Tories 28 points up in the polls

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

This is what I like about the Danish system for example:

A Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne) The party's former name, "Socialdemokratiet", is still frequently used.
B Danish Social Liberal Party (Det Radikale Venstre)
C Conservative People's Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti)
F Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti)
O Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti)
V Venstre (Formal name: "Venstre, Danmarks liberale parti") (Venstre, Denmark's Liberal Party).[1]
Y New Alliance (Ny Alliance) A right-leaning social liberal party
Ø Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) originally an alliance of Communist Party of Denmark (Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti), Socialist Workers' Party (Denmark) (Socialistisk Arbejderparti) and the Left Socialists (Venstresocialisterne).

Look at all of those socialist parties and in a country, most people would say has a balanced liberal outlook.

But isn't that the same here. If you listed all the political parties in the UK then I would have thought the number of left wing parties would greatly outnumber the right wing parties. The thing I laugh about most about the British left wing is how they constantly call for unity and then sometimes in the same speech slag off their fellow socialists

 

[London Calling]

But isn't that the same here. If you listed all the political parties in the UK then I would have thought the number of left wing parties would greatly outnumber the right wing parties. The thing I laugh about most about the British left wing is how they constantly call for unity and then sometimes in the same speech slag off their fellow socialists

The diffference here is, voting for a left party out side Labour is a wasted vote!

The other left parties do not develop cridible manisfesto's nor obvioulsy have experience of Government.

In Denmark etc your vote counts, separate to the national elections, these alternate parties hold power at local level and regional level, because people expect these parties to have power, they develop more credible policies and have better quality politicians.

Because these parties can hold power, people believe they have a choice and turnout to vote, over 90% in Denmark. That can only be good.

Generally at a national level, there are two "Unity" parties, right and left? Is that any better, but at least as a voter you have had a choice. But lower down your party may be running the Town Hall or the local ward?

LC

 

[Uter]

Actually I agree. I'm sure most politicians are honest and well meaning, however as you say some succomb to temptation. The Conservatives were in power during my formative years so I remember them well. I'm certainly not going to pretend Labour are any better (or worse).

Interestingly (to me at least) there is a phrase to describe the effect you mention in your last sentence. Annoyingly I can't remember what it is called. It basically says that given two pieces of conflicting evidence, people tend to give greater weight to the one that reinforces their own pre-exisiting belief.

For instance, there are frequently studies in the media claiming to quantify the value of immigrants in Britain, which often present opposite conclusions. Someone who is supportive of immigration is likely to ignore studies that conclude immigration is detrimental to the country and remember the ones that conclude immigration is a positive thing. Whereas someone who has a deep held anti-immigration opinion will do the opposite.

I think we all like to think we are fair and objective, but in reality we all probably all guilty of being stubborn and subjective to a greater or lesser degree.

I guess this explains why people tend to buy newspapers that reinforce their political leanings and why no one ever seems to change their opinion, especially on political matters.

It's called confirmation bias.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Why was Britain in such a state of turmoil? Could it be that we had to change our own fortunes as a nation or for a better word evolve, after the Conservatives inherited a country on it's knees?




:yahoo: I did not expect such an early response to that.

Glad I can be of service!

 

[simmo]

Actually I agree. I'm sure most politicians are honest and well meaning, however as you say some succomb to temptation. The Conservatives were in power during my formative years so I remember them well. I'm certainly not going to pretend Labour are any better (or worse).

Interestingly (to me at least) there is a phrase to describe the effect you mention in your last sentence. Annoyingly I can't remember what it is called. It basically says that given two pieces of conflicting evidence, people tend to give greater weight to the one that reinforces their own pre-exisiting belief.

For instance, there are frequently studies in the media claiming to quantify the value of immigrants in Britain, which often present opposite conclusions. Someone who is supportive of immigration is likely to ignore studies that conclude immigration is detrimental to the country and remember the ones that conclude immigration is a positive thing. Whereas someone who has a deep held anti-immigration opinion will do the opposite.

I think we all like to think we are fair and objective, but in reality we all probably all guilty of being stubborn and subjective to a greater or lesser degree.

I guess this explains why people tend to buy newspapers that reinforce their political leanings and why no one ever seems to change their opinion, especially on political matters.

This is absolutely true, people buy newspapers that back up there own views because it makes them think they are right and clever, when in actuallity they are being lazy and not even bothering to think about things at all and never questioning their own opinions. Evidence that is contradictory to their thoughts they ignore, evidence that backs it up they exagerate.

