Metropol

Thought I'd drag up this thread in light of recent news. Results of a poll released today show that Labour are now 17 points behind the Conservatives - this would give the Conservatives a majority of 120, if an election was held.

There does however seem to be a blatent bias at the moment in the media, particularly by the newspapers (shock horror!). There seem to be a lot of stories being brought out about MP's expenses, but they are overwhelmingly focussed on Labour MPs - Jacqui Smith being the most obvious one. The Conservative front bench claim just as much as their Labour counterparts, but there is barely any mention of this.

And all this email *scandal* that's been going on - does anyone else get the impression that stuff like this is common practice by all parties, the only difference this time being that they have been found out? Politics has always been dirty - too dirty - and it's little wonder people feel disillusioned by it all.

Anyway, I still look forward to Labour leaving office at the next election. Whether or not the Conservatives will be any better remains to be seen, but I'm fed up with the current government and I still believe a change is needed. I'd like David Cameron to have a chance, because I do genuinely believe that him, Hague and Osborne are decent chaps.

all new Phil wrote:I do genuinely believe that him, Hague and Osborne are decent chaps.

David Cameron? The bloke who bikes to work while a chauffeur-driven gas-guzzler drives his papers, documents and briefcase behind him? The bloke who is constantly haranguing the government about "coming clean" and "bringing things out into the open" yet wishy-washily evades any questions about his own past illegal drug use? The common-touch bloke who insists you "call [him] Dave" yet has furnished his front bench with Old Etonians?

Hague has his nose in so many troughs he puts Kenneth Clarke's BAT interest to shame. And Osbourne? He's so pathetic that even his own party are embarrassed by his attempts at financial jargon.

The polls are dire, but I don't think they'll be as dire when it comes to election time, probably in a year's time. The public are very fickle, and if we come out of recession in the next six to nine months, as is predicted, and the various effects that come with that, then the next election will be closer than 120 seats. I too think the Tories are set to win it, but I think we're closer to a hung or minority government than anything else. As we say - at General Election time - the Tories will actually have to come up with some policies. And that may be harder than they think.

A BPIX poll for the ‘Mail on Sunday’ today shows a 19 point lead for the Conservatives, although I’m not sure how easy it is to translate that into actual seats at a General Election as it very much depends on where their increased support lies. Perhaps the local elections in June will give a better indication about whether support for the Conservatives is rising within the traditional Labour heartlands.

I agree that there appears to be significant media bias against Labour MPs regarding the expenses issue; I’m sure we’ll see plenty of equally dubious claims from Conservative and LibDem MPs when all the receipts are released in July. Of course, it’s always easier for the media to focus on the party in power, especially Ministers, as they are well known to the public and therefore the stories sell more papers. However, the latest scandals regarding those with ‘grace and favour’ homes claiming ‘second home allowances’ could only apply to Labour MPs (and indeed the PM himself).

I was quite surprised at how important ‘Smeargate’ (as some papers are calling it) has become. Like Phil, I thought this sort of thing always went on in politics, although normally the ‘dirt’ had at least an element of truth about it. The fact that politicians think so little of each other to play these games really just confirms the public’s general perception that they’re all a bunch of crooks who shouldn’t be trusted. I thought less of Cameron for bleating on about an apology all last week when his party have probably been up to the same thing in the past, but not been found out so publicly.

I will be looking forward the next election if the likes of Jacqui Smith and the other scandal-ridden MPs are unceremoniously removed from their seats. The Conservatives need to reveal more about how they are going to address the enormous debt they will inherit. I think they need to be honest about how brutal the public spending cuts will have to be, and the potential tax rises.

Brown’s legacy to the Labour Party may well be to almost destroy it. A Conservative government needs the counter-balance of an organised opposition; I don’t think Labour will be able to perform that role for quite some time. Perhaps one solution after the next election would be a Conservative-LibDem coalition rather than the one party landslides we saw in 1979 and 1997.

It looks as though Brown is going to cling onto the cliff edge by what’s left of his fingernails until the last possible moment, so I don’t think we’ll see an election before June 2010. I actually think he’s out of his depth as PM, but probably lacks the courage to admit that to himself. However, I’m not sure whether there is anyone else in his now tainted party who could turn it around in 12 months. We shall see.

Alexia wrote:

all new Phil wrote:I do genuinely believe that him, Hague and Osborne are decent chaps.

