Sunday, 19 October 2008


After the confidence shown during his handling of the Countries financial crises Prime Minister Gordon Brown's performance has led to a better showing for Labour in the latest opinion polls.
A ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday has show that the Tories lead has no been cut to just 9 points.
The figures if repeated at the ballot box would not prevent the Conservatives from winning an election, but they will surely give heart to the Labour benches and many supporters will see this as the start on the road to recovery.
The poll shows the Conservatives on 40% (down one on last month), Labour on 31% (up two on last month) and the Liberal Democrats on 16% (down two on last month)
This is Labours best poll showing since March of this year and the parties MP's will be hoping that the recovery is on going up until May 2010 which is the latest that the government can go without calling a general election.
A note of caution however is that of those polled most (54%) did not agree that Mr Browns handling of the banking crisis gave Labour a better chance of being re elected.
Only 37% thought that it did.
In an ICM poll for the News of the World suggested that the country trusted Gordon Brown and his Chancellor Alistair Darling with the economy more than their Tory counterparts David Cameron and George Osborne.
Again it was not all good news in this survey as only 13% said that they would vote for Labour in response to how they handled the financial crisis, another 22% said the were less likely to vote Labour and 59% said that it would make no difference to the way they would vote at an election.
There is now dou
bt that Gordon Brown is trying to seize on Labour poll rating as he ups the ante by planning to inject billions of pounds of emergency funds into new schools and hospitals to stimulate the economy as Britain heads into recession, it emerged last night.
The Conservatives are keen to show that they have the right answers to the countries financial plight by asking the government to give more help to businesses by freezing VAT bills for six months to give firms more breathing space as the country heads towards recession.
The Shadow Chancellor
will announce more plans to help UK firms when he attends a small business summit tomorrow. The Conservatives said many small businesses had seen their overdrafts withdrawn or interest rates raised above 15 per cent over the past few months and that some could be forced out of business by their next VAT bill. Under the Conservatives' scheme, which the party said was revenue-neutral, small businesses would be able to defer their VAT bills for up to six months. Any deferred tax would be charged at 7.5 per cent, the usual HM Revenue and Customs interest rate for late payments. It would mean a typical enterprise with 50 employees and revenue of £5m would be able to defer a quarterly VAT bill of £90,000.
I'm sure that businesses will welcome any help to ease the cash flow crisis that tends to bite when companies try and hold on to their money for longer before paying suppliers causing a strain on cash flow.
So, what do you think about Labours improved poll showing? Does it give Labour supporters hope that recovery is on the way? Are the tories now worried that Labour are fighting back? With a poll rating of just 16% what can the Libdems do to improve or are they in real danger of not becoming serious opposition?


nita said...

I peronsally, feel that Gordon Brown has handled the banking crisis very well, and is the right person to take us through these difficult times.

Now, whether he is the right candidate to win an election, I am not so sure.

Do we stay with what we know to be better than under the previous Tory Government, or do we, take a risk, and see if Mr Cameron can do a good job.

Why not give Nick Clegg a go? Is the Liberal Dems Party not strong enough yet though. What do they need to do, to gain our trust.

I think Mr Brown is going to need an absolute miracle to keep him in number 10, come the next election.

BNP 4 ME said...

Nita, why not give Nick Griffin a go?
Go on, you know you want to!!

nita said...

Nick Griffin, never heard of him? Ha Ha.

brooneyes said...

Nita, why do you say these things?
I'm sorry pet, but Gordon Brown couldn't have handled it worse!

If this is the thought process of the average voter, then this country is in deep manure!
Why not give Nick Clegg a go????
Because he's a middle of the road,
pro immigration moron that blocked the people of this country from having a referendum! How's that for a reason not to give this no hoper a go?

The very fundamentals of British politics have changed. Where once we had 3 main parties, we now have 1 party with three different wings, or to put it another way,
one pig with three tails! What you are getting from Labour now, is what you will get from both the LibDems and the Tories. These groups have chosen their side. They will stay in Europe, and continue with the taxpayer funded invasion of our country.
It's all well and good to be giving the likes of me grief, but you wait until this is directly affecting you in a big way, when it's your kids that can't get a job, or a house, or God forbid, benefits, you'll change your tune then. But of course, by then it will be too late.

no such thing as society said...

