On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
1. Voting in by-elections (or Euro-elections, or - to an extent - local elections), is always different from general elections as there's no risk of the government falling if a protest vote results in a victor the voter doesn't want.
2. Actually, the Lib Dem vote dropped slightly more than the Tory vote in Eastleigh.
3. At the by-election, it didn't really matter in the big scheme of things whether Tory or Lib Dem won as both would be supporting the government.
4. Activists who prefer ideological purity to the necessary compromises of parties that aspire to government deserve the oblivion to which they'd condemn their own preferred views. They are unrealistic in any democracy - or internet trolls.
1. Fair point.
2. So what? We're talking about UKIP taking votes from the Tories. Your point actually accentuates mine. It made the Tories even more angry at their own defeat. I remember Toby Young pleading for Ukippers to vote Tory at that by-election.
3. So David Cameron and other Tory bigwigs campaigned in a by-election that didn't matter? Hmm. Although I agree the Government wouldn't change as a result, the fallout in political terms has been significant - as the county elections have proven.
4. This point annoys me intensely. I've noticed Cameron and rather too many Tories who think that economics matters in politics to exclusion of everything else. So, immigration is viewed through the prism of the economy, irritating posters on PB think that a recovering economy will give Cameron a majority (like Major in 1997, perhaps?) and that race and religion play no part in voting intention.
As for oblivion, I suggest you study the demographic trends in this country to see exactly what will happen to the Tory Party over the coming years. I don't think the political class has any idea what is going to hit it, possibly because demographics change so slowly.
As for parties that aspire to government, the government of this country is a coalition at the moment and it is those very compromises within their own parties that have riven both coalition parties.
Clegg had assured a Select Committee that there was no link between boundaries and Lords reform, yet later justified the decision to back off one precisely because of the 'failure' of the other. What changed? The only justifiable explanation I can think of is that the benefits of Lords reform weren't seen as being worth the costs of the new boundaries - so they'd rather have neither than both, even if it meant going back on their word.
That nice chap Lord Rennard has helpfully explained:
I am a Democrat, as well as a Liberal, and I believe that Conservative attempts to change parliamentary boundaries in their favour and change the voting registration to deny many people the vote could have resulted in permanent Conservative government for this country. I was happy to work with Nick Clegg to prevent this.
Quite how maintaining boundaries which give Labour areas more seats per head of population than in the rest of the country is compatible with being a Democrat, or how deliberately reneging on an agreement is compatible with being a Liberal, is unclear.
It is inevitable that there will be some bias in favour of Labour at the next election but I am fairly confident it will not be as large as it was in 2010, let along 2005 and 2001 where it was ridiculous. Firstly, I suspect that quite a number of Labour supporters will not be willing to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this time. This has 2 effects. First it increases the number of Labour "wasted" votes and secondly it just might increase the number of tory MPs increasing the efficiency of their votes. Secondly, I suspect Labour will also pick up a significant increase in any share of the vote in their safe seats. Miliband may be uninspiring but he is not mad or bad and quite a number of Labour voters in safe seats who could not bring themselves to vote for Brown may well turn out this time. Thirdly, in those overly large safe tory seats I expect UKIP to pick up a significant number of votes (if no seats). This will significantly improve the efficiency of the tory vote provided that those voters lost in the safe seats are replaced by new votes won in the marginals.
The last bit is the key and obviously the tricky bit. I think Labour, with the skills of Mandy, overperformed in certain areas last time notably London and Birmingham. I really wonder if a party that looks ever more likely to be underfunded and without the subsidies of nearly 100 sitting MPs using communication allowances, office expenses and the like can match that performance. I suspect not.
David, I was going to post something similar to your first 3 points so glad you got there first. While in a 35/35 result Lab may still got more seats, I doubt the gap will be as wide as above.
In my view I don't think either of the big 2 will get 35% anyway!
I think the tories will but I don't think Labour will. Whether that lead is enough to stop Labour being the largest party is harder to call. At the moment I would guess tories 37, Labour 33, Lib Dems 18, UKIP 8. If that is anywhere near right the two main parties are going to be close in size.
It's possible, but looking extremely unlikely that Labour will only increase their 2010 share by 3-4%.
But the Tories increasing their share of the vote, whilst UKIP almost treble their share?!
Not a cat in hell's chance.
At present, UKIP's vote share has risen by 10% on 2010, while the Conservatives' has declined by 5%. There's nothing implausible about the two parties winning 44% between them, because that is the current polling position.
On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.
Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.
Gosh, this is irritating.
At best, Cameron is marginally more popular than his party. The polls that show more him significantly more popular than his party exclude Nigel Farage.
Also, unless you live in Witney, 'David Cameron' won't be appearing on the ballot paper, 'Conservative' will.
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
At best, Cameron is marginally more popular than his party. The polls that show more him significantly more popular than his party exclude Nigel Farage.
Also, unless you live in Witney, 'David Cameron' won't be appearing on the ballot paper, 'Conservative' will.
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
You are contradicting yourself, since you intend to vote as though David Cameron were on the ballot paper in your constituency.
Also, how will voting for a party of the left send a message that the party should move to the right? I think your message is in grave danger of being misunderstood...
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
Who would be your favourite Tory MP to take over from Dave after a crushing defeat in 2015? Something tells me it isnt George Osborne.
Obviously it's entertaining to see the bookies take a hit, but the likes of Curley are essentially defrauding regular punters too. Anyone who backed another horse in these races at what may have looked a fair price has lost out. The only real winners are a select group of insiders.
Even more to the point, anyone who backed these horses on their previous runs didn't get a run for their money then as they were presumably not being run on their merits.
Betting coups are great stories - Barney's original Yellow Sam coup was awesome in its conception and execution, but coups on this scale don't help horse racing in the long term as they perpetuate the (justified) belief that things aren't always what they seem. The next generation of punters are moving to sports betting, though of course that is hardly uncorruptable...
No it's not. When did "the Tories", or indeed *any* Tories vote against Lords reform?
What happened was that some Conservative back-benchers announced their opposition to a time-limiting motion. Given the provisions of the Bill, that was entirely justified. Matters of that significance should be properly discussed, particularly when the proposals were as daft as those put forward. It was certainly far less significant than the spanner the Lib Dems threw in the NHS reform bill.
As that NHS bill proved, it is possible to get reform onto the statute book, even with substantial scepticism on the government benches, if you're prepared to battle it out for long enough, to invest enough political capital in it, and to make enough concessions. Clegg folded at the first hurdle. I have no doubt that the passage of the bill would have been long and bloody, but I also have no doubt that it would have passed eventually had the will been there. Lords reform is never easy - look at 1909-11, 1947(?), or 1999 - but the lesson is that the Commons ultimately wins if it keeps at it. Why the Lib Dems thought it would be easier this time is a question I can't answer. Actually, I can - but not by accepting the assumptions of it.
Clegg had assured a Select Committee that there was no link between boundaries and Lords reform, yet later justified the decision to back off one precisely because of the 'failure' of the other. What changed? The only justifiable explanation I can think of is that the benefits of Lords reform weren't seen as being worth the costs of the new boundaries - so they'd rather have neither than both, even if it meant going back on their word.
Yay back to this again.
Shall we go back through it all again? The provisions of the bill had been battled out already, and concession after concession made to make it as palatable as possible to Conservative backbenchers. There weren't any reasonable concessions left to give and those back-benchers intended to block it one way or another. Talk it out if necessary.
(If you want an actual answer, a lot of Tories voted against the bill getting a second reading).
Shall we have the tit for tat about Conservative word-breaking vs LD and so on? Or just quote the battles we've already?
On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.
Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.
Gosh, this is irritating.
At best, Cameron is marginally more popular than his party. The polls that show more him significantly more popular than his party exclude Nigel Farage.
Also, unless you live in Witney, 'David Cameron' won't be appearing on the ballot paper, 'Conservative' will.
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
Your utter hatred for Cameron and the Cameroons is quite something. How will their being 'crushed' (and therefore the country gaining a Labour government):
a) Help the Conservative Party; b) Help the country; c) Make the Conservative Party electable in the future? d) Further your personal vision for the country?
And who would you have replace him? Who in the party better fits your world view? In fact, what is your vision for the party.
The above assumes you are a natural Conservative voter ...
