Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory survival plan is based on the Lib Dems staying str
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory survival plan is based on the Lib Dems staying strong in CON-LAB battlegrounds but collapsing in CON-LD ones
It’s been repeated often enough on PB that an essential part of Labour’s polling position is based on the very large proportion of 2010 LD