Beyond doubt the next general election will be a straight choice between Labour and Brown or the Tories and Cameron. I don't expect it to be any different in Stoke-on-Trent despite the BNP's local success as the turnout will be much higher.

This is probably a point for Nicky to ponder as she often seems to want the best of all worlds in her political choices when in fact the choice here will be rather more stark.

Bob Bagley said...

I cast my vote based on a broad range of issues and try to avoid the tunnel vision syndrome of some.

But yes, Gordon Brown has proved himself competent at dealing with the current global economic problems and certainly leaves you with the feeling that it's him you would want to have running the country at a time of emergency and not Cameron or Clegg.

Anonymous said...

Gordon Brown Did well? hmm that would be the same man that deregulated the banks (as chancelor) in the first place then sold the gold of england to the jews (TelAviv Scandle) and last but by no means least followed americas rule of rescue a bank to gain a little, leaving us all open to future crisis? Paul Hanson should be So Proud ..

yes i agree he did very well for his foreign masters.. shame he didnt do so well for the english, or even his own kin the scots.

Perhaps a few here should look into The Bilderberg Group is membership role call is soemwhat interesting.

warren said...

So, Brown steps in and saves the banks, good for him, and he was the right person to do it, saying he handdeled the UKs money for 11 years before becomeing PM. So, when it picks up again why not sell them shears back , at a nice big proffit ofcoures, and if Labour are still in power do something good with it,like puting the power firms back in state control, stoping us getting flesed once and for all. Dont it make sence when you think about it. There is not doute that the next genrel elction will be a two houre race, lab v con, in Stoke just lab, higher turn out more Labour voters, even BNP surports knowing they dont stand a cat in hells chance, and they will vote Labour to no matter what you say Mr. Pond. Nick who, oh! that taffy windbag.

nita said...

Anonymous. I disagree, when you say "shame, he didnt do the same for the Scots". The Scots want to be an independent country, with their own Government. Now, they want money to help them out with the banking crisis. So, when Gordon Brown said, last week, they can't have it both ways, he was spot on.

Partisan said...

Actually perhaps i didnt get it so wrong after all ..

ALEX SALMOND will today blame Gordon Brown for bringing Britain to the brink of recession.

The First Minister is to claim the Labour leader has led the country through an "age of irresponsibility".

And he will use his leader's speech at the SNP conference in Perth to accuse the Prime Minister of squandering billions of pounds.

He will say Brown wasted a fortune on updating Trident nuclear missiles, private finance initiative (PFI) projects and the Iraq war.

Salmond will also paraphrase former Chancellor Brown's phrase that the banks had contributed to an "age of irresponsibility".

He is set to ask: "Where did this age of irresponsibility come from?

"Who broke down the barriers in the financial sector?

"Who presided over the inflation of asset values?

"Who allowed the spivs and speculators of the derivatives market to be totally unregulated?"

And he will add: "It may have had something to do with the occupants of 10 and 11 Downing Street homes of the Prime Minister and Chancellor over the last 11 long years."

Salmond has come under fire after Brown claimed an independent Scotland would not have the financial muscle to bail out our stricken banks.

The SNP call for Scotland to be more like small independent nations such as Iceland and Ireland was also questioned as the credit crunch stormed through their economies this year.

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray accused Salmond of making "wild claims".

He said: "These are serious times for serious people like Gordon Brown.

"If anyone is irresponsible it is Alex Salmond with his wild claims."


as i said shame he didnt do so well for the english, or even his own kin the scots.


Partisan said...

And its not just me that thinks Gordon the goffer is up to no good ..