Many are also driven by the thoughts of others e.g newspaper editors/university lecturers/teachers, they do not think about issues themselves. I knew a person whom did a political degree at university and all he used to do was roll out the spiel that he had heard on this course and I am sure his lecturer, he never deviated at all from the line of the Socialist/Communist doctrine on every issue, he thought he was extremely clever because he had that political degree but in actuality because, he never deviated from the socialist dogma on every single issue, I knew that he had never had a single individual thought in his life.

 

[Uter]

This is absolutely true, people buy newspapers that back up there own views because it makes them think they are right and clever, when in actuallity they are being lazy and not even bothering to think about things at all and never questioning their own opinions. Evidence that is contradictory to their thoughts they ignore, evidence that backs it up they exagerate.

Many are also driven by the thoughts of others e.g newspaper editors/university lecturers/teachers, they do not think about issues themselves. I knew a person whom did a political degree at university and all he used to do was roll out the spiel that he had heard on this course and I am sure his lecturer, he never deviated at all from the line of the Socialist/Communist doctrine on every issue, he thought he was extremely clever because he had that political degree but in actuality because, he never deviated from the socialist dogma on every single issue, I knew that he had never had a single individual thought in his life.

I'm not one for quoting Tolstoy wily-nily but there's a first time for everything (taken from the Wikipedia article on Confirmation Bias, so it must be true):

The behavior of confirmation bias has sometimes been called "Tolstoy syndrome", in reference to Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), who in 1897 wrote:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life".

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."


I stumbled upon this article (entitled Why People are Irrrational About Politics) when trying to find out about confirmation bias. I have no idea what this guy's credentials are, but a lot of it seemed to ring true to me. It is quite long though!

Why People Are Irrational about Politics

 

[Stoo82]

Ok, fine, all go and vote Tory then. I'm sure Cameron will be able to immediately solve the world banking crisis, persuade OPEC and Russia to halve the cost of oil and gas (and then get the fuel companies to pass the savings on) and bring down the global cost of food.

That Brown is so useless.

Do you think that they are really the issues that the public hate brown and labour for

Lack of imagration control, High Taxes, School system thats broken, crime levels, lack of trust, selling our country to Europe, - and thats just a few. These are the real reasons Labour are unpopular, not ruddy russia or food prices in a globel crisis.

 

[Stoo82]

Sadly for us all,the Tories will win the next election.I think too many people have forgotten the bad old days,and that many on this board were too young to know about them,

And it's not just the uncharismatic Brown wot's done it,but foreign excursions which have little or no advantage to our country,just flags at half mast in towns nationwide as services are held for the fallen.

Like in my village.

The Tories have no truly discernable policies,just the usual ya boo suks and we'll do better.

They won't,and we'll be saddled with them for quite a while.

But that's democracy in action,isn't it?

cos labour have been great and should never leave power

 

[Pavilionaire]

Many things that used to be within the control of the Prime Minster are now out of their hands because of the global nature of the economy, obligations as an EU member state and so on.

However, Brown has overseen numerous cock-ups on those matters he CAN control, which is why he HAS to go. The 10% tax band abolition, numerous data losses, the selling of the gold, squandering of taxes, lack of improvement in the NHS to name but a few.

The longer he stays in power the more tainted New Labour becomes. Thatcher stayed in power for a couple of years too long and her legacy has made the party unelectable for since 1992. Brown could do the same for Labour if he is not careful.

I don't think there's enough of this Parliament left for Labour to pull things round. The country seems comfortable with the notion of Cameron as next PM.

I think the best Labour can hope for is to elect a new leader as a flag-bearer into a General Election, someone who is willing to trade the kudos of leading Labour off for certain defeat in 2009. At least if they put up a man with a few new ideas they might create some doubt in the minds of the voters at Election time, then be able to say "I told you so" 4 years later.

The problem for Labour is they are short of candidates, just as they were when Blair stepped down.

Someone like Hilary Benn is an interesting proposition for the short-term. A 4th generation MP, son of Tony Benn and from the North so will appeal to Labour traditionalists. Articulate enough to appeal to former Blair voters in the south, currently Secretary for the Environment so in the thick of what is a politically sensitive issue.

I believe he is the perfect person to bring the party back together.

