Sunday, January 30, 2011

Who should be more worried?

Over on they are asking who should be more worried about the latest bouts of polls about the leaders of the three main parties (click here for the full thread).

All 3 leaders have gone up but Cameron (up 2) less than Clegg (up 6) and Miliband (up 4). Should the PM be concerned about this?

Maybe not as much as you might think; the details show that 95% of Tory voters think that Mr Cameron is doing well; compared to 79% of LibDems voters for Clegg and, most worryingly of all, just 72% of Labour voters for Miliband. Any leader needs to be at 90% plus for his or her own supporters, really.

What is also noteworthy is the cross-over between the LibDems and the Tories; 71% of LibDems feels that Cameron is doing well and 68% of Tories think the same of Nick Clegg.

So where does that leave us? God knows, but it shows that if you pay too much attention to the polls it can make your head hurt and leave you more confused than where you started!


Bob3 said...

Do you think we should privatise our trees?

Antony said...

Is it really "privatising" trees? Aren't 85% of the current square footage of forests currently in private ownership? Didn't the last Labour government start this process? If I know that info I can make up my mind. Any idea Bob?

Bob3 said...

It's interesting you started with a partisan attack on Labour without really addressing the real concern here Antony.
You automatically assume I am a Labour party supporter, which I'm not.

Just because its 85% of current square footage it doesn't mean we should not retain some in public ownership.
It's like saying we should sell all the council houses off, because most of our property is privately owned.

I do believe it is privatising our access to trees, and that in itself goes against the principle of free access.

It's wrong, and I am angry we are even considering further selling off.

Antony said...

Not partisan and not an attack and certainly no assumption you are Labour Bob; re-read what I said. If those facts are true (which I understand them to be) and there are clear safeguards (e.g. access) then I don't see why privately managed forests should be any worse than publicly managed ones?

Bob3 said...

How about the issue of public accountability? Do you believe that clear safeguards will not be overridden in the pursuit of profit?