David Cameron? The bloke who bikes to work while a chauffeur-driven gas-guzzler drives his papers, documents and briefcase behind him? The bloke who is constantly haranguing the government about "coming clean" and "bringing things out into the open" yet wishy-washily evades any questions about his own past illegal drug use? The common-touch bloke who insists you "call [him] Dave" yet has furnished his front bench with Old Etonians?

Hague has his nose in so many troughs he puts Kenneth Clarke's BAT interest to shame. And Osbourne? He's so pathetic that even his own party are embarrassed by his attempts at financial jargon.

The polls are dire, but I don't think they'll be as dire when it comes to election time, probably in a year's time. The public are very fickle, and if we come out of recession in the next six to nine months, as is predicted, and the various effects that come with that, then the next election will be closer than 120 seats. I too think the Tories are set to win it, but I think we're closer to a hung or minority government than anything else. As we say - at General Election time - the Tories will actually have to come up with some policies. And that may be harder than they think.

Similarly I remain to be convinced by the tories, at all, for many of the same reasons.

This current bout of mud slinging from Cameron over expense accounts and rumour-mongering is completely galling to me. You'd have to be incredibly naive not to assume (correctly or not) that they've all got their nose in the trough - and its a red-rag to newspaper hacks when you pontificate on matters of sleaze. Isn't that a very stupid thing to do?

He has an opportunity to use this time to lay out his vision for what his party could achieve as Government - and convince those like me that they're worth a shot.

Instead he appears to be on very dodgy moral highground at the sidelines, and making it up as he goes along.

Brown and Blair made some mighty mistakes, but I wasn't in any doubt that they were decisive. We were taken to war and we had a massive boom and bust - but how come I'm left with more confidence in them than the vapid, hollow opposition?

I still think we will go for 6th May 2010

I'm in the same boat as gavin and past-Sput (earlier in this very thread in fact): the tories have never done anything substantial in all this time Cameron has been leader, other than offer wishy washy "vision" and rhetoric. The one thing I do recall them proposing was freezing the license fee for one year. This from the same party that calls cutting VAT by 2.5% pointless (although it's looking like it helped things, apparently - tsk @ me not remembering where I read that).

I would be increadibly surprised if Tory MPs aren't just as bad as Labour ones for expense fiddling. If Cameron gets in it will be as a result of anti-Labour feeling not pro-Tory sentiment. At least in 1997 you kind of had an idea of the kind of things that Blair would do but I have no feeling right now of what David Cameron would do if he suddenly became PM and given that he has - at most - a year to cobble together a manifesto I don't see this position changing.
As for voting I really don't have a clue who I would go for this time round and may well end up on the fallback position of the SNP. As the tories don't seem to be gaining any ground up here if they do end up winning with very few Scottish seats I could possibly forsee a reappearance of the anti-Union sentiment that seems to have gone away a bit recently.
Anyway we've got the Euro-elections in a few months which may be a nice barometer of public opinion if we can exclude the NO-ZanuMcBroonNotEU types from the equation.

One thing I don't get is why the papers and taxpayers get so het up about certain "scandals". I read in the news of the world that a chap who works for the BBC has been spending 120 quid a day on his chauffeur to take him on a seven mile journey, even though he could get on the tube for much less. Apparently this is a disgrace because he's spending license payer's money on this.

Now, maybe I need enlightening, but surely he's allowed to spend his own money on whatever he wants, no matter where it comes from?

I worked at a hotel and spent a lot of my wages, which mostly came from the money that holiday makers paid to stay at the hotel, on DVD's. I hardly expect to see headlines saying "WANKER WAITER BASTARD SPENDS TOURIST'S MONEY ON RED DWARF DVD'S, DESPITE BEING ABLE TO SIMPLY RENT OR BORROW THEM FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST".

So why is it any different for BBC employees? What gives the papers the right to get angry with this guy for spending his OWN wages on whatever he pleases? Yes, his wage comes from the public, but nearly everyone's wages come from the public. Shopkeepers make their wages from the public, that doesn't give to public the right to scrutinize everything everything buy.

Am I missing something here or are people actually prone to getting angry without looking into anything?

Ronnie Rowlands wrote:Am I missing something here or are people actually prone to getting angry without looking into anything?

It may have been £120 a day on an expense account, separate to his salary. Some have their expenses checked and questioned with great vigour - other's don't. It depends on who you are and what you do.

But that's life.

It also depends on whether it will make the papers money. Obviously they're our moral superiors and in a position to judge.

God I hate them.

Gavin Scott wrote:
It may have been £120 a day on an expense account, separate to his salary.

May have been, but we don't know that and nor do the papers.

God I hate them.