Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The challenge for GE2015 – Appealing to current Ukip suppor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The challenge for GE2015 – Appealing to current Ukip supporters and 2010 LDs at the same time
There are two key cohorts of potential swing voters at GE2015 – those who are now saying they will vote UKIP and those who supported the LDs in 2010.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yet another excellent chart, thanks.
I'm surprised education rates so low amongst UKIP - possibly because their voters are of an older generation?
1) Keeps their losses to UKIP small.
2) Stops some people who voted for Gordon Brown voting Labour again.
The reason I'm skeptical they can do it is that I haven't seen even the remotest hint of a strategy for (2). Who can they peel off? Disaffected Blairites? People who like gravitas / strong leadership and aren't convinced by Ed?
Obviously there's a danger that arguing with UKIP will polarize people who are currently just on the UKIP side of the fence, but most UKIP voters won't actually be UKIP lovers. Voters understand that politicians will attack each other.
The sterotype is that in safe Tory seats the local membership and MP will be more fussed about the likes of Europe and immigration because they think voters will desert to Ukip over these issues, whereas those in marginal seats will be more concerned about the economy and access to basic things like healthcare and education, which are priorities for the LD10 cohort.
Of course this is too simplistic, because banging on about Europe won't bring Ukip voters back and talking all day and night about the NHS won't entice too many former Lib Dems to make enough net difference.
Apart from the lack of trust in politicians generally, and the particular brand problem for the Conservatives, in the age of austerity there is going to be more shopping around and things might settle down a little bit if the economy is ever sorted out.
Labour have their own fragile coalition to try and keep together - potentially including the likes of Galloway at one extreme to Andy Burnham at the other.
Canada to consider taxing Bitcoin transactions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/26/business-bitcoin-tax.html
Shame our Chancellor hasn't bothered to develop policies to accelerate this trend and get growth going.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10023999/UK-manufacturing-jobs-to-come-home-in-next-decade.html
I agree with Southam that it is very difficult to argue against that kind of myopia. Every time you point out the real world they don't see a valid alternative viewpoint but weakness. A conservative party in opposition can just about indulge these fantasies. One in government cannot, whether it is in Coalition or not.
Just about the only argument can work is whether they want to stop Labour but their keenest supporters have convinced themselves that there is no difference between the Cameron led tories and Labour. Just look at the best liked comments in what used to be the torygraph every day. Just look at some of the comments on here.
That paper, and others, have created something of a monster and there may not be very much that can be done other than letting the disease run its course. Labour, in keeping left wing Lib Dems on board have much the easier task which is why they are favourites.
South Shields UKIP Councillor David Potts has died at the age of just 30/31 of cirrhosis of the liver . It would be fair to describe the former Conservative councillor as a controversial local character .
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/04/29/ed-miliband-these-are-the-six-bills-labour-would-push-right-now/
· A Jobs Bill to put in place a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.
· A Finance Bill to kick-start our economy and introduce a 10p rate of tax.
· A Consumers Bill to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares.
· A Banking Bill to help British businesses with new banks
· A Housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords
· An Immigration Bill to put an end to workers having their wages undercut
Nowt on house building......tim?
Housing Bill
· Introduce a national register of landlords, to allow LAs to root out and strike off rogue landlords, including those who pack people into overcrowded accommodation.
· Tackle rip-off letting agents, ending the confusing, inconsistent fees and charges.
· Seek to give greater security to families who rent and remove the barriers that stand in the way of longer term tenancies.
It amazes me that people can continue to function and have (relatively) normal lives whilst drinking so much.
Until it catches up with them.
This is already happening in the USA but there energy costs are falling rapidly due to exploitation of shale gas and oil. In the UK manufacturing jobs will only come back when it will be economic to bring them back - ask James Dyson.
However, the UK is cost structure is still largely uncompetitive globally and talk of a living wage for all will not help this problem. Also continually increasing costs of regulation, business rates etc do not help in bringing back jobs to the UK. Why not ask BT why they do not bring back their call centres from India?
This is not a HMG problem alone but also a Local Government problem where costs of management overhead have to be slashed, but instead they prefer to keep their cushy jobs and pensions and cut services to the taxpayer instead.
Off the top of my head:
Monetary policies to keep a low and competitive pound
Low interest rates
Reductions in Employers NI
Improvements in Capital allowances
Enterprise zones
Reforms of intellectual property following the Hargreaves review
Major export promoting tours around the world and to BRICS in particular.
