How can you say the Conservatuve Party has nothing to offer Nothing to offer commited socialists maybe but plenty for working people families , people needing a decent school law and order and LESS TAX."
On the Conservative Party's web page they say,
"The chief economic priority of any government must be to promote stability - so we will not promise unfunded tax cuts we cannot deliver, nor take any risks with the public finances. And we won’t pretend we can wave a magic wand and bring food and petrol prices down."
Mmm interesting, are you singing from the same hymn sheet?
We are in tough economic times any party leader (left or right, socialist, New labour or Tory) would be unpopular right now. When the public realise you offer them no change (just more of the same- sorry irresistable!!) they will hate you more than us.
4:32 pm, September 26, 2008
Newmania does seem rather obsessed by immigration! Presumably you think of Mr Cameron as wishy-washy wooly liberal for not sharing your extreme views?
Of all the views I've heard this week, you've probably given the best reason for voting for Gordon Brown! Are you a Brownite in disguise trying to discredit the Tory party by making them out to be a bunch of anti-immigrant Daily Express reading bigots?!
Ravi, I was in India! I hope that fact doesn't cause Newmania to choke on his cornflakes...
4:44 pm, September 26, 2008
Sorry I am not really obssesed with immigration those were just the first tyhings that popped into my head. I could add many many more
Ravi less tax may well be tax rises which Cameron has warned of but it will still be less than Brown.Churchioll and Thatcher both had hard times. For an honest government it can be an advantage
6:54 pm, September 26, 2008
anti-immigrant Daily Express reading bigots?!
A majority of members of ethnic minortities agree me that immigration has been allowed at far higher levels than is wise and ( incidentally ), the white English are , by any measure you care to mention , the least bigoted group in the country.
( The second choice Party of 35% of Labourt Party voters is the BNP)
AS I say its only one of many concerns
9:04 pm, September 26, 2008
Immigration will be a key factor on how people vote at the next general election. For most voters (90% to be more accurate) it is a key policy....and this is the reason why Labour would like you to believe they are tough on it.
Labour have lots of policies but the reality on the ground is far different. The last ten years has seen inflation kept low through cheap a imported work force. No protection for our workers and the result is below inflation wage rises for the lowest paid.
This is Labours answer to creating a fair society. A society that keeps those hidden away in factories and on our farms on low pay and without a voice. Immigrant workers tend to keep their mouths shut and rarely strike.
Our own youngsters are growing up in families dependent on benefits.....here we are today....what a mess
9:15 pm, September 26, 2008
"( The second choice Party of 35% of Labourt Party voters is the BNP)"
Please provide evidence of this. I call bull****. As would anyone who actually speaks with Labour voters on a regular basis.
"Immigration will be a key factor on how people vote at the next general election. For most voters (90% to be more accurate)"
Please provide evidence of this. I don't deny it's up there in many people's top three or five issues, but for most people it's not the issue that decides their vote - the economy and public services are much more important.
11:36 pm, September 26, 2008
Tim
Of course Public services are important-but NLP just privatise them and bring in crap PFI.
Have a look at the ISP blogs and Yahoo. In the Immigration threads every few minutes some one is posting comments on Immigration more than every other subject and some is very nasty and Racialist. The Worlds problems are blamed on immigration. If you are a couple with 2 kids stuck in a run down leaking 1 bed flat and see down the Rd a Housing association accommodating an ethnic group and providing all their needs such as a roof that converts to a Patio for Religious celebrations and 4 bathrooms to accommodate their 12 children, they are not going to think about where the money has come from, such as trusts, they are just going to be resentful as there is no way out of the smelly leaking over crowded flat. These people are not going to listen to the arrogant NLP middle classes waffling on. Only 40 MP's have actually done manual work-shouldn't we be short-listing working class people as MP's?
12:40 am, September 27, 2008
Mark - I actually agree with everything you've written there. But I'd add that:
- for most people, PFI is not a big issue. It's an issue of serious importance to people who work in hospitals and it's important to lefties (including me), but most people don't care much where the money's coming from as long as public services are getting more cash, and Labour has undoubtedly spent a lot more cash on public services than the Tories and they've improved as a result.
- yes, if people are suffering from inappropriate housing and/or homeless, then they are going to ask questions about who is getting housing supposedly ahead of them and why. But that doesn't mean the solution is opposing immigration - surely the solution is fighting for better housing for everyone, getting people to work together whether they're immigrants or born here and combatting anti-immigrant feeling wherever it occurs. Because if we don't, no-one else is going to and "unchallenged myths" easily turn into "common knowledge".
I agree completely that having more working-class MPs would help both in making Labour policy more representative and in having a more credible dialogue with the party's traditional working class supporters. I would support all-black-female-working class-disabled-homosexual shortlists, but that's just me.
11:07 am, September 27, 2008
...on the other hand it might just be a post-conference bounce garnered by increased media exposure and the fact the conference was a disaster...we had one and the Tories have one yet to come...
4:50 pm, September 27, 2008
Tim F, if you want evidence look at the detail of any recent YouGov Poll.
Even the most recent Poll shows that over 48% of people in the UK believe there is an immigration crisis. This is very shocking when you consider that most peoples mind is now focussed heavily on the current economic problems.
Labour have made so many mistakes now it really is hard to find anything positive.