 

[simmo]

I'm not one for quoting Tolstoy wily-nily but there's a first time for everything (taken from the Wikipedia article on Confirmation Bias, so it must be true):

The behavior of confirmation bias has sometimes been called "Tolstoy syndrome", in reference to Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), who in 1897 wrote:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life".

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."


I stumbled upon this article (entitled Why People are Irrrational About Politics) when trying to find out about confirmation bias. I have no idea what this guy's credentials are, but a lot of it seemed to ring true to me. It is quite long though!

Why People Are Irrational about Politics

As an example of this, if you ever watch question time and George Galloway is on there you will get people whom applaud him whatever drivel he says.

They applaud him because their own mind is so twisted by their hatred of the USA/Israel, they are not even listening to what Galloway says and what he does, they applaud like morons.

If you listen to what Galloway says at times it is absolutely ridiculous, it is plain absurd, but he himself in his own mind has become so twisted by his own prediduces against the USA and Israel that he allowed himself to become like this and eventually to become a puppet of Saddam Hussein (which is what he became).

Not once did he ever think to himself in this whole process, I may dislike the USA/Israel but two wrongs don't make a right and I am not going to be a mouthpiece to one of the most evil dictators since the end of the Second World War.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Firstly I am a Labour Voter, always have been and possibly always will be. Sorry, in my lifetime (im 42) the Torys have been associated with high unemployment and savage cuts to public services, whilst rewarding those who are already well rewarded.

After saying that, I think the main problem with politics in this country is because we have identikit politicians. You could quite easily swap Blair for Cameron, or Milliband for Osbourne etc etc. The reason is because we now have politicians that have never actually worked or lived in the real world. You know the type all young, all have studied politics at University, all worked as political researches and then parachuted into some safe seat. The only difference is the colour of their rosette. Thats why most of the policies are the same.

I accept that Labours days are numbered. The Tories will get in and probably due to timing (because believe it or not in this age of the global economy Govts can only tinker with with the edges) the credit crunch will be over and they will reap the rewards. Lets get real, Brown isn't at fault with the oil and gas price increases, nor the credit crunch and nor with data loss (thats the fault of Civil Servants...) Its time for a change, every Govt gets tired and makes mistakes, such as Labours 10p tax fiasco.

I just wish that there were politicians who had lived in the real world and understand what we all need and desire and fear. I would prefer, say a Tory businessman, who had built his company up from nothing to Cameron. Someone like Alan Sugar or dare I say it, David Davis.

The best politicain that I met is Labours Alan Johnson. That guy came to our office in Leeds and wowed us all. Not political talk, but by just being Human. He has come upto Leeds a few times, whereas his predeccors (Tory and Labour) didn't bother. He was jokey and wanted to know what we felt.

I was stunned to learn that he was brought up by his sister, left school with no qualifications and then worked as a postman, then Union leader and now politician.

The fact that he has seen life I think really matters when it comes to a politician, both Tory, Labour and Lib Dem.

So my vote would go for Alan Johnson taking over from Brown..........and you know what, I think a lot of traditional Labour voters would warm to him. The Tories certainly fear him.

 

[London Calling]

Alan Sugar is being woooed to possibly be the next LOndon Labour Mayor candidate?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Lets get real, Brown isn't at fault with the oil and gas price increases, nor the credit crunch and nor with data loss (thats the fault of Civil Servants...) Its time for a change, every Govt gets tired and makes mistakes, such as Labours 10p tax fiasco.

I disagree with you that "governments get tired". We're talking about a brand new PM who's made cock up after cock up ever since he got in. He assembled a fresh new cabinet by booting out Blair's cronies and putting in his own people, hardly a tired government. You make third term governments sound like fatigued lorry drivers.

Of course people make allowances for global / EU factors but Brown has managed to cock up even domestic policies. It is difficult to see how the Tories could do any worse.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Personally I just want to see someone in power who is prepared to invest in transport. I was confident labour would, but they haven't delivered enough in this area for me. Mrs Thatcher wanted to rip up the railways and replace them with roads for fecks sake. How progressive!

I like this thread. Complete absence of malice. People just saying it like they see it.

As to your point about the railways, I'd have to disagree. Labour have pumped billions into the railways after years of the Tories deliberately starving the network of funds. That's why there's pain-in-the-arse Replacement Bus Services every weekend. Which is a small price to pay for a proper level of investment.

 

[Simster]

I like this thread. Complete absence of malice. People just saying it like they see it.