Funding for SMEs
Support for the car industry encouraging capital investment
I am sure there are more but this government built its hopes on an improvement in trade and exports. In a very difficult environment they have done what they can to support it. There is more to do, especially in the banking sector where no government schemes can properly compensate for a dysfunctional market but to suggest there has been nothing is ridiculous.
For the Tories, the main challenge is not to lose any more support to UKIP. If they address that (with positive changes in policy), they may find they also win support from current UKIP.
That's a nice little bar chart with which to play. Interesting to note that All is always between the two parties (whose colours clash horribly) and that the Lib Dems are closer to All on every single topic.
Ditto interest rates, and interest rates are pretty irrelevant if SMEs can't get a loan in the first place.
NI - agreed
Capital allowances - you're having a laugh they've been all over the place, the worst example being oil investment
Enterprise zones - whenever they come on stream
Intellectual property - scratching the surface, the whole issue of R&D needs fundamental reshaping to support new products and jobs in this country
Export tours - days out for Civil servants. Import subsitiution is the fastest way to cut the deficit
Funding for SMEs - what ? !!!! Stupid gimmick schemes as a poor substitute for reforming the banks.
Car industry - FO. The government has done bugger all, the car industry has done it for itself, government ministers seeking photo opportunities on the back of it isn't a policy.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/04/28/if-you-thought-the-party-youd-like-to-vote-could-win-in-your-seat-then-what-would-your-choice-be/
I suppose it just goes to show that political positioning isn't just about the party and the public, it's also where the party stacks up against the others and whether it's in a crowded field fighting over a scrap of territory or has its own space to enjoy frolics and larks of all kinds, undisturbed by others.
Oh, and credibility/honesty etc. It's not so much that UKIP have that as a special attribute, except in as much as the main three parties don't so UKIP, relatively, are much better in that regard.
Absolutely agree. The public are fed up with politicians who do not seem to understand or do not want to understand their grievances and the illogicalities that are aired daily by the press.
These include social and gang crime including rape and prostitution of young girls, the inability to eject criminal foreigners, the inability to limit immigration to our small island, the inability to plan for energy security and to control our energy costs, the inability to control our benefit system and remove inequalities and the inability to say NO to a EU scheme when EU countries like France just ignore EU mandates.
It would appear that our politicians, both national and local, as well as civil servants, live a cosy existence in a cloistered world where they are not affected by such grievances and if these are ignored then they will just go away.
Our politicians appear only too keen to shelter behind EU laws or UK laws and practices that are outdated and do not appear to have the guts to stand up and say things MUST change NOW. Is it any wonder that UKIP is rapidly gaining support and membership?
We see how a few politicians like Mrs May are trying to roll back the system - but does she get universal support from the HoC?
My word is that all :
Imprison all incoming 4 million Bulgarian immigrants in Clegg's Sheffield Hallam constituency with Nigel Farage as prison govenor. All detainees to wear orange and purple winning here jump suits and sandals, forced to grow beards (men too!!) and be a fed a diet of British beef sausages, Ukip made fruitcake, and brocoli quiche.
They do seem to got over the "fighting like ferrets in a sack" bitter disputes of 2009-10 which, I suspect, put many off in 2010.
I still don't think the LD's had much choice in 2010 though; Labour needed some time out of office; it's a pity they haven't used it better, policy-wise.
"Tell you what Roger, you try living on the minimum wage for a year and see if you're a "selfish bastard" at the end of it."
I've read your post twice looking for the gentle humour-but it's not there. So I'll answer you seriously.
Most people are concerned about the suffering of others whatever their personal circumstances. Those only interested in themselves we used to call 'Tories'. Well now the Tories have cleaned up their act and the Thatcherites are dying the rump are moving camp. The new nasty party are the UKIPS
But yet again the problem is that the electorate is stupid...
Oh dear.
Its not the views of former and potential Conservative voters which matter but the support among the dwindling group of remaining Conservative supporters - never mind the quantity feel the quality.
politicshomeuk @politicshomeuk
Labour's @LiamByrneMP tells BBC News that a Labour Government would not scrap Universal Credit but would enact a "rescue plan" for it.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-will-happen-to-the-lib-dems-in-thursdays-local-elections-34289.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
"The bottom line
Such a result would mean the following this Thursday compared to that Thursday way back in 2009**:
Conservative: 29% (-6%), 1,221 seats (-310)
Labour: 38% (+16%), 528 seats (+350)
Lib Dems: 16% (-9%), 354 seats (-130)
Ukip won just 7 council seats in 2009 and I can’t find a vote-share for them (they were blurred-in among the 18% of ‘Others’ in the parliamentary research paper on the 2009 election). It looks like they should win c.50 seats this Thursday.