9:01 pm, September 28, 2008
Tim F, the BNP don't have 35% of the vote. I think newmania probably has his figures messed up somewhere as the true figure is about 10-15% nationally at the moment.
But don't dismiss the 10-15% this is still very high and it means that at least 10% of British people are willing to vote to the extreme to show how angry they are about immigration.
I think what NewMania was saying is that 35% of Labour voters want stricter control on immigration. You have to face facts the lower paid you are the more likely you are to be affected by immigrant workers.
There is cross party support to limit the numbers arriving in the UK. I would go one step further and apply this rule to all countries including those within Europe.
9:08 pm, September 28, 2008
newmania wasn't claiming that the bnp will get 35% of the vote, he was claiming that 35% of labour voters would choose the bnp as their second party. But either would be absurd and he hasn't been able to show any evidence for the assertion.
They don't have 10-15% either. If they did they would have almost as much support as the lib dems, and that is clearly not true. I take them seriously and believe they have to be opposed using whatever means necessary, but it's ludicrous to claim they have that much support.
Immigration being an important issue for 48% of voters is very different from your claim that it is a defining issue for 90% of voters.
If you're going to use statistics in the way you and newmania have done, please link to evidence (claiming "a recent poll suggested" is not good enough) or no-one will believe you.
11:34 pm, September 28, 2008
35% of Labour voters back the BNP?
I'm sorry but that's just nonsesne.
Newmania, where did you get the evidence for this fact?
Send us a link...
1:46 pm, September 29, 2008
My evidence is based on various polls including YouGov and if you look at a poll late 2007 you will see that when asked whether immigration was a serious issue over 90% of people agreed.
Obviously peoples views change and they reflect what is in the media at the time. My point was that despite current media concentration on the economy there is still a very large majority (48%) that think it is out of control.
Tony Ben often talks about how the media report and if they were to report daily on unemployment or poverty instead of the FTSE then peoples demands would change.
This labour government would like you to believe that those against very strict controls on immigration are racist. But the reality is that the government is trying to hide the true reason behind immigration and that is to provide a cheap workforce to keep inflation down.
If Labour, as promised, had protected British workers then I know I wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that people in my village are now out of work because they have been undercut.
It really is up to Labour, either they start listening to what is happening to working people in the private sector or they face losing the working vote.
Thanks to under cutting by unscrupulous companies employing foreign workers, the credit crunch and rising costs, my company now faces the horrid prospect of laying off even more workers as most of our domestic contracts are drying up. We are now relying totally on our industrial contracts to support the whole company. Personally I'd rather go bust then sack my workforce to employ cheaper people.
8:43 pm, September 29, 2008
You've gone from claiming 90% made their mind up on how to vote based on the issue of immigration to claiming 90% think it's a serious issue. Thinking it's a serious issue doesn't even tell you what they think about it. I think it's a serious issue but I also think the immigration controls the government has brought in are way too strict.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't say "a poll", link to the poll.
Oh, and immigration controls result in companies undercutting wages because immigration controls increase the supply of "illegal" workers who can't enforce the rights to fair pay everyone else can.
3:15 pm, September 30, 2008
Would you then argue that the min wage is a fair rate of pay? I couldn't live on it and most Brits feel the same. Up to about 4 years ago even factory workers could get well over the current min wage value....now you're lucky factory workers are lucky to get £6.00 per hour.
The reality is that most people on the lower wage brackets are better off on the social than they are working. Under normal economic models a labour shortage would put pressure and force up wages. Bringing in cheaper workers stops wage demands. All the unions agree that some sort of legislation should have been brought in to protect British workers.
If you want a serious poll then please refer to this which uses very strong language and clearly shows that a large majority believe there is a crisis.
http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/Juniper%20Toplines.pdf
http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/2007%2011%2030%20DT%20voting.pdf
You are now so out of touch that you simply don't know the truth when it kicks you in the teeth.
People are sick of Labour and no matter how much spin you weave Gordon is toast come the next election.
5:53 pm, September 30, 2008
Erm, the 2nd poll you've linked to says the BNP had at that point 2% support (contrasted to the 10-15% you predicted). That is of course 2% higher than I'd like it to be, but I believe 2% is realistic.
The first doesn't mention the word "crisis" and is simply research on what reasons people find acceptable for moving country. The answers are fairly predictable given the way the questions have been phrased.
Perhaps you believed I wouldn't bother to click on the links?
6:26 pm, September 30, 2008
Apologies, the first one is more extensive and hadn't fully loaded on my computer when I looked at it before.
It is still fairly unsurprising though. The poll doesn't suggest any kind of crisis whatsoever. It does show people are badly informed about the proportion of Britain that is non-white or born abroad & about how much migrants contribute in taxes, that a minority of people believe immigration is responsible for a decline in community spirit but most blame an assortment of other factors, does mention the word "crisis" several questions in but doesn't link this to voting intentions at all so can't say whether it is a defining issue for people, and that although people think there are some intangible problems as a result of immigration, in all the areas where they have direct experience most don't think immigration has has a great effect.
The "crisis" question is a little out of place in the context and I wonder, given that people were not given a range of options to describe the situation, how people who believe there is too much immigration but it doesn't constitute a crisis could've answered. I think they would've felt they had to check "yes - to some extent", which accounts for the result.
6:41 pm, September 30, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home