Obviously it's entertaining to see the bookies take a hit, but the likes of Curley are essentially defrauding regular punters too. Anyone who backed another horse in these races at what may have looked a fair price has lost out. The only real winners are a select group of insiders.
Even more to the point, anyone who backed these horses on their previous runs didn't get a run for their money then as they were presumably not being run on their merits.
Betting coups are great stories - Barney's original Yellow Sam coup was awesome in its conception and execution, but coups on this scale don't help horse racing in the long term as they perpetuate the (justified) belief that things aren't always what they seem. The next generation of punters are moving to sports betting, though of course that is hardly uncorruptable...
Anyone backing horses semi-seriously is under no illusions though. And you're just as likely to back a non trier as not. It isn't something I worry about. Stories like this will get punters in though I think, you too might be able to land that big price lucky 15 !
And the back of a report that they had tried to keep confidential? The mind boggles.
Once Guido Fawkes published the Report (which is pretty damning) they really had no choice.
But they already knew its contents - it either justified a suspension or not on its merits rather than whether they could hide it from the public, surely?
Indeed, Mr. Herdson. If there is another coalition then both parties involved with pay great attention to the detail of timing to avoid the Lib Dems getting their referendum then reneging on their part of the bargain.
Indeed, Mr. Herdson. If there is another coalition then both parties involved with pay great attention to the detail of timing to avoid the Lib Dems getting their referendum then reneging on their part of the bargain.
Mr Dancer, no doubt in any future coalition both parties will pay great attention to whether the Conservatives intend to be consistent in their understanding of what their promises mean.
David, I was going to post something similar to your first 3 points so glad you got there first. While in a 35/35 result Lab may still got more seats, I doubt the gap will be as wide as above.
In my view I don't think either of the big 2 will get 35% anyway!
I think the tories will but I don't think Labour will. Whether that lead is enough to stop Labour being the largest party is harder to call. At the moment I would guess tories 37, Labour 33, Lib Dems 18, UKIP 8. If that is anywhere near right the two main parties are going to be close in size.
It's possible, but looking extremely unlikely that Labour will only increase their 2010 share by 3-4%.
But the Tories increasing their share of the vote, whilst UKIP almost treble their share?!
Not a cat in hell's chance.
At present, UKIP's vote share has risen by 10% on 2010, while the Conservatives' has declined by 5%. There's nothing implausible about the two parties winning 44% between them, because that is the current polling position.
Well that's a fair point.
I can only say in response that it just doesn't smell right.
If we accept that UKIP disproportionately take Tory votes, then the Tories would have to win over hundreds of thousands of new voters from other parties / did not vote to increase their vote share. It's just not going to happen.
According to current polling, the Conservatives have won over some ex-Lib Dems. In turn, UKIP have also gained some voters from both Labour and Lib Dems.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
At best, Cameron is marginally more popular than his party. The polls that show more him significantly more popular than his party exclude Nigel Farage.
Also, unless you live in Witney, 'David Cameron' won't be appearing on the ballot paper, 'Conservative' will.
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
You are contradicting yourself, since you intend to vote as though David Cameron were on the ballot paper in your constituency.
Also, how will voting for a party of the left send a message that the party should move to the right? I think your message is in grave danger of being misunderstood...
The Tory I'm referring to is my local MP, not Cameron.
Removing a Tory will send a message that without their core vote, the Tories win nothing.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
Who would be your favourite Tory MP to take over from Dave after a crushing defeat in 2015? Something tells me it isnt George Osborne.
You would be correct in your assertion.
David Davis seems the best bet.
But Adam Afriye for the future. The Tories simply have to connect with ethnic minority/religious voters, otherwise they are doomed.
I think the tories will but I don't think Labour will. Whether that lead is enough to stop Labour being the largest party is harder to call. At the moment I would guess tories 37, Labour 33, Lib Dems 18, UKIP 8. If that is anywhere near right the two main parties are going to be close in size.
It's possible, but looking extremely unlikely that Labour will only increase their 2010 share by 3-4%.
But the Tories increasing their share of the vote, whilst UKIP almost treble their share?!
Not a cat in hell's chance.
At present, UKIP's vote share has risen by 10% on 2010, while the Conservatives' has declined by 5%. There's nothing implausible about the two parties winning 44% between them, because that is the current polling position.
Well that's a fair point.
I can only say in response that it just doesn't smell right.
If we accept that UKIP disproportionately take Tory votes, then the Tories would have to win over hundreds of thousands of new voters from other parties / did not vote to increase their vote share. It's just not going to happen.
According to current polling, the Conservatives have won over some ex-Lib Dems. In turn, UKIP have also gained some voters from both Labour and Lib Dems.
Vote switchers in the last ICM poll
Con to Lab 12 voters Lab to Con 5 Con to LD 4 voters LD to Con 8 Lab to LD 5 voters LD to Lab 24 Con to UKIP 23 voters Lab to UKIP 4 voters LD to UKIP 4 voters
I can't believe the Tories are still whingeing about their own incompetence on the boundary changes.
The Coalition agreement was not a legally binding contract. It's a bit bizarre that the Conservatives still seem to think that it should have been interpreted as if it were.
And the back of a report that they had tried to keep confidential? The mind boggles.
Once Guido Fawkes published the Report (which is pretty damning) they really had no choice.
But they already knew its contents - it either justified a suspension or not on its merits rather than whether they could hide it from the public, surely?
I wouldn't disagree with that. It certainly does justify a suspension on its merits.
As for oblivion, I suggest you study the demographic trends in this country to see exactly what will happen to the Tory Party over the coming years. I don't think the political class has any idea what is going to hit it, possibly because demographics change so slowly.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
No direct link, but if the Tories were going back on lords reform the Lib Dems had to retaliate, otherwise the Tories would've taken it as a greenlight to start dropping other bits of the agreement. It could've been boundary reforms, could've been another policy, but it had to be something.
If you punch me in the face and I kick you in the leg, it's not because there's a link between my face and your leg, but you were asking for it.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
The real issue on boundaries was that the timing of the bargain was all wrong, and they shouldn't have been surprised that the LD's found an excuse to double-cross them - if it hadn't been the Lords it would probably have been something else. It was obvious that the LD MP's weren't going to vote for their own abolition - their seats are tough enough to defend as it is without moving the boundaries.
Nick Clegg isn't really at fault here as his backbenchers would have voted it down anyway; he just used the Lords as a fig leaf.
What should have been agreed is writing the boundary changes into law first to trigger the AV referendum (in the same Bill, if necessary). I can only assume the senior Tories thought AV would pass (at the time of coalition negotiations) to arrange it the way they did.
And the back of a report that they had tried to keep confidential? The mind boggles.
Once Guido Fawkes published the Report (which is pretty damning) they really had no choice.
But they already knew its contents - it either justified a suspension or not on its merits rather than whether they could hide it from the public, surely?
I wouldn't disagree with that. It certainly does justify a suspension on its merits.
But only acknowledging that in the end once their attempts to suppress it were overcome ... well, I'm struggling for words.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
Interestingly Nick Clegg didn't claim there was any link even in August 2012; it's only Tories (and a few Lib Dems much later talking about less democracy overall with same Lords and fewer MPs) who talk about the issues being linked.
For me it was about party discipline. Suppose instead of voting down the boundaries, Nick Clegg had stamped his feet, put his sad face on and left it at that. The Tories would have been unmanageable in coalition; they'd have tried to vote down everything that had been agreed which they didn't like, and there was a risk that the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
A judge told a court today that a Muslim defendant must remove her veil when she gives evidence in a witness intimidation case.
The 22-year-old woman has so far refused to show her face during the proceedings at Blackfriars Crown Court in London - but Judge Peter Murphy ruled that if she wants to testify in her defence she must let jurors see her clearly.
Seems a perfectly logical decision by the Judge imho.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
No direct link, but if the Tories were going back on lords reform the Lib Dems had to retaliate, otherwise the Tories would've taken it as a greenlight to start dropping other bits of the agreement. It could've been boundary reforms, could've been another policy, but it had to be something.
If you punch me in the face and I kick you in the leg, it's not because there's a link between my face and your leg, but you were asking for it.
Neatly put, and quite true. I think what irritates me is that they torpedoed a policy which was, to its very core, aligned with the LibDem's most prominent - almost defining - characteristic. That of promoting fairness. By all means shaft the Tories on something, but why sink something which resonates with all they [meaning the yellows, not the blues] stand for?