Those are the figures I’ll be using as a yard-stick to measure the parties’ relative performances (with the added proviso that the Lib Dems will be focusing especially on those areas where we have MPs or which are target seats)."
Inasmuch as all parties are coalitions of voters with varying and often contradictory standpoints, we shouldn't be surprised at some of the illogic present in poll numbers. My view has long been that most people vote for a party either because a) it's what they and their family have always done or b) because they are against one or more other party and don't want that party to win.
That's different from the kind of midterm "they're all useless" anti-politics protest we've always seen and for which the Liberal Democrats, SDP, Greens, Respect, BNP and now UKIP have all been a kind of home at one time or another. This forum is reflective - there's a sense of "if only the Government did all the things I think they should do, everything would be fine". Everyone has their mini-manifestos, everyone has someone to blame for "everything that's wrong" be it this Government, the last Government, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, the EU, the bankers, the immigrants, the scroungers, the next door neighbour's hamster (delete as appropriate).
I've often defined a majority as "the largest number wrong about any given subject at any given time". In truth, most people are mostly wrong about most things most of the time and you can put me at the top of that list too. Government and governing is complex whether you're a brutal dictator with a totalitarian apparatus or the most open democracy.
IDS is probably right to suggest that wealthy pensioners should voluntarily renounce some of their benefits in order to reduce the benefit budget but he knows and I know that if the Conservative Party loses a large section of the elderly vote, they are finished. I know that Mr Stodge Senior, who worked all his life to provide for the Stodge Family, will not renounce his free tv licence or his winter fuel payment and doesn't see why he should.
None of that makes IDS wrong - he's quite right. Far better for people to voluntarily renounce that which they don't really need than to create a means-testing bureaucracy to chase it down. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Just about every team will be bringing a major upgrade. Those with the most to gain are probably McLaren and Williams.
All the other candidates seemed to believe that the current and proposed over-development of Cambridge was a 'given'. They viewed it as their duty to minimise that damage to the ancient city.
I was alone in querying why the huge increases in residential 'units' was essential. (The answer, apparently, was that it is an instruction from central govt).
It is in questioning assumptions of this sort where UKIP seems to be out-of-step. And, yes, net immigration is a factor, albeit mostly indirect, in the shortage of housing 'units' in East Aglia.
There were plenty of (ex?) communists in the Labour party between 1997-2010, didnt stop them getting votes from the centre right.
• A Jobs Bill to put in place a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee. (WORKFARE)
• A Finance Bill that would kick-start our economy and help make work pay with a 10p rate of tax. (TAX RISE)
• A Consumers Bill to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares. (BILLS RISE)
• A Banking Bill that backs British business with a real British Investment Bank and new regional banks. (NO SELL OFF OF STATE RUN BANKS)
• A Housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords and extortionate fees in the private rented sector. (STATE RUN HOUSING)
• An Immigration Bill with economic measures that put an end to workers having their wages undercut illegally by employers exploiting migrant labour. (STATE SPENDING ON LAWYERS AT THE EU COURTS)
http://iaindale.com/posts/2013/04/28/the-real-winners-on-thursday-could-be-the-libdems
IF the Party is seen as holding its own relative to 2009-10 (and that can be either via some of the Tory vote sliding off to UKIP or not), then the Party will feel it has a fighting chance of holding a respectable (30-40) seat bloc in the next Commons. Rallings & Thrasher are suggesting a loss of 130 seats if memory serves - again, let's see where the losses are before we jump (as I'm sure those not well-disposed to the party will) on simple seat numbers.
My personal view is that IF the party can keep net losses to under 100, that will be considered a good night but again the where not the how many will be the key.
So LDs forecast to lose nearly 27% of their seats in contention in this election and the Cons to lose 20%.
http://iaindale.com/posts/2013/04/28/the-real-winners-on-thursday-could-be-the-libdems
It struck me as an enormous amount of PR speak actually doing Eff All Squared in terms of policy - it deserves less zero serious attention.
Brown was actually right in removing it (apart from the huge blunder of the personal allowances), having it at just a band of 1,000 or 2,000 of earning is silly. Just put up the personal allowance by half, and it'll have the same effect for the vast majority of people.
In particular, CCHQ should focus on one easily understood and electorally toxic* UKIP policy, namely the policy of making pensioners pay hugely more tax by merging income tax and NI. A Daily Mail headline along the lines of 'UKIP Tax Bombshell for Pensioners' would be far more useful than some spat over tweets sent by no-hoper UKIP local candidates in obscure parts of the country.
