Blah Blah

Yep I agree ????. Boris would be a disaster as Tory leader. Miga for next leader of the Labour party tho ;D

Completely agree Miga. Miga's failure was to fight Cameron on the economy from the off. Not to wait for an election campaign.

Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the left (and you contradict yourself in that point), they shifted to the right in support of a nationalist party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting for independence. They election campaign was fought on fighting austerity and last time I checked fighting poverty wasn't necessarily a left wing issue, or would you have us all believe that no one on the right cares about such things? But I'm glad to see you at least acknowlege that the Tories only improved mainly in their traditional heartlands (and that's where the swing actually was). Marginals do go back and forth - so nothing significant there for me. I'd hardly call it a significant swing to the right. It's a far cry from the real gains made by the Tory party in the 80s. If anything it shouws only a polarisation between core voters of both the main parties with the SNP gains and libdem losses deciding things. So a nation of three halves if you like.

Maybe I can discount the home countries and show that Labour actually did better than the real figures show as well?

That's just massaging figures to your own ends Louisa. It was a UK election so every vote in the UK counts and parliament works for the entire UK, or should at least. We know there's more Tory support in the south and more support for other parties in the north. It does not make us a Tory nation. That's also exactly why parties like the SNP have done so well. People feel completely ignored by a south centric serving government. It still maintains that there is nothing like the support shown for the Tory landslides of the 80s and that urban metropolitain centres (where most people live) are still Labour heartlands.

We also have to remember that the pecentage of voting share between the Tories and Labour was JUST 6%. So whilst Miliband got the image/ policy/ message etc wrong, it can't really be argued that the Tories got it absolutely right either. For all the delusion of various Labour MPs their were an equal number of Tories who expected Cameron to fail (Boris being one of them I suspect). For me that reads as a time of not totally understood change in thinking from the public, not understood on either side of the main parties. In light of that I think Labour are in a better position than they may think to come back. They will have to get their new leader right, but it is no way the end of them, as it may have been had Cameron won with an overwheming majority. No-one knows what will happen over the next five years, to the economy or anything. And a Europe referendum is promised too. That will be a huge game changer depending on the result and the impacts, if any, of us leaving the EU. It's not going to be an easy ride for the Tories by any means.

I'm with you David. There will be someone but whether or not the Labour party can find them is another matter.

Green Goose, cutting to balance ultimately means no safety net for those at the bottom, no healthcare for all, no education for all. Is that where you really want us to go? We have ALWAYS borrowed money and we are still here! BTW you conveniently forget the trillions borrowed to bail out the banks. It's not really about Labour or Conservative, it's about the kind of economy we have. Growth depends entirely on debt, from buying your home to capital projects. You can't have it both ways. Cheap credit is the reason for most growth since the 80's and we are ALL part of it. The entire free market economy depends on it. Why you pick on the unemployed is beyond me. 60% of social security budget is spent on the over 65s, in pensions and other benefits. Those have been protected from any cuts by THIS government. The next highest spend is on families in work with children. They need those tax credits and housing benefit because their low wages don't cover basic living costs. I think you need to better inform yourself in the true spend of welfare before you make sweeping statements about work shy people making lifestyle choices. Meanwhile no mention of tax avoidance and the recent scandals around capital gains tax. I broadly agree with rahrah's economic analysis (and the figures ARE out there to see for yourself) and the point someone made that the wider public don't know enough about economics. I was one of those people a year ago too, but decided to learn more and it WAS a revelation. It was the point at which I saw for myself what a merry song and dance the Coalition had led us all on. But Labour can only blame themselves for not countering that effectively enough. I also agree with Jeremy and also think that Labour in power would have seen some recovery too. We were never in the same place as Greece, or Italy or Spain etc.

What are you talking about Green Goose? I've for one have agreed with some of ???? points, but he is further right than me for sure. I equally get fed up of people like you rejecting every opposing view as left wing tosh! I've been consistent in saying the Tories don't spend enough (and public services DO suffer) and Labour go the other way, agreeing completely with Louisa for once even! The truth is that any sensible person can see we need to be somewhere in between. Try telling the diasabled and those who can't get appointments to see their GP, and those on the now longer waiting lists that their experiences are just left wing tosh. Try telling those on min wage who need tax credits and beneifts just to make ends meet that the Tories are better for them. You can't keep cutting. Eventually you have to face up to the fact that we need many more jobs, that pay better, and we need them outside of the south east, in places like the North and Scotland, places that both the Tories and New labour have utterly failed to serve. I don't see anything in Camerons manifesto to deal with housing. I don't see anything more than more cuts for the poorest. I do see tax giveaways for those who need them least though. I don't see any fiscal plan for getting exports and productivity up (there is some investment for business but weofully small). And I don't see any plan for closing the gap between wages and the cost of living, so that tax payers money doesn't need to be spent topping them up.

Ha ha Loz :D

But where does it say Adam and Eve are jews? The earliest accounts of the Old testament were written in Hebrew and two versions of genesis evolved from that. Neither go beyond describing Adam and Eve as more than creations of 'god'. In fact the Hebrew word 'Elohim' can be translated both as God (singular) and Gods (Pagan deities). At the time of its writing, both understandings of god and gods were commonplace. It is only later translation that applies the meaning singular God and rejects the idea of Gods.

You're welcome Aquarius.