First it was Lord Levy(of cash for honours fame),who acted as Tony Blair's middle east envoy which in turn
led to a disastrous mid-east policy now it seems that David Abrahams has taken on the same mantle to Gordon Brown.The bottom line is the same;jewish money controlling Uk foreign policy decisions.It was unconvincing at best when Gordon brown claimed that he knew nothing of the money given by bernie eccleston for the Tobacco Lobby.
It's even less convincing now when he claims that he knew nothing of Abraham's proxy
payments of over £600,000.Businessmen don't give money away for free.Abraham's reported claims that he knows people in Hamas and his active involvement with the jewish lobby in the Uk makes his payments all the more sinister.The true source of all payments to Political parties need to made transparent if the Uk is not to follow
the american political system which is crippled by the power of the Israel lobby
when it comes to making unfettered decisions vis a vis the peace process and foreign policy.

and before we accuse one and not the other.. and in the interests of fairness.. and debate alone..

Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party has stated “I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party.” His recent tour of Israel began with a two hour Black Hawk helicopter flight with the Israeli defence minister to see the country's borders

now last i heard Isreal was an "illegal occupation onPalestinion Lands " making them omg terrorists and who do we not support?... yeah thats right .. the T words except of course when they give you money for your campaign?

I think someone needs to rethink their " loyalties"


Partisan said...

ok ok last post for Nita to make sure she understands her own statements in a none offensive way as i can possibly do ok?

and no i`m not victimising you nita just pointing out an ethos that needs to be shown the fullness of light to be understood howwe got in this mess in the first place.


nita said...

Partisan, I've tried to get onto your link, but it just gives me an error.

I'm not easily offended, so if you want to say something, just say it.

I have to say, I personally do not believe that Scotland or Wales should be independent countries, as the UK is the UK.

However, they in Scotland keep bleating on about being independent, then want money off the government to get them out of a crisis. If they want to stand on their own, they should be aware of the consequences, that decision may bring.

I think what Gordon was trying to say was, look, you couldn't ask for this help, if you were on your own.

nicky said...

I think I still favour the monster raving loonies.

Honestly though I'm not willing to give Gordon Brown any credit for trying to get us out of a mess he should've tried harder not to get us into. I watched bits of the tory party conference to try to see what Cameron's plans are but he persisted in not saying anything. I've read enough labour white papers and looked at enough of their web info to know what a pack of lies it all is. I know it's a straight labour/tory choice but it's always possible to throw in a libdem protest vote, except that I don't like Nick Clegg enough to even do that. All that waffle about finding ways to save money that don't exist. And I couldn't understand his nonsense about pensions. But I suppose it is early days yet and there is plenty more time before a general election. So hopefully labour and tory will be clearer about what their policies are.

The other thing to consider is the fact that we vote for a local MP. Now if Rob Flello were doing a good job it could be argued I could vote for him, given that the two parties are much the same in any case. Trouble is I'm really peed off with him and couldn't possibly vote for him. I just hate the way he's all smiles when he's pretending to be doing something. Then when it doesn't work out, where is he? Cowering under a duvet somewhere I guess. What he ought to do is explain why he's failed and tell you what he's going to do next. So if I can't vote labour because of him should I just vote tory because the two parties are the same. Or if I don't like the tory policies - if they ever come up with any details - vote for the libdem, but I'm too disappointed in them to do that. You can see why I'm a floating voter.

Now I've never not voted in a general election, although I've often been shamefully apathetic in local elections. I think I'm pretty much your average person actually. Voted labour every single time except the last one. When the Iraq war, rampant privatisation, student loans and fees and messing with the school system and bringing in academies turned me off them too much. (I know you might think I'm fixated on schools because of the current mess in SOT but I've always been fixated to a high degree on education just because I think it's important and I'm interested in it. Labour - 17 diplomas designed by business that few kids will want to study and will be a nightmare for schools to deliver for goodness sake, why didn't they learn with GNVQs. And forcing kids to stay in education after 16against their will. They'll sign up to sixth form college so they are not listed as NEET but actually they will never be seen there again. And employers won't be allowed to give them a job, so they'll just be floating around making a nusiance of themselves. If they want to study do so, if they want to work do so, that's the better way. Actually none of the parties have decent education policies.) The libdems under Charlie Kennedy had some decent policies like higher rates of taxes for very high earners and local income tax, could actually show how they'd pay for public services and were of course against illegal wars. I figured they were actually more socialist than labour so when I voted libdem last general election I figured it wasn't so much I had changed but the parties had. But under Clegg they've done away with their decent policies. But with the tories I'm going to get at least as much privatisation etc. as I am with labour I would think.