The beauty of this particular wheeze is that it would work most effectively on those UKIP supporters who might instead vote Conservative, and less effectively on those who might instead vote Labour or LibDem.
* As it happens, I support this policy in principle. But it is still electorally toxic.
Take that into account and it's hard to see how you make up for the basic national situation, which is that about half the people who used to think the LibDems were quite good now think they're rubbish.
Maybe he knows that, and it's just expectations management.
- Con/Lab swing vote
- Potential abstainers.
The straight Con/Lab swing vote is critical, as it exists in no small part in those key marginals that determine who becomes the government, as that's where the two parties are competing head-to-head and seeking to squeeze other votes.
The 2010 election saw an increase in turnout. Whether these people go to the polls, or even others of the sort who haven't voted since 1997 - as UKIP apparently are attracting - could play a significant part in determining who wins and who doesn't.
I'm not sure the threat of a UKIP government is real enough for pensioners to worry about what it would mean for their tax bills. And in any case, as Farage showed over flat taxes, they're politicians and would be happy to drop that policy if it ever proved to be a problem.
I'm increasingly away from political anorakery as I'm bored by it - but the Ken Clark outburst struck me as very ill advised. He's on the LD end of the Tories and just indulged in a personal ego rant that said a great deal more about him IMO.
Attacking Kippers ad hom is always a mistake - and this applies to every party = inc the BNP or Respect or SWP or whomever.
They stand for something - knock down the *something* if you want to push them off their perch.
Thursday will help answer the central question for 2015 - is Labour's 70+ seat path to an overall majority easier to navigate than the Conservative's 20-seat path (allowing for Sinn Fein)?
People fear change and default to believing they will lose from any new benefits reform.
.
Tell them that Osborne and the Treasury, as well as Nick Clegg, are opposing Universal Credit and readers will assume it will be costing the government more money.
And if it costs more, then claimants are more likely to gain from the change rather than lose. It is not just "another Tory cut". Tell that to them straight and they would never believe it.
And for those who are opposed on principle to any benefit rises, Osborne will appear their champion.
On computer systems. They never work until suddenly they do. And then people forget about the problems until they crash for an hour or two and the process of frustration followed by relief and memory loss starts again. A cautious pilot and roll-out will minimise but not eliminate this cycle.
One development I am against is the new one that is often talked about on the airport/Marshalls site. It's the wrong place, and the road links to the city centre are already chock-a-block.
but doesnt it grate when the Aussie Green Party leader makes a joke at Britains expense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_RMO0-2C3Y
...and as for that Romanian crimewave, surely Farage was making that up eh immigration fans?
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/romanian_robbery_gang_who_stole_1m_lived_rough_in_romford_woods_1_2000470
British people living in Romford will be moving away in their droves if things like this keep happening.... and it will be for the sole reason that Romford Brewery is closed down, so they move to the seaside with their redundancy dough
It's true that many of these people voted LD in the first place because they were 'not the others', and now they're in government, they are one of the 'others'. On the other hand, so is Labour. In fact, ultimately, it's not that the Tories need that block to vote *for* anyone in particular; it's that they need to stop them voting for Labour.
The trouble with these regional banks was the political control exercised over them which resulted in daft commercial / economic decisions being taken and a lot of local patronage - or pork barrel corruption.
Maybe we need to look to local building societies? But how will they survive and expand given the regulatory/capital requirements on them?
There are no easy answers here.
The basic problem is that banks can make more money from the same employee base by focusing on larger loans with shorter-term horizons* As a result, there is a natural tendency to shift towards an originate-to-distribute model (vs. take-and-hold) and to focus on leveraged buyouts where the margins are higher. In search of these deals, and in search of credit diversification, there is also a tendency to lend cross-border.
This can be a great business model and very profitable for the banks. But it's next to useless for the SMEs. An SME bank doesn't need to be regionally focused - I'll mention Handelsbanken yet again because I think they are a phenomenal organisation that fills a real need - but it is good to have different types of banks in the ecosystem.
* This, of course, assumes that the credit risk function operates effectively.
I agree that has nothing to do with the free movement of EU labour but as Romania is a very poor country, apparently with a big crime problem, a lot of people would prefer to be able to turf the illegals out as we can now rather than giving them the same rights as British people, which they will have next year.
Mass immigration=less crime remember
Tim I praise you for your honest admission that you want Britain flooded with immigrants, and I believe you are sincere in your belief that our country has been transformed in a positive way.. but why wont the politicans who do it admit it?