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
The real issue on boundaries was that the timing of the bargain was all wrong, and they shouldn't have been surprised that the LD's found an excuse to double-cross them - if it hadn't been the Lords it would probably have been something else. It was obvious that the LD MP's weren't going to vote for their own abolition - their seats are tough enough to defend as it is without moving the boundaries.
Nick Clegg isn't really at fault here as his backbenchers would have voted it down anyway; he just used the Lords as a fig leaf.
What should have been agreed is writing the boundary changes into law first to trigger the AV referendum (in the same Bill, if necessary). I can only assume the senior Tories thought AV would pass (at the time of coalition negotiations) to arrange it the way they did.
Translation "we betrayed them first because we knew they were going to betray us anyway, so really it's their fault and we did nothing wrong".
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
No direct link, but if the Tories were going back on lords reform the Lib Dems had to retaliate, otherwise the Tories would've taken it as a greenlight to start dropping other bits of the agreement. It could've been boundary reforms, could've been another policy, but it had to be something.
If you punch me in the face and I kick you in the leg, it's not because there's a link between my face and your leg, but you were asking for it.
A much better way of making the point I was getting at I would have taken police commissioners down actually - why should you be able to elect the police if you're not allowed to elect those who pass laws?
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
Interestingly Nick Clegg didn't claim there was any link even in August 2012; it's only Tories (and a few Lib Dems much later talking about less democracy overall with same Lords and fewer MPs) who talk about the issues being linked.
For me it was about party discipline. Suppose instead of voting down the boundaries, Nick Clegg had stamped his feet, put his sad face on and left it at that. The Tories would have been unmanageable in coalition; they'd have tried to vote down everything that had been agreed which they didn't like, and there was a risk that the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
The Lib Dems have been unmanageable in coalition, who can forget Vince Cable indicating he was planning to vote against his own tuition fees bill or deploy his Nuclear weapon when a couple of pretty journalists batted their lashes at it.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
No direct link, but if the Tories were going back on lords reform the Lib Dems had to retaliate, otherwise the Tories would've taken it as a greenlight to start dropping other bits of the agreement. It could've been boundary reforms, could've been another policy, but it had to be something.
If you punch me in the face and I kick you in the leg, it's not because there's a link between my face and your leg, but you were asking for it.
If only had been like that when the Lib Dems rebelled over tuition fees and vetoed the AV referendum bill.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
The Lib Dems and the Conservatives have worked well together in coalition, disregarding all the WWE antics that both feel obliged to do to keep their troops happy.
We've also seen our constitution evolve rapidly under this government to cater for the demands of coalition government in the 21st century. Collective cabinet responsibility has in particular been redefined.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
The real issue on boundaries was that the timing of the bargain was all wrong, and they shouldn't have been surprised that the LD's found an excuse to double-cross them - if it hadn't been the Lords it would probably have been something else.
I've been saying that for years. Alot of Lib Dems have dismissed me for bonkers on the extent it was a conspiracy theory. But it makes perfect sense. The boundary reforms were NEVER going to get through no matter what Cameron did.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Nah the problem is the Tory Party believed Nick Clegg as a man of his word.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
Interestingly Nick Clegg didn't claim there was any link even in August 2012; it's only Tories (and a few Lib Dems much later talking about less democracy overall with same Lords and fewer MPs) who talk about the issues being linked.
For me it was about party discipline. Suppose instead of voting down the boundaries, Nick Clegg had stamped his feet, put his sad face on and left it at that. The Tories would have been unmanageable in coalition; they'd have tried to vote down everything that had been agreed which they didn't like, and there was a risk that the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
The Lib Dems have been unmanageable in coalition, who can forget Vince Cable indicating he was planning to vote against his own tuition fees bill or deploy his Nuclear weapon when a couple of pretty journalists batted their lashes at it.
And what did Vince do? Acknowledged a deal had been made and voted for it. How manageable, how unlike the Tory backbenchers.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
Yes, exactly.
You don't vote based on the national unemployment rate. You vote on whether you have a job, your wife has a job, and at a pinch, whether your neighbour who you feel sorry for has a job.
The unemployment figures are a reflection of what's already happened, not a forecast for the future. If more people in jobs is good news for the Conservatives, then it should already be reflected in the polls.
On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.
Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.
Your utter hatred for Cameron and the Cameroons is quite something. How will their being 'crushed' (and therefore the country gaining a Labour government):
a) Help the Conservative Party; b) Help the country; c) Make the Conservative Party electable in the future? d) Further your personal vision for the country?
And who would you have replace him? Who in the party better fits your world view? In fact, what is your vision for the party.
The above assumes you are a natural Conservative voter ...
Glad you've noticed my intense dislike of Cameron.
To address your points:
a) By putting an actual conservative as leader b) By letting Labour finally bring the whole rickety structure crashing down. We can then re-build finance on saner lines and reduce the ridiculously large (and increasingly authoritarian) state. c) By bringing in a leader that can appeal to ethnic minority/religious voters. Cameron is just making it too easy for Labour on this score. d) In order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
Frankly, who's dumb idea was it to elect as Tory leader a privileged, Old Etonian, millionaire who did PPE at Oxford and who got his first job due to his step-mother-in-law.
Furthermore, he ran an election campaign promoting voluntary organisations, but has trashed the one he currently runs and alienates the religious who have been running them successfully for hundreds of years.
Cameron has taken the Conservative Party back to the 18th century, a party without a mass membership in an age of the universal franchise.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
The real issue on boundaries was that the timing of the bargain was all wrong, and they shouldn't have been surprised that the LD's found an excuse to double-cross them - if it hadn't been the Lords it would probably have been something else.
I've been saying that for years. Alot of Lib Dems have dismissed me for bonkers on the extent it was a conspiracy theory. But it makes perfect sense. The boundary reforms were NEVER going to get through no matter what Cameron did.
The reason for dismissing you should be that you've got no real evidence for the truth of your hypothetical.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
Interestingly Nick Clegg didn't claim there was any link even in August 2012; it's only Tories (and a few Lib Dems much later talking about less democracy overall with same Lords and fewer MPs) who talk about the issues being linked.
For me it was about party discipline. Suppose instead of voting down the boundaries, Nick Clegg had stamped his feet, put his sad face on and left it at that. The Tories would have been unmanageable in coalition; they'd have tried to vote down everything that had been agreed which they didn't like, and there was a risk that the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
The Lib Dems have been unmanageable in coalition, who can forget Vince Cable indicating he was planning to vote against his own tuition fees bill or deploy his Nuclear weapon when a couple of pretty journalists batted their lashes at it.
That is seriously unfair. Cable is an overrated arse but the Lib Dems have hung in there through a lot of tough times. They have been far more disciplined and reliable than I expected or the tories had any right to expect.
I still think that Modern Studies and then history students will be studying the Coalition agreement for a long time. It was a truly remarkable achievement.
For some reason the system doesn't allow me to "quote" but @anorak the idea that the LibDem idea for HoL reform was "fairness" is surely a joke. It was a bid for more power!
For some reason the system doesn't allow me to "quote" but @anorak the idea that the LibDem idea for HoL reform was "fairness" is surely a joke. It was a bid for more power!
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
Yes, exactly.
You don't vote based on the national unemployment rate. You vote on whether you have a job, your wife has a job, and at a pinch, whether your neighbour who you feel sorry for has a job.
The unemployment figures are a reflection of what's already happened, not a forecast for the future. If more people in jobs is good news for the Conservatives, then it should already be reflected in the polls.
Not necessarily. I've long favoured a materials science analogy for electoral popularity. Imagine loading a thin piece of metal: as a load is applied, you get small amounts of elastic deformation: once the load is removed, the metal returns to its original state. However if you apply more load you get plastic deformation, with much greater movement that is permanent.
This gives the idea that as more positive information builds up, it becomes harder for the electorate to ignore individual pieces. The elastic deformation is things like the 'flounce bounce'; once the publicity is over, polls go back to more or less where they were.
However as the load of positive news builds up, there might come a time when it becomes plastic, and there is a big and permanent (in an electoral cycle) change.
Naturally, it works the other way as well, with negative information.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
The real issue on boundaries was that the timing of the bargain was all wrong, and they shouldn't have been surprised that the LD's found an excuse to double-cross them - if it hadn't been the Lords it would probably have been something else.