So I still think I wouldn't want to not vote, but I might turn up to write 'none of the above' on the ballot paper.

Partisan said...

Goldfinger Brown’s £2 billion blunder in the bullion market google this nita

st george said...

If there were an election tomorrow, you just have to ask yourselves one question.

Would you rather have a PM who has been the most successful chancellor we have ever had (Gordon Brown), and is now leading the world to put right the problem made by the world,
or would you want your PM to be a bloke who as an employee(David Cameron), was an advisor to Norman Lamont and can clearly be seen with him in pictures of Black Wednesday, when the Torys (Tory means thief - usually horse thief), tried to bankrupt the country over the Euro....???

Shaun Bennett said...

A Brown Bounce! What sort of talk is this? Apart from in the minds of increasingly desperate Labour MPs and BBC journalists, there is actually very little evidence of such a bounce having occurred.

In fact, Brown is as far behind today as he has been for most of the last 12 months. The only reason that people think that hes now performing better in the polls is because hes not the 20 points behind that we were seeing over the last couple of months-a 20 point lead which I for one never thought particularly convincing.

According to the latest polls, Gordon Brown is still on course for the biggest swing against a sitting government bar 1945 and 1997, and a Tory majority actually BIGGER than John Major won in 1992. If this is the extent of the 'bounce' then Brown really is in trouble.

And where has this minor incrase in the Labour vote actually come from? Well although Labour is up in the latest polls on average by some 5%, the Tories are still consistantly polling above 40% (only a couple of points down on the polling that gave us those 20 point leads just a few weeks ago). Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are down some 6% on average compared to their post conference bounce, and so we can see quite clearly that the Brown bounce has come almost entirely at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.

This poses a problem for Labour strategists because most of their marginal seats are actually held against the Tories, and only a few are held against the Lib Dems. Whilst the swing from Labour to Conservative is not yet big enough to produce a Tory majority on its own, the recent collapse of the Lib Dems would on an even national swing be the crucial factor in pushing David Cameron over the winning post. So ideally, Labour really need the Lib Dems to be doing a lot better.

As someone who has ALWAYS predicted a hung parliament at the next election, I see the recent polls as only confirming my feelings, and I expect the Tory poll lead to narrow slightly further by the time of the actual election. Now that won't be anyone's fault in particular, but is merely a reflection of the present electoral arithmetic and the difficulty that my party faces to actually win an overall majority.

In addition, whatever the polls are saying will happen to the Liberal Democrats, the reality is that they almnost always perform better at the actual election overall, and even if they don't, they will certainly do much better in their marginal seats than the polling suggests. That makes the liklihood of an overall Tory majority even less. Once again, its not anyones fault in particular, its just the realities of the electoral landscape.

Finally, I'm afraid that that will not save Gordon Brown. Whatever the result of the next election in 2010 (as it almost certainly will be) Labour don't have a cat in hells chance of maintaining an overall majority. Boundary changes and the national swing will have moved that prospect far out of their reach next time even before we factor in a recession and government unpopularity. Labour only require a miniscule 2% swing against them for them to lose their majority, but the Tories will need a (perhaps too large) 8% swing for them to win an overall majority.

Therefore, I think that although this is perhaps the closest election since 1992, the result is pretty easy to predict; a hung parliament without overall majority. In such circumstances, the liklihood is that the Liberal Democrats will unfortunately hold the balance of power, and will prop up whichever coalition promises to deliver them proportional representation (probably Labour). In that case, the years immediately following 2010 will undoubtedly be unstable, chaotic and frustrating...perhaps the biggest political crisis the country will have faced in decades...