Take that into account and it's hard to see how you make up for the basic national situation, which is that about half the people who used to think the LibDems were quite good now think they're rubbish.
Maybe he knows that, and it's just expectations management.
I agree with Ian's analysis re Lib Dems.On a UNS since April 2009 Lib dems would make some gainns from the Tories which would largely offset losses to labour in the Counties and Unitaries.(thre are relaltivrey few LD/LSB marginals in the Engklish counties which largely Tory/LD contets and after Thurdday tory UKIP as well
One other factor to throw in re UKIP performance.They did suprisingly well where they stood in 2009.However in 2009 they have been helped by the fact that the European elections were held at the same time.However I still think UKIP have the momentum to make nearly 100 gains.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/04/29/pessimism-about-the-uk-economy-could-be-labours-biggest-problem-in-2015/
Labour don't need to change the weather forecast, they need to persuade the public that they're adequately dressed for the weather.
I disagree so will be voting for one that has the intention of stopping it.
Everyones a winner!
Plus we get to keep playing political ping pong on the same point in the meantime!
Now that is seriously ahead of your time in TV terms...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf4tV_aeDc
What is the question that Labour think Regional Banks are answering?
...and as for that Romanian crimewave, surely Farage was making that up eh immigration fans?
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/romanian_robbery_gang_who_stole_1m_lived_rough_in_romford_woods_1_2000470
Pretty disgraceful even by the standards of this site. One crime in Romford doesn't constitute 'a Romanian crime wave'. I'm getting really bored and discomforted by the incessant racism that's daily getting louder on this site. Surely I'm not the only one?
You forgot Miliband's 7th Bill for the taxpayers in the country to pay for the other 6.
Why isnt there a party telling us that we live in a United States of Europe where we can go and work in Italy/Germany/Bulgaria just as a man from Connecticut can in Wyoming or Oregon?
When I was a leftie who believed in the EU etc I thought it was a great idea
It was hardly "one crime in Romford" though was it? Employing the kind of misrepresentation that you just did there, and also used on the searchlight poll that showed British Asians wanting a reduction to immigration, is the reason why you cant be taken seriously in political debate
Another great example of the evolution of the word racist to include people of the same race... left wing homogenisation at its best!
If they do, they are certainly doing a brilliant job keeping it under wraps so Osborne doesn't nick it.
A £26,000 youth 'ambassador' is to be appointed by Cheshire Police - just weeks after Britain's first youth crime tsar was sacked over a series of allegedly racist, violent and homophobic messages.
The job pays £10,000 more than the salary given to Paris Brown, 17, who lost her job in Kent after her Twitter posts were made public.
Cheshire's decision to create a similar post for a candidate aged between 18 and 21 has raised questions about their use of public money.
But John Dwyer, Cheshire's police and crime commissioner, still wants to hire a young person to 'act as a conduit between young people and the police'.
The successful candidate would ideally have A-Levels, but this is not essential and will receive between £23,799 and £25,449.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316451/Police-force-advertises-youth-crime-tsar-26-000-just-weeks-Britains-sacked-racist-homophobic-tweets.html#ixzz2RqM2KxAD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It's very dangerous to extrapolate from any supposed disproportionate criminality among Romanians at present to the behaviour of Romanian immigrants who have no restrictions on finding work.
Credit risk assessors don't need to be experts in the industry - although it can help. They just need good common sense and the ability to stress-test the downside case
Lab 42.8
Con 25.2
Ind 17.2
LD 14.7
Looks like the Lib Dems aren't bothering this time, but of course UKIP are. I expect UKIP to take a very comfortable second. If they bother they may be able to push Labour hard but as of yet I've received no leaflets other than from Labour. The HS2 opposition from UKIP in particular could be a golden ace if they can get the leaflets out...
In our experience the Romanian population was, in the main, law abiding, hard working and dirt poor for most of this time. There was a dramatic shift about 4-5 years ago, when there was a very significant increase in numbers (from 200 to 600 attending weekly mass), but there was also a huge increase in criminality as well. As always it was a small number of individuals - and the Romanian community was very well aware of who they were. It took 12-18 months, but the City Police managed to get the situation firmly under control.
To be honest, although I'm sure there will be much more focus on it, any of the criminal tendency in Romania who wanted to come to the UK already had the opportunity. I'm sure there may be an increase in rough sleeping and begging as the numbers increase sharply and take a while to be absorbed, but I'm not expecting a mass wave of criminals coming to pluck the British goose.
Although I suspect the Daily Mail may report otherwise...