I've been saying that for years. Alot of Lib Dems have dismissed me for bonkers on the extent it was a conspiracy theory. But it makes perfect sense. The boundary reforms were NEVER going to get through no matter what Cameron did.
The reason for dismissing you should be that you've got no real evidence for the truth of your hypothetical.
If I was in Clegg's situation I'd have done exactly the same thing. Boundaries - very low public salience; EXTREMELY important to the Lib Dems chances at the next General Election. It was a no brainer.
Clegg played his hand very well and not with little skill on the boundaries, Cameron should have never tied changes to it being reduced to 600 seats. A big error as Tim pointed out way way back.
Don't be under any illusion it was anything other than masterful politics by Clegg on that one though to give the impression it was tied to the Lords reform, was fantastic manoeuvring. In fact it is the only reason I'm considering voting Lib Dem as he tilted the board so far away from a conservative majority with that one move that it has made for brilliant betting opportunities.
On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.
Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.
Your utter hatred for Cameron and the Cameroons is quite something. How will their being 'crushed' (and therefore the country gaining a Labour government):
a) Help the Conservative Party; b) Help the country; c) Make the Conservative Party electable in the future? d) Further your personal vision for the country?
And who would you have replace him? Who in the party better fits your world view? In fact, what is your vision for the party.
The above assumes you are a natural Conservative voter ...
Glad you've noticed my intense dislike of Cameron.
To address your points:
a) By putting an actual conservative as leader b) By letting Labour finally bring the whole rickety structure crashing down. We can then re-build finance on saner lines and reduce the ridiculously large (and increasingly authoritarian) state. c) By bringing in a leader that can appeal to ethnic minority/religious voters. Cameron is just making it too easy for Labour on this score. d) In order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
Frankly, who's dumb idea was it to elect as Tory leader a privileged, Old Etonian, millionaire who did PPE at Oxford and who got his first job due to his step-mother-in-law.
Furthermore, he ran an election campaign promoting voluntary organisations, but has trashed the one he currently runs and alienates the religious who have been running them successfully for hundreds of years.
Cameron has taken the Conservative Party back to the 18th century, a party without a mass membership in an age of the universal franchise.
Barking. Just exactly who would you describe as an actual conservative? When the existing financial system collapses what do you intend to use while your utopian vision is being constructed? I'd like to know if I need to go and stock up on beans and bullets.
If there is another Con/LD coalition it will be interesting to see how they play the boundaries.
Remember that as of today, the law is that the Boundary Commissions must report in 2018 on the new rules - ie 600 seats.
Now, one LD objection was that they should go back to 650 seats (as Lords was not reduced). Cameron could concede that easily - though the law would have to be amended quickly after the 2015 GE.
But the issue would remain - would the LDs block the Statutory Instrument in 2018?
This is the interesting bit - when the law was amended to delay the reviews to 2018, the Conservatives put down an amendment (which obviously lost) saying the PM could lay the Boundary Commission reports directly to The Queen in Council WITHOUT votes in the Commons and Lords.
In a new Coalition, I think that is what Cameron will insist on because it is the only way of guaranteeing the LDs can't pull the plug in 2018. So he'll probably concede a return to 650 MPs (and maybe something else - eg PR for Local Government or whatever else is bargained) but he'll insist in law that he personally can lay the reports directly to The Queen.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
Yes, exactly.
You don't vote based on the national unemployment rate. You vote on whether you have a job, your wife has a job, and at a pinch, whether your neighbour who you feel sorry for has a job.
The unemployment figures are a reflection of what's already happened, not a forecast for the future. If more people in jobs is good news for the Conservatives, then it should already be reflected in the polls.
Not necessarily. I've long favoured a materials science analogy for electoral popularity. Imagine loading a thin piece of metal: as a load is applied, you get small amounts of elastic deformation: once the load is removed, the metal returns to its original state. However if you apply more load you get plastic deformation, with much greater movement that is permanent.
This gives the idea that as more positive information builds up, it becomes harder for the electorate to ignore individual pieces. The elastic deformation is things like the 'flounce bounce'; once the publicity is over, polls go back to more or less where they were.
However as the load of positive news builds up, there might come a time when it becomes plastic, and there is a big and permanent (in an electoral cycle) change.
Naturally, it works the other way as well, with negative information.
We need a Youngs Modulus for polling ... ;-)
That's an interesting analogy. But, as I said downthread, if the metal does not start to bend this week the tories are in trouble.
Is the real issue on boundaries not that the Tories suffered a catastrophic loss of discipline when it mattered most, and have realised too late that the price of not getting their boundary changes was higher than the price of getting them?
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
Interestingly Nick Clegg didn't claim there was any link even in August 2012; it's only Tories (and a few Lib Dems much later talking about less democracy overall with same Lords and fewer MPs) who talk about the issues being linked.
at the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
The Lib Dems have been unmanageable in coalition, who can forget Vince Cable indicating he was planning to vote against his own tuition fees bill or deploy his Nuclear weapon when a couple of pretty journalists batted their lashes at it.
That is seriously unfair. Cable is an overrated arse but the Lib Dems have hung in there through a lot of tough times. They have been far more disciplined and reliable than I expected or the tories had any right to expect.
I still think that Modern Studies and then history students will be studying the Coalition agreement for a long time. It was a truly remarkable achievement.
I know, I'm just trolling winding up our Lib Dem friends.
I admire the Lib Dems for putting the national interest first and forming the coalition, I admire their contributions.
I salute their courage, their strength, their indefatigability.
And I want to thank them for being our human shields, our share of the vote in the polls has gone down 3-5%, theirs has gone down 15%, which I think is fecking hilarious.
@MikeL For that to happen there needs to be another CON-LD coalition and that looks fairly remote at the moment in electoral terms. The Tories need a lead of 2% simply to stop a LAB majority. They are a long way from that position.
I do like it when we go round and round with the IF argument for a conservative majority, where posters on here try and get as many if in as possible.
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid if Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Pick you favourites, hold them close to your chest lovingly and keep repeating them until we get the forever moving date for the crossover in the polls to actually happen.
I do like it when we go round and round with the IF argument for a conservative majority, where posters on here try and get as many if in as possible.
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid if Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Pick you favourites, hold them close to your chest lovingly and keep repeating them until we get the forever moving date for the crossover in the polls to actually happen.
I don't agree of course but that is a really good post.
As for oblivion, I suggest you study the demographic trends in this country to see exactly what will happen to the Tory Party over the coming years. I don't think the political class has any idea what is going to hit it, possibly because demographics change so slowly.
Intriguing comment - please expand.
OK. First something about myself, I am a Catholic living in London.
I have witnessed the composition and size of the Catholic population change considerably in the last 10 years due to mass immigration. Annoying us is not good politics, but Labour realises that far better than the Tories.
Furthermore, I've noticed ethnic minorities growing wealthier and moving out of their tradition areas and into the suburbs. This has been mirrored in the mega-constituencies in the London Assembly slowly turning Labour one or two at a time every election.
2004
Labour - 5 Conservative - 9
2008
Labour - 6 Conservative - 8
2012
Labour - 8 Conservative - 6
Now, no doubt Tory voters have moved into the Home Counties, making those constituencies more Tory, but the demography is remorseless, albeit slow. The 'pool' the Tories are fishing in is getting smaller and smaller, perhaps causing the absurd leftward drift under the Cameroons. But the Britain is well catered for as far as left of centre parties are concerned, so this policy is leading to the current debacle.
In my mind, the solution is to attract demographically strong, socially conservative Muslims, Catholics and other groups over to the Conservative Party, the exact opposite of what he doing at the moment.
On topic, UKIP taking votes from the Tories in safe seats where it doesn't matter, but not in marginals where there is a risk of letting Labour or the Lib Dems in, would go some way to redress the balance. Call it the SeanF factor if you like.
It would, but that didn't exactly happen in Eastleigh, did it?
FYI, I shall be voting Labour at the next general election, just to get rid of the Tory MP.
The immediate priority is re-capturing the Conservative Party from the Cameroon clique.
Cameron's more popular than the party. It's dangerous to think that getting rid of him and moving backwards to some past time can improve the party's ratings.
Times change, and the public moves on. Political parties have to move on with them.
Glad you've noticed my intense dislike of Cameron.
