In the pre-1992 polling Kinnock was propped up by Tories flirting with the idea of voting Labour. In the end they didn't and he lost. As well as that his lead wasn't that big anyway. Polls back then were unweighted and they exaggerated Labour's lead. There was no marginal polling either, and it is this that really counts.

Miliband's lead is far less vulnerable as the polls are weighted, he has a big lead in the marginal and he is being propped up by 2m Lib Dem voters from 2010. Unless most of them switch back he wins, irrespective of the damage UKIP do the Tories.

if we get another Labour government we are s4afted.

Yes because Gordon Brown single-handedly caused the worldwide financial meltdown in 2008.

There'll be far fewer people "shafted" by a Labour government than there will be by a tory one

selling National Gold Reserves at the bottom of the market, LABOUR
setting an unaffordable National Minimum Wage = LABOUR
ripping off companies with Corporation Tax = LABOUR
generally penalising success to pay for people being workshy = LABOUR

sorry, but facts are facts, even (dick"Ed"icon_wink.gif Milliband can't even trot out a mascot that he's properly researched.

but no matter, this is RLFans, not the real world, facts are as unwelcome as they are ignored.

Labour will not intentionally shaft as many people as the Tories

You really do not have a clue about politics or economics and the world of business if that is your argument.

But I'll let you develop your argument.

"setting an unaffordable National Minimum Wage " By whose definition? .
"ripping off companies with Corporation Tax " Define ripping off because someone must have been somewhere down the line usually the wealth creators i.e. the workers
"generally penalising success to pay for people being workshy" Define success and workshy. I know for example of lots of people who are workshy, they let others do all the hard work and they reap the rewards. The trouble with defining success is knowing where the benchmark is. As a rule of thumb those "in power" don't want others to be in a position to usurp them so put obstacles in the way. I suppose success could be defined as removing obstacles depending upon your viewpoint.

Somewhat off topic, but that's not true about the 1992 polls. They were weighted, their primary problem was they were not accurately weighted. To some degree, this was because they misunderstood the electorate - partly this was due to not picking up on the movements from working to middle class which had happened through the 1980s and would be identified when the next census results were released. So it wasn't a lack of weighting, they weren't that unsophisticated. But, yes, lessons were learned and the 2015 polling should not contain the same sort of surprises.

Whether Miliband can come through debates with Cameron looking like a PM ready to go is another question. One of the reasons I don't like the debates, the need to reduce everything to soundbites apart, is that it focusses far too much on the leader and their own ability to spout bull.

The only "fact" you've actually managed in that list is the selling of gold reserves. You also conveniently gorgot that Gordon Brown finally cleared off our War Debt after 60+ years.

The other "fact" you omitted was the simple fact that gold reserves do absolutely nothing while they are sitting in a vault. They don't create wealth, they don't earn anything, the gold just sits there looking pretty. You could accuse the last Labour government of squandering money on silly things like education and healthcare but after 18 years of tory ideologically-driven decline, both sectors were in dire need of massive investment.

Now we've had 4+ years of a tory-led government, guess which two sectors are once again in decline?

No matter what your view of Brown that's the most preposterous argument in his defence I've ever seen. He paid it off when it was due to be paid. And it was a completely trivial amount that was outstanding.

Brown built up a budget deficit in boom years.

Whoops I should try not to troll by posting facts.

£45m is a "trivial amount"? And that loan could've run for years and years. Brown didn't "need" to pay it off, he thought it prudent to do so, something no tory had managed. There is also the consideration that some UK banks were thought to be exposed to problems attached to a high gold price

Whatever anyone's thoughts on his selling of gold, the "cost" to the UK was still less than that of Black Wednesday

I think most people would agree that around 0.005% of the national budget was trivial in the overall scheme of things.

The US-UK loan required 50 annual installments from 1950. With repayment deferred in six years in the 50s, 60s and 70s, the final payment eventually fell due in 2006. Which is when Brown repaid it. Hardly an heroic achievement.