As to your point about the railways, I'd have to disagree. Labour have pumped billions into the railways after years of the Tories deliberately starving the network of funds. That's why there's pain-in-the-arse Replacement Bus Services every weekend. Which is a small price to pay for a proper level of investment.

Totally agree. Labour have invested far more than any previous administration in the past 40-50 years.

One of the few areas they've delivered on their promises IMO, but we won't see the benefits for at least another decade.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Tories could even be further ahead in the polls with those who were polled saying they were undecided because a large proportion cant admit voting for the Conservatives.

 

[drew]

The problem with Brown is that the worst legacy that he is going to leave us with is a Cameron government. He is a PR nightmare and the sooner he goes the better. It is a good job we have banned firearms as Brown would have more holes in his shoes than a pair of crocs.

 

[drew]

Many things that used to be within the control of the Prime Minster are now out of their hands because of the global nature of the economy, obligations as an EU member state and so on.

However, Brown has overseen numerous cock-ups on those matters he CAN control, which is why he HAS to go. The 10% tax band abolition, numerous data losses, the selling of the gold, squandering of taxes, lack of improvement in the NHS to name but a few.

The longer he stays in power the more tainted New Labour becomes. Thatcher stayed in power for a couple of years too long and her legacy has made the party unelectable for since 1992. Brown could do the same for Labour if he is not careful.

I don't think there's enough of this Parliament left for Labour to pull things round. The country seems comfortable with the notion of Cameron as next PM.

I think the best Labour can hope for is to elect a new leader as a flag-bearer into a General Election, someone who is willing to trade the kudos of leading Labour off for certain defeat in 2009. At least if they put up a man with a few new ideas they might create some doubt in the minds of the voters at Election time, then be able to say "I told you so" 4 years later.

The problem for Labour is they are short of candidates, just as they were when Blair stepped down.

Someone like Hilary Benn is an interesting proposition for the short-term. A 4th generation MP, son of Tony Benn and from the North so will appeal to Labour traditionalists. Articulate enough to appeal to former Blair voters in the south, currently Secretary for the Environment so in the thick of what is a politically sensitive issue.

I believe he is the perfect person to bring the party back together.

Not enough improvement in the NHS! Where did you get that. There is more investment than ever before. Granted, not everything is right but do you honestly think the NHS would be safer in Tory hands? One statistic for you. In 1979 there were 75,000 trainee nurses. By 1997 there were only 25,000. Within 4 years it was back upto 50,000 and to fill the shortages we were trawling around the world for nurses. As for capital investment, look at the new Royal Alex.

As for education, I believe there is more capital investment in buildings and the like than there ever has been.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The problem with Brown is that the worst legacy that he is going to leave us with is a Cameron government. He is a PR nightmare and the sooner he goes the better.

The sad thing is he's a lovely, slightly bashful, charming and deeply intellectual man in a person-to-person away from the office. Saw him at the Brighton Festival last year and he came across as a decent human being. Likewise when me elderly mam accosted him for a chin-wag at Labour Race Day up the Racehill a couple of years earlier. It was all 'Oooo where are YOU from?'. They were practically swapping recipes for Scotch Broth by the time I managed to drag her away

Gordon Brown, He's Alright

 

[Mr Blunt]

As an example of this, if you ever watch question time and George Galloway is on there you will get people whom applaud him whatever drivel he says.

They applaud him because their own mind is so twisted by their hatred of the USA/Israel, they are not even listening to what Galloway says and what he does, they applaud like morons.

If you listen to what Galloway says at times it is absolutely ridiculous, it is plain absurd, but he himself in his own mind has become so twisted by his own prediduces against the USA and Israel that he allowed himself to become like this and eventually to become a puppet of Saddam Hussein (which is what he became).

Not once did he ever think to himself in this whole process, I may dislike the USA/Israel but two wrongs don't make a right and I am not going to be a mouthpiece to one of the most evil dictators since the end of the Second World War.

I agree with the Goerge Galloway point i cant stand the man. When i was at college a few years ago i studied politics and my teacher use to make it very clear the class that that the tory's were nasty and a horrible goverment and brainwashed so many in that room for a two years. He clearly came from a left politically perspective however i can see how this can work both ways. I do feel somewhat that this is why so many of my university class mates are the same they seem so polictically to the left and you ask why they are and they dont know.

Oh well each to there own but it just seems to be that its fashionable for students to be this way politically.