To address your points:
a) By putting an actual conservative as leader b) By letting Labour finally bring the whole rickety structure crashing down. We can then re-build finance on saner lines and reduce the ridiculously large (and increasingly authoritarian) state. c) By bringing in a leader that can appeal to ethnic minority/religious voters. Cameron is just making it too easy for Labour on this score. d) In order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
Frankly, who's dumb idea was it to elect as Tory leader a privileged, Old Etonian, millionaire who did PPE at Oxford and who got his first job due to his step-mother-in-law.
Furthermore, he ran an election campaign promoting voluntary organisations, but has trashed the one he currently runs and alienates the religious who have been running them successfully for hundreds of years.
Cameron has taken the Conservative Party back to the 18th century, a party without a mass membership in an age of the universal franchise.
Barking. Just exactly who would you describe as an actual conservative? When the existing financial system collapses what do you intend to use while your utopian vision is being constructed? I'd like to know if I need to go and stock up on beans and bullets.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
I am not trying to create a Utopia, just trying to get away from this dystopia.
If you are that worried, I suggest you try gold. The stuff that Gordon Brown exchanged for a handful of magic beans.
I do like it when we go round and round with the IF argument for a conservative majority, where posters on here try and get as many if in as possible.
If the economy continues to grow If wages outstrip inflation If Ukip returns to the Tories If Lib Dems return home If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically If Ukip goes to 5% If the Lib Dems head back towards 20% If Ed remains crap If Labours campaign is crap If Lynton gets his finger out If unemployment keeps falling If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard If only they had got the boundary changes through If there is swingback If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe If the Lib Dems get rid if Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press If the country sees sense If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Pick you favourites, hold them close to your chest lovingly and keep repeating them until we get the forever moving date for the crossover in the polls to actually happen.
I don't agree of course but that is a really good post.
Exceedingly good.
Clearly, compouter fancies himself as Mister Kipling.
There will be some swingback to the Gov't, there always is.
At the last 3 elections straight, the government ended up performing WORSE at the election than their average poll rating in the 5 years before.
We have to go back to the 1990s (when polling methods were much less sophisticated) to find any evidence of swingback at all.
Swingback occurs to the Tories, not the government. This is because people vote with their heart in opinion polls and with their head in the polling booth.
Mr. 565, I'm not sure that's a useful comparison for two reasons: 1) We have a coalition. Swingback might occur for both, one, or neither party. 2) The average over five years includes the honeymoon period. Swingback is better measured from the middle(ish) of the term.
Mr. Hugh, you're right that politicians and stats are not always believed. A very significant decline in unemployment is a good thing, however.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
Interesting thread and sadly true. I did however note that Baxtering 37Con, 32Lab, 12LibDem and 10UKIP effectively gives DC a majority of 1 over Labour/LibDem/Nats. 316 Tory seats, 284 Labour seats, 22 LibDems seats and 9 Nationalists. The remaining seats are DUP etc and interesting that a comment from the DUP leader in the HoC last week to DC implied that DC can rely on DUP support after GE2015.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
Indeed.
Comrades, good news! Tractor production is up!
Say a bunch of millionaire Tories as people all over the country worry whether the pay the gas bill or do a weekly shop.
Cheer up, Hugh. When Labour get back in there will be a boost in unemployment. Labour always manage that.
Clearly, compouter fancies himself as Mister Kipling.
Ah yes, that classic which begins:
"If you can keep your wife, when all around Are losing theirs, and blaming it on you.."
It needs completing, Richard
And keep the faith of wives when all men doubt you, And there’s damn good reason for them doubting too If you can meet a girl and take her virtue Before you’ve even time to learn her name, And say to virgins, this is going to hurt you And yet go on and do it just the same If you don’t hesitate when she says, “Maybe”, But lead her on with every sort of lie, And when she says she’s going to have a baby Just quickly lift your hat and say, “Goodbye”; If you can meet a new girl every minute, And not be faithful to a single one, You can become a Liberal Democrat, And what is more, you’ll be a Lord, my son.
@MikeL For that to happen there needs to be another CON-LD coalition and that looks fairly remote at the moment in electoral terms. The Tories need a lead of 2% simply to stop a LAB majority. They are a long way from that position.
Of course I realise that - my post was based on the hypothetical of a Con/LD coalition.
Repeating the fact that Lab will get a majority with a votes deficit of 2% does not mean it is necessarily true. Kellner says Lab needs a vote lead of 7%. I'm not saying Kellner will be proved right but there is no more reason to believe you than Kellner. Kellner has produced an extremely detailed paper backing up his analysis.
Mr. Hugh, you would seem to have a point. Then again, Rod 'King of Swing' Crosby was amongst the closest when it came to predicting 2010's result.
Rod's swingback was based on by-election results. But he also said it was broken by the tv debates. But then afterwards I think it was revived again? I must admit I cant remember where it was left.
By far their most important paragraph is their last:
"Labour can take some comfort from the status quo, which suits them, but they should not fall into the trap of thinking it cannot change. The story of polling since 2010 has been one of long periods of calm weather, interspersed with stormy spells where the political climate changed rapidly: late 2010 – when the Lib Dems slumped and Labour surged; early 2012, when the Tories briefly closed the gap before slumping back following the “omnishambles” budget; and spring 2013, when (as Anthony Wells notes) the Conservatives halved the gap on their Labour rivals. There will be plenty of weather-making political events in 2014 – the spring Budget, the first when George Osborne will be in a position to hand out good news (and maybe some giveaways); summer’s local and European Parliament elections and autumn’s Scottish independence referendum. A busy year is in prospect for politicians, pollsters and pundits."
That's a good summary of the past and of the road ahead.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
Is it too inappropriate to start speculating about a possible Portsmouth byelection?
I've thought for a while that could be the perfect seat for UKIP. Quite a rural working-class constituency, which ticks both the boxes for UKIP-friendly areas, plus the fact they just lost a load of defence jobs (and I'm assuming UKIP like to posture on being "strong on defence").
Of course there are some people who do not believe the figures. Some people are just in denial.
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
We're all waiting for the inevitable crossover. What a pathetic opposition Labour have been, you should be romping ahead rather than nervously looking over your shoulder at this point in the mid-term.
@MikeL The Kellner prediction was made before the last batch of Ashcroft marginals polls which has totally changed views.
My current thnking is based on this and the Bown funded single seat polls.
Mike S - I understand why you think that - but there's a problem.
Please point me in the direction of the constituency polls of non-marginals showing the Conservatives doing much BETTER than they are in the national polls!
There's a problem isn't there - because there are no such polls.
But if Con are doing much worse than nationally in marginals then they need to be doing much better than nationally elsewhere - yet we have no such polls supporting that thesis.
Kellner is relying on what has been proved historically over time - the first time incumbency bonus. Whereas for you to be right, first time incumbents will have to perform much worse than the national average.
I would discount the Bown polls completely because they prompt for UKIP in the question. I agree the Ashcroft polls are more robust - but does a relatively small amount of Ashcroft polling really trump all historical precedent?
By far their most important paragraph is their last:
"Labour can take some comfort from the status quo, which suits them, but they should not fall into the trap of thinking it cannot change. The story of polling since 2010 has been one of long periods of calm weather, interspersed with stormy spells where the political climate changed rapidly: late 2010 – when the Lib Dems slumped and Labour surged; early 2012, when the Tories briefly closed the gap before slumping back following the “omnishambles” budget; and spring 2013, when (as Anthony Wells notes) the Conservatives halved the gap on their Labour rivals. There will be plenty of weather-making political events in 2014 – the spring Budget, the first when George Osborne will be in a position to hand out good news (and maybe some giveaways); summer’s local and European Parliament elections and autumn’s Scottish independence referendum. A busy year is in prospect for politicians, pollsters and pundits."
That's a good summary of the past and of the road ahead.
Quite so. And none has fallen into the trap of thinking things cannot change than compouter whose list is actually very cheering, given the number of things in it which are actually quite likely to happen.
And let us never forget the March 2011 poll: SLAB 44, SNP 29. What happened next?
This time last year the two defectors were complaining that the LibDems were nicking their potholes:
Jamie Scott, conservative councillor for St Luke, said: “It's not on and I take exception to it. The pamphlet is misrepresentative in the way he's put himself down as though he's a ward councillor.
“Where do we draw the line if councillors feel its fine to go into other councillor's wards and do active work?
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
If you say so. I'll just wait for the polling crossover, nevermind the fact it didn't happen at all when the GDP stats started surging and after the supposed "triumph" of the autumn statement, despite Tories' expectations.