Ripping off via corporation tax? I remember when all companies, however small, paid 52% and now its 20%. People now want to leave money in companies because the tax rate is so low compared with taking it out. So, if 20% is a rip off I assume Standee has / will never use public transport, the NHS, the education system, rely on the police or emergency services in his hour of need, rely on the intelligence services or armed forces to keep him safe, expect any state pension in future, etc, etc.

Utterly trivial in the context of current debt!!

Agreed but we had chances to finally shake off that yoke in previous years and dodged them

Standee belives in a "small state".

So small that he has convinced himself (although there are one or two doubters), that his parents fully-funded not only his birth but ALL of his education and welfare needs up to the point where he can fund all of that himself.

I know that he enjoys a spot of skiing, I only hope he doesn't have an accident in a country such as France, then he'll find out what 3rd world healthcare is all about.

He also reckoned that this bill was false because it was in $s, despite the fact that it is the usual currency in the US and also the fact that the US tends not to have a "free at point of need" medical system

That bill looks about right. My cousin's last baby born cost her personally about $7,000. Her insurance from General Motors paid the difference of about $40k. She explained to me, everything from a meal to a plaster was billed.

Far more people get shafted under Labour - their tax and spend affects us all, sadly.

Yes, it's so terrible that they fritter away money on things like education, healthcare and policing

What is terrible is the amount of waste in the public sector - so you need to increase spending disproportionately to get any kind of positive outcomes.

Spending on public services is an easy way to get things moving - unfortunately it only ever has very short term benefits as the last Labour government realised.

What is terrible is the amount of waste in the public sector - so you need to increase spending disproportionately to get any kind of positive outcomes.

Spending on public services is an easy way to get things moving - unfortunately it only ever has very short term benefits as the last Labour government realised.

Today should be fun, there are some real gems lined of to speak:

BoJo with his [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-suggests-ukip-defectors-4348650#ixzz3EkxrzvxFUKIP defectors have sex with hoovers[/url

Theresa May & Chris Grayling impersonating the Krankies tearing up the Human Rights Bill

And to top it all off tomorrow, Camoron will be trying to out-UKIP, UKIP

Tax Credits will be frozen for 2 years from 2016 under a re-elected Tory government. I know i'm a dirty, filthy scrounger for claiming them, but if my employer, and most other people's employers paid them a suitable wage, i wouldn't need them. Cost of living will have further increased by then, and my average payrise per year in my 8 years with my current employer is around 7p, so... struggles ahead.

Gidiot need to find £25bn further savings, who better to fund them than the already impoverished?

I believe in a appropriately sized and funded state, where those in [igenuine[/i need get the assistance they [igenuinely[/i require.



You have no idea of the circumstance of any of those things.



as it stands, I couldn't, not to a standard I'd find acceptable, hence I haven't been irresponsible and had kids like shelling peas, unfortunately some of the rest of the population just make selfish decisions and expect people to pick up the tab for them. "well, they're rich, innit, they can pay for me to sit on benefits street"

I'll assume you're not wishing misfortune upon me, not you usual style. And yes, I do Ski, and I also have the relevant insurance to cover me in the event of an accident.

And, as I said above, most Americans have the adequate level of insurance in place PRIOR to making a decision to have children.

We have different opinions, as has been proven over many years, and, with a fair wind for us both, will last many more years. I simply cannot see how [iconstantly[/i bemoaning people wealth, and yet expecting them to underpin an overly generous welfare system is logical.

Cameron has, and earns, money = he pays tax
Osbourne has, and earns, money = he pays tax

The Clampits from No22 somewhere ville have no money, do not work, don't pay tax, yet they get their rent, council tax and other elements of their life paid for, by the people that pay tax.

It's not a difficult argument that the Clampits are lacking personal responsibility and any work ethic.

I fully appreciate there are [isome[/i people who genuinely cannot work, but not as many as those who are [iclaiming[/i they cannot work.