But there have been plenty of Tory campaigners in the past who didn't use language like that Louisa. Don't know what steak has to do with anything either. It has nothing to do with policy. What I do think is that certain Tories felt a need to compete with the nationalistic fervour that seemed to be so popular from the SNP and UKIP. The irony is that for all the fear they tried to create around the SNP, they played to the same sentiment in their own campaign. You only have to look at the post election anger and the split between views to see how divisive this Tory government are. It's not a good sign of anything. What I think the reality will be is no significant change to anything. There are going to be Tories who don't toe the whip, and I think many bills will have to be watered down to get through Parliament and the Lords.

I think the Tories didn't help with the tone of language they used though. Instead of saying 'ammendments which might mean rewriting from scratch etc' they chose to use the language of the jingoist with 'tear it up'! Live by the sword, die by the sword I'm afraid.

Me neither Aquarius. Innocent people ARE wrongly convicted and there is no evidence of the death penalty being any kind of deterrent either. I wonder if 'when' polling is carried out makes a difference. i.e would a poll in favour be more likely after the reporting of a heinous crime? I would support life meaning life though.

Tribal loyalties are complex LondonMix because they are a mix of die hard generational loyalty, some of it glavanised by bitter experience and class, and increasingly shaken up by the widespread aspirational culture that has emerged over the last 30 years. I suspect there are far more floating voters than there were 30 years ago too.

I agree DaveR that public spending went up under labour (they created a million public sector jobs I think) but that's the cost of repairing the underfunding of public services from the Thatcher era. Labour did get NHS waiting lists down, they did employ more doctors, nurses, police etc. We can't have it both ways on that. Either we want public services or we don't. Which is why I keep banging on about wages and jobs. When the Tories find a way to eliminate the need for the state (i.e. tax payers) to subsidise jobs, when they find a way to regenerate the economy nationwide and tackle the real areas of unemployment etc then I'll buy this idea that they are better for the economy than Labour. The truth is that both parties have little answer to any of that, which is why we get into idealogical debates about who should get what share of the economy there is.

Can't see the death penalty ever coming back personally. It would just be too controversial.

'Average' income always suggests that most people earn it when in fact most people in work earn below the average income. London is a kind a bubble in that wealth is relative to other wealth in London. It's why many feel wealthy politicians to be out of touch in their lack of understanding of the kind of income most people live on. James is right though in that Southwark is a poor borough as a whole. And it's not the only one in London. The London Boroughs that stayed or went blue demographically are higher in income. It's a clear divide. I agree strea. Coalition for the Libdems alienated their core vote. But we have no way of knowing what would have been the outcome had they not done that. All economies recover after a deep crash. Greece and Italy have other problems not relevant to the UK, problems that go back a long way. Greece on Tax, Italy on consensus. And of course, the biggest lie of the Tory campaign has always been blaming Labour for an economic mess. No, the global banking crash caused the recession, and the economy had started to recover by the 2010 election. Labours first mistake was their silence in opposition during the first two years of the coalition reign. And they are about to make the same mistake again whilst they look for a new leader. I think the Libdems will recover in time. All the the main parties have been down at some point. It just takes time. And the Tories are in for a rocky time. Coalition gave them a overwhelming majority. Their jubilation in a single majority may well be short lived once the real business of keeping every Tory MP under a whip gets going - because that's what it's going to take to get anything through parliament. The SNP have won their share of seats as a party opposed to austerity and they have the energy of the new kids on the block. They will be working hard to lobby opposition form all the parties I'm sure.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour need to stop Union influence. For those of > us old enough to remember the 70s, it was a pretty > @&?# time to be around. That generation has > broadly not forgiven Labour, and they sway > elections. Labour only wins on the centre ground, > like under Blair and the unions forced Miliband on > the party, when his brother was clearly the better > choice. As much as a swing to the left would be > great for core vote, that don't play well in > middle England. I would love Andy Burnham as > leader but I fear he would isolate the south, just > as Chukka would isolate the core vote IMO. They > need someone who cuts through with everyone, > another Blair. > > Louisa. So Ted Heath was a Labour PM was he? Oh and the oil crisis had nothing to do with anything either did it? Complete and utter tosh to blame all the woes of the 70's on unions. The truth is that the 70's were the decade of decline. The wake up call from the post war boom, as the eastern economies rose. Unions did what they always do, in trying to protect jobs and livelihoods. Their only flaw was in not realising they were fighting for a declining economy that could never afford to go on as it had. By the 80's some unions had learned from this, which is why we always talk about the miners but never about the other countless state owned employers and their unions who negotiated agreements on redundancies with government instead. The outcome was the same both ways. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost within transport, manufacturing, shipping, etc and nothing evolved to replace them. Without unions, millions of workers would have NO access to employment rights and the legal system in taking on unscrupulous employers. Is that what you really want Louisa? A return to serfdom? Labour were established as the party of the working man. Their link with unions is perfectly logical and nothing to fear. I completely agree though on the need to unite both the north and the middle classes of the south. That is why Blair was so successful. They need another Blair, minus the war missionary thing obviously.

I agree they will have to alter proposals. The Tories may have a majority but it's only a tiny one and I'm sure activists will be lobbying backbench Tories in marginals to make life as difficult as possible for Cameron.

Found an answer yet UGlen? You were quick enough to be pedantic about spelling on another thread.

Red brick road humps at junctions are though designed to slow traffic and make it easier for pedestrians to cross. Can't personally see what the op cyclist did wrong.

yawn....

Where does the old testament say that?