We're all waiting for the inevitable crossover. What a pathetic opposition Labour have been, you should be romping ahead rather than nervously looking over your shoulder at this point in the mid-term.
Even leaving aside the flawed "swingback" theory, can 4 years on from an election even really be described as "mid-term", especially since the Conservatives are by common consent already in full campaigning mode?
I predict the unemployment figures will have zero effect on the polls. This is another example of where political journalists just don't seem to understand basic human sociology, they seem to genuinely think people are going to be impressed on the basis of cold statistics and that they will take precedence over what they experience in their real lives.
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
A lot of denial, but I detect a little bit of anger too.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
Yep. I have Labour supporting friends who last week were slamming the Tories for "making their media friends" at Channel 4 (no shit!) show poverty porn in its Benefits Street programme. "The Tories love taking the piss out of people who can't get jobs, blah blah".
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Notwithstanding the teeming prejudice or that they are wrong on both counts, it is enlightening to see their philosophy about the poor working classes. They see only the money. They don't appear to get that having a job is about more than money. It leads to a less soulless existence. It brings satisfaction. It gets you out of the mundanity of being stuck at home watching telly. It gets you out meeting different people. It's just - in my view - better for you to be poor but working than poor but not working.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Hello from Madrid! I thought I would write about what all the companies here are saying about the nascent Spanish recovery (spoiler: it's real, but there are some serious potential political issues that could derail it), but have decided not to.
Instead, I thought I'd divide voters up into four quadrants:
Historically, the Conservatives have been SCEF. The Labour Party, by contrast, was SLEC. (Under Blair, and in particular under home secretaries Blunkett and Straw, the Labour Party moved towards the SC axis, and I think that was a crucial part of their success.) The Liberal in their original guise were also SLEC, but under the Orange Bookers moved to being SLEF.
Under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives moved into the SLEF space previously occupied by the (Orange Book) Liberals. (And, slightly ironically, by the pre-2010 UKIP, which was very much an SLEF party.)
Farage has now moved UKIP into the SCEF space previously occupied by the Conservative Party. He has also made some distinctly SCEC noises; I think a UKIP government would have a much more muscular industrial policy, for example.
The big question is... how big are the various boxes?
Well, I would suggest that the smallest box is the SLEF one occupied by myself, Richard Tyndall and AveryLP. Perhaps 20% of the population fall into it. (I think that the number of people who believe in free market has declined over the course of the financial crisis, diminishing the size of the box.)
I think the LibDem position is particularly tenuous right now, because have the party was EF and half was EC - and the EC ones have f*cked off to Labour.
I also think Farage is right that the SC angle is currently under served.
However it is also very naive to think the Conservatives can move back to the SCEF without losing some of the SL voters back to the LibDems.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Look, David Cameron is using a catch-all strategy, move to the centre-left and all those those dumb right-wingers will carry on voting 'Conservative' and I'll have a majority, just like my hero Blair.
Well, I and others like me refuse to be taken for granted and marginalised.
Worth seeing the Cameroons humiliated at the cost of a one-term Labour Government.
''Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.''
For many labour supporters there is no difference between a person on benefits and a person who is working for low wages. They earn about the same so they are they same.
Simon Jenkins made this catastrophic and insulting mistake in the Guardian with his 'we're all on benefits' article.
But to the person working for low wages, I imagine there is a world of difference between him or her and a person on benefits.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
And you plan to vote Labour.
Hello from Madrid! I thought I would write about what all the companies here are saying about the nascent Spanish recovery (spoiler: it's real, but there are some serious potential political issues that could derail it), but have decided not to.
Instead, I thought I'd divide voters up into four quadrants:
Historically, the Conservatives have been SCEF. The Labour Party, by contrast, was SLEC. (Under Blair, and in particular under home secretaries Blunkett and Straw, the Labour Party moved towards the SC axis, and I think that was a crucial part of their success.) The Liberal in their original guise were also SLEC, but under the Orange Bookers moved to being SLEF.
Under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives moved into the SLEF space previously occupied by the (Orange Book) Liberals. (And, slightly ironically, by the pre-2010 UKIP, which was very much an SLEF party.)
Farage has now moved UKIP into the SCEF space previously occupied by the Conservative Party. He has also made some distinctly SCEC noises; I think a UKIP government would have a much more muscular industrial policy, for example.
The big question is... how big are the various boxes?
Well, I would suggest that the smallest box is the SLEF one occupied by myself, Richard Tyndall and AveryLP. Perhaps 20% of the population fall into it. (I think that the number of people who believe in free market has declined over the course of the financial crisis, diminishing the size of the box.)
I think the LibDem position is particularly tenuous right now, because have the party was EF and half was EC - and the EC ones have f*cked off to Labour.
I also think Farage is right that the SC angle is currently under served.
However it is also very naive to think the Conservatives can move back to the SCEF without losing some of the SL voters back to the LibDems.
Robert
It is not the size of the Boston Box which varies, but the sizes of the logarithmic bubbles within them.
Logarithmic bubbles were Bain & Co's major contribution to the science of management consultancy.
Comments
2. So what? We're talking about UKIP taking votes from the Tories. Your point actually accentuates mine. It made the Tories even more angry at their own defeat. I remember Toby Young pleading for Ukippers to vote Tory at that by-election.
3. So David Cameron and other Tory bigwigs campaigned in a by-election that didn't matter? Hmm. Although I agree the Government wouldn't change as a result, the fallout in political terms has been significant - as the county elections have proven.
4. This point annoys me intensely. I've noticed Cameron and rather too many Tories who think that economics matters in politics to exclusion of everything else. So, immigration is viewed through the prism of the economy, irritating posters on PB think that a recovering economy will give Cameron a majority (like Major in 1997, perhaps?) and that race and religion play no part in voting intention.
As for oblivion, I suggest you study the demographic trends in this country to see exactly what will happen to the Tory Party over the coming years. I don't think the political class has any idea what is going to hit it, possibly because demographics change so slowly.
As for parties that aspire to government, the government of this country is a coalition at the moment and it is those very compromises within their own parties that have riven both coalition parties.
I am a Democrat, as well as a Liberal, and I believe that Conservative attempts to change parliamentary boundaries in their favour and change the voting registration to deny many people the vote could have resulted in permanent Conservative government for this country. I was happy to work with Nick Clegg to prevent this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25814565
Quite how maintaining boundaries which give Labour areas more seats per head of population than in the rest of the country is compatible with being a Democrat, or how deliberately reneging on an agreement is compatible with being a Liberal, is unclear.
At best, Cameron is marginally more popular than his party. The polls that show more him significantly more popular than his party exclude Nigel Farage.
Also, unless you live in Witney, 'David Cameron' won't be appearing on the ballot paper, 'Conservative' will.
I think the only way this bunch of Tories will learn is if the Cameroons are crushed at the next election. That's why I'm voting Labour to remove the Tory. Perhaps the message will sink in then.
Also, how will voting for a party of the left send a message that the party should move to the right? I think your message is in grave danger of being misunderstood...
Obviously it's entertaining to see the bookies take a hit, but the likes of Curley are essentially defrauding regular punters too. Anyone who backed another horse in these races at what may have looked a fair price has lost out. The only real winners are a select group of insiders.
Even more to the point, anyone who backed these horses on their previous runs didn't get a run for their money then as they were presumably not being run on their merits.
Betting coups are great stories - Barney's original Yellow Sam coup was awesome in its conception and execution, but coups on this scale don't help horse racing in the long term as they perpetuate the (justified) belief that things aren't always what they seem. The next generation of punters are moving to sports betting, though of course that is hardly uncorruptable...
Shall we go back through it all again? The provisions of the bill had been battled out already, and concession after concession made to make it as palatable as possible to Conservative backbenchers. There weren't any reasonable concessions left to give and those back-benchers intended to block it one way or another. Talk it out if necessary.
(If you want an actual answer, a lot of Tories voted against the bill getting a second reading).
Shall we have the tit for tat about Conservative word-breaking vs LD and so on? Or just quote the battles we've already?
a) Help the Conservative Party;
b) Help the country;
c) Make the Conservative Party electable in the future?
d) Further your personal vision for the country?
And who would you have replace him? Who in the party better fits your world view? In fact, what is your vision for the party.
The above assumes you are a natural Conservative voter ...
