I think the outcome of next election will be determined by how well Miliband performs. Cameron will probably be as uninspiring as last time, nobody will be wanting to say that they agree with Nick. Farage will go into meltdown at some stage. Miliband is the unknown quantity in a general election campaign.



If he merely reinforces his current image Labour's lead will probably ebb away as it did under Kinnock. But he might surprise people and have a strong campaign, just as Major did in '92.

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