Jesse Norman has in my view done more damage to the Conservative chances at the next election than any other individual I can think of.
Removing a Tory will send a message that without their core vote, the Tories win nothing.
Nick Clegg Aug 2012
"The Conservative Party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform and, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken… I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."
Nick Clegg answering a question from Tory MP Eleanor Laing on 19th April 2012 (Q179):
Eleanor Laing:
"Is it the case that the reports that your party’s support for further progress on boundaries legislation is dependent upon progress on House of Lords reform legislation are wrong?"
Nick Clegg (my emphasis):
"Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link."
http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2012/08/nick-clegg-the-man-who-porky-pied-to-students-about-tuition-fees-does-the-same-on-boundary-changes.html
David Davis seems the best bet.
But Adam Afriye for the future. The Tories simply have to connect with ethnic minority/religious voters, otherwise they are doomed.
Con to Lab 12 voters Lab to Con 5
Con to LD 4 voters LD to Con 8
Lab to LD 5 voters LD to Lab 24
Con to UKIP 23 voters
Lab to UKIP 4 voters
LD to UKIP 4 voters
The Coalition agreement was not a legally binding contract. It's a bit bizarre that the Conservatives still seem to think that it should have been interpreted as if it were.
If you punch me in the face and I kick you in the leg, it's not because there's a link between my face and your leg, but you were asking for it.
Nick Clegg isn't really at fault here as his backbenchers would have voted it down anyway; he just used the Lords as a fig leaf.
What should have been agreed is writing the boundary changes into law first to trigger the AV referendum (in the same Bill, if necessary). I can only assume the senior Tories thought AV would pass (at the time of coalition negotiations) to arrange it the way they did.
And the timing's not great for them.
For me it was about party discipline. Suppose instead of voting down the boundaries, Nick Clegg had stamped his feet, put his sad face on and left it at that. The Tories would have been unmanageable in coalition; they'd have tried to vote down everything that had been agreed which they didn't like, and there was a risk that the Government would have fallen (and of NC facing a leadership challenge.) I don't think Nick Clegg chose the boundaries due to the link; more because it was the nearest thing to a kick in the b***s he could aim at the Tories. We have never seen a Tory rebellion quite like it again.
The 22-year-old woman has so far refused to show her face during the proceedings at Blackfriars Crown Court in London - but Judge Peter Murphy ruled that if she wants to testify in her defence she must let jurors see her clearly.
Seems a perfectly logical decision by the Judge imho.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544034/Muslim-woman-ordered-judge-remove-veil-wanted-evidence.html
It just doesn't work like that. For a start, there'll be plenty of people who just don't believe the statistics (and I mean LITERALLY don't believe them - when the news about the unemployment stats comes on the news tonight, there will be some people who assume the figures have been fiddled by the government). And even people who do believe they're accurate will mostly not believe they're representative, when they know many of those jobs are crappy and insecure, and will have real-life knowledge of people who can't get anywhere on the jobs ladder, can't afford to move out of home, have to use food-banks, etc.
We've also seen our constitution evolve rapidly under this government to cater for the demands of coalition government in the 21st century. Collective cabinet responsibility has in particular been redefined.
You don't vote based on the national unemployment rate. You vote on whether you have a job, your wife has a job, and at a pinch, whether your neighbour who you feel sorry for has a job.
The unemployment figures are a reflection of what's already happened, not a forecast for the future. If more people in jobs is good news for the Conservatives, then it should already be reflected in the polls.
To address your points:
a) By putting an actual conservative as leader
b) By letting Labour finally bring the whole rickety structure crashing down. We can then re-build finance on saner lines and reduce the ridiculously large (and increasingly authoritarian) state.
c) By bringing in a leader that can appeal to ethnic minority/religious voters. Cameron is just making it too easy for Labour on this score.
d) In order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
Frankly, who's dumb idea was it to elect as Tory leader a privileged, Old Etonian, millionaire who did PPE at Oxford and who got his first job due to his step-mother-in-law.
Furthermore, he ran an election campaign promoting voluntary organisations, but has trashed the one he currently runs and alienates the religious who have been running them successfully for hundreds of years.
Cameron has taken the Conservative Party back to the 18th century, a party without a mass membership in an age of the universal franchise.
I still think that Modern Studies and then history students will be studying the Coalition agreement for a long time. It was a truly remarkable achievement.
This gives the idea that as more positive information builds up, it becomes harder for the electorate to ignore individual pieces. The elastic deformation is things like the 'flounce bounce'; once the publicity is over, polls go back to more or less where they were.
However as the load of positive news builds up, there might come a time when it becomes plastic, and there is a big and permanent (in an electoral cycle) change.
Naturally, it works the other way as well, with negative information.
We need a Youngs Modulus for polling ... ;-)
Clegg played his hand very well and not with little skill on the boundaries, Cameron should have never tied changes to it being reduced to 600 seats. A big error as Tim pointed out way way back.
Don't be under any illusion it was anything other than masterful politics by Clegg on that one though to give the impression it was tied to the Lords reform, was fantastic manoeuvring. In fact it is the only reason I'm considering voting Lib Dem as he tilted the board so far away from a conservative majority with that one move that it has made for brilliant betting opportunities.
Remember that as of today, the law is that the Boundary Commissions must report in 2018 on the new rules - ie 600 seats.
Now, one LD objection was that they should go back to 650 seats (as Lords was not reduced). Cameron could concede that easily - though the law would have to be amended quickly after the 2015 GE.
But the issue would remain - would the LDs block the Statutory Instrument in 2018?
This is the interesting bit - when the law was amended to delay the reviews to 2018, the Conservatives put down an amendment (which obviously lost) saying the PM could lay the Boundary Commission reports directly to The Queen in Council WITHOUT votes in the Commons and Lords.
In a new Coalition, I think that is what Cameron will insist on because it is the only way of guaranteeing the LDs can't pull the plug in 2018. So he'll probably concede a return to 650 MPs (and maybe something else - eg PR for Local Government or whatever else is bargained) but he'll insist in law that he personally can lay the reports directly to The Queen.
I admire the Lib Dems for putting the national interest first and forming the coalition, I admire their contributions.
I salute their courage, their strength, their indefatigability.
And I want to thank them for being our human shields, our share of the vote in the polls has gone down 3-5%, theirs has gone down 15%, which I think is fecking hilarious.
And I have a train to catch.
I just wonder how many lib dem voters, especially in their southern English seats, really knew what the lib dems did believe in.
If the economy continues to grow
If wages outstrip inflation
If Ukip returns to the Tories
If Lib Dems return home
If Ukip only take off the Tories in safe Tory areas
If Labour voters don't vote tactically in Lib Dem seats
If Toby gets his way and Ukip and Tory voters vote tactically
If Ukip goes to 5%
If the Lib Dems head back towards 20%
If Ed remains crap
If Labours campaign is crap
If Lynton gets his finger out
If unemployment keeps falling
If Cameron goes *ahem* cast iron on the in/out referendum
If the Tory MP's of the right stop their suicide mission
If the unions pull the plug on Labours money so they cannot fund a campaign
If the falling Tory membership still manages to campaign hard
If only they had got the boundary changes through
If there is swingback
If Ashcrofts marginal polling is wrong
If the Tory vote was spread out more like Labours and not building up in seats that are safe
If the Lib Dems get rid if Nick Clegg and replace him with someone more left wing
If Ukip don't stand against Euro-sceptic Tory MP's
If the focus goes back onto the two Ed's
If Labours manifesto is torn apart by the press
If the country sees sense
If the right wing voters hold their nose about Cameron and vote Tory
If the voters realise what a fantastic job the coalition has been doing
If the raising of the minimum wage will sway floating voters toffs do have hearts
If Labour polling figures are being exaggerated
If the electoral bias in FPTP is not as big as it has been historically
If the press decide to attack the two Eds with even more venom in the run up to the election
If the Ukip supporters realise that voting Labour means the will be less chance of a Euro referendum
Pick you favourites, hold them close to your chest lovingly and keep repeating them until we get the forever moving date for the crossover in the polls to actually happen.
I have witnessed the composition and size of the Catholic population change considerably in the last 10 years due to mass immigration. Annoying us is not good politics, but Labour realises that far better than the Tories.
Furthermore, I've noticed ethnic minorities growing wealthier and moving out of their tradition areas and into the suburbs. This has been mirrored in the mega-constituencies in the London Assembly slowly turning Labour one or two at a time every election.
2004
Labour - 5
Conservative - 9
2008
Labour - 6
Conservative - 8
2012
Labour - 8
Conservative - 6
Now, no doubt Tory voters have moved into the Home Counties, making those constituencies more Tory, but the demography is remorseless, albeit slow. The 'pool' the Tories are fishing in is getting smaller and smaller, perhaps causing the absurd leftward drift under the Cameroons. But the Britain is well catered for as far as left of centre parties are concerned, so this policy is leading to the current debacle.
In my mind, the solution is to attract demographically strong, socially conservative Muslims, Catholics and other groups over to the Conservative Party, the exact opposite of what he doing at the moment.
Conservative: Free enterprise, low taxes, small state, independence, self-reliance.
I am not trying to create a Utopia, just trying to get away from this dystopia.
If you are that worried, I suggest you try gold. The stuff that Gordon Brown exchanged for a handful of magic beans.
We have to go back to the 1990s (when polling methods were much less sophisticated) to find any evidence of swingback at all.
Clearly, compouter fancies himself as Mister Kipling.
More coke than cake though.
"If you can keep your wife, when all around
Are losing theirs, and blaming it on you.."
Someone was mentioning the other day he might not get the job... I see it as unlikely myself - whats others opinions though.
1) We have a coalition. Swingback might occur for both, one, or neither party.
2) The average over five years includes the honeymoon period. Swingback is better measured from the middle(ish) of the term.
Mr. Hugh, you're right that politicians and stats are not always believed. A very significant decline in unemployment is a good thing, however.
They are definitely moving into phase 2.
And keep the faith of wives when all men doubt you,
And there’s damn good reason for them doubting too
If you can meet a girl and take her virtue
Before you’ve even time to learn her name,
And say to virgins, this is going to hurt you
And yet go on and do it just the same
If you don’t hesitate when she says, “Maybe”,
But lead her on with every sort of lie,
And when she says she’s going to have a baby
Just quickly lift your hat and say, “Goodbye”;
If you can meet a new girl every minute,
And not be faithful to a single one,
You can become a Liberal Democrat,
And what is more, you’ll be a Lord, my son.
Mr. Hugh, you would seem to have a point. Then again, Rod 'King of Swing' Crosby was amongst the closest when it came to predicting 2010's result.
You also fail to address the issue of the coalition nature of our government, which could lead to unexpected results.
Repeating the fact that Lab will get a majority with a votes deficit of 2% does not mean it is necessarily true. Kellner says Lab needs a vote lead of 7%. I'm not saying Kellner will be proved right but there is no more reason to believe you than Kellner. Kellner has produced an extremely detailed paper backing up his analysis.
BREAKING NEWS:
MP Mike Hancock suspended from Liberal Democrat party after report into claims of sexual misconduct
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25852536
Another day; another suspect from the Lib-Dhimmie Partah...!
:where-is-Marque-Senile-to-deny...:
http://www.winld.org.uk/2014/01/22/two-conservative-councillors-join-the-liberal-democrats/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pollingobservatory/100256123/the-tories-are-edging-closer-to-defeat/
By far their most important paragraph is their last:
"Labour can take some comfort from the status quo, which suits them, but they should not fall into the trap of thinking it cannot change. The story of polling since 2010 has been one of long periods of calm weather, interspersed with stormy spells where the political climate changed rapidly: late 2010 – when the Lib Dems slumped and Labour surged; early 2012, when the Tories briefly closed the gap before slumping back following the “omnishambles” budget; and spring 2013, when (as Anthony Wells notes) the Conservatives halved the gap on their Labour rivals. There will be plenty of weather-making political events in 2014 – the spring Budget, the first when George Osborne will be in a position to hand out good news (and maybe some giveaways); summer’s local and European Parliament elections and autumn’s Scottish independence referendum. A busy year is in prospect for politicians, pollsters and pundits."
That's a good summary of the past and of the road ahead.
My current thnking is based on this and the Bown funded single seat polls.
I've thought for a while that could be the perfect seat for UKIP. Quite a rural working-class constituency, which ticks both the boxes for UKIP-friendly areas, plus the fact they just lost a load of defence jobs (and I'm assuming UKIP like to posture on being "strong on defence").
There are 160 000 people though who have moved off out of work benefits, and will instead be paying tax. Seeing those deductions on the payslip, and seeing someone else still in bed while they are off for work does often transfom their perspective on the issues of tax and benefits.
As the jobs are mostly in the private sector, this tends to alter perspectives on govt spending.
Please point me in the direction of the constituency polls of non-marginals showing the Conservatives doing much BETTER than they are in the national polls!
There's a problem isn't there - because there are no such polls.
But if Con are doing much worse than nationally in marginals then they need to be doing much better than nationally elsewhere - yet we have no such polls supporting that thesis.
Kellner is relying on what has been proved historically over time - the first time incumbency bonus. Whereas for you to be right, first time incumbents will have to perform much worse than the national average.
I would discount the Bown polls completely because they prompt for UKIP in the question. I agree the Ashcroft polls are more robust - but does a relatively small amount of Ashcroft polling really trump all historical precedent?
And let us never forget the March 2011 poll: SLAB 44, SNP 29. What happened next?
Jamie Scott, conservative councillor for St Luke, said: “It's not on and I take exception to it. The pamphlet is misrepresentative in the way he's put himself down as though he's a ward councillor.
“Where do we draw the line if councillors feel its fine to go into other councillor's wards and do active work?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10160898.Accusations_fly_in_council_turf_war/?ref=rc
The best option for solving the Hancock problem is for Clegg to kick him upstairs and to hold a by-election as early as possible.
Hancock would fit in well on the Lib Dem benches in the Lords.
And today those same people are slamming the Tories for "forcing people to take crap jobs" in order to massage the unemployment figures.
Notwithstanding the teeming prejudice or that they are wrong on both counts, it is enlightening to see their philosophy about the poor working classes. They see only the money. They don't appear to get that having a job is about more than money. It leads to a less soulless existence. It brings satisfaction. It gets you out of the mundanity of being stuck at home watching telly. It gets you out meeting different people. It's just - in my view - better for you to be poor but working than poor but not working.
Or maybe they do get it but they just fecking hate the Tories so much they want to blame them for everything.
Instead, I thought I'd divide voters up into four quadrants:
Socially liberal, economically free market
Socially liberal, economically command-and-control
Socially conservative, economically free market
Socially conservative, economically command-and-control
Historically, the Conservatives have been SCEF.
The Labour Party, by contrast, was SLEC. (Under Blair, and in particular under home secretaries Blunkett and Straw, the Labour Party moved towards the SC axis, and I think that was a crucial part of their success.)
The Liberal in their original guise were also SLEC, but under the Orange Bookers moved to being SLEF.
Under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives moved into the SLEF space previously occupied by the (Orange Book) Liberals. (And, slightly ironically, by the pre-2010 UKIP, which was very much an SLEF party.)
Farage has now moved UKIP into the SCEF space previously occupied by the Conservative Party. He has also made some distinctly SCEC noises; I think a UKIP government would have a much more muscular industrial policy, for example.
The big question is... how big are the various boxes?
Well, I would suggest that the smallest box is the SLEF one occupied by myself, Richard Tyndall and AveryLP. Perhaps 20% of the population fall into it. (I think that the number of people who believe in free market has declined over the course of the financial crisis, diminishing the size of the box.)
I think the LibDem position is particularly tenuous right now, because have the party was EF and half was EC - and the EC ones have f*cked off to Labour.
I also think Farage is right that the SC angle is currently under served.
However it is also very naive to think the Conservatives can move back to the SCEF without losing some of the SL voters back to the LibDems.
Well, I and others like me refuse to be taken for granted and marginalised.
Worth seeing the Cameroons humiliated at the cost of a one-term Labour Government.
For many labour supporters there is no difference between a person on benefits and a person who is working for low wages. They earn about the same so they are they same.
Simon Jenkins made this catastrophic and insulting mistake in the Guardian with his 'we're all on benefits' article.
But to the person working for low wages, I imagine there is a world of difference between him or her and a person on benefits.
It is not the size of the Boston Box which varies, but the sizes of the logarithmic bubbles within them.
Logarithmic bubbles were Bain & Co's major contribution to the science of management consultancy.
Very good!
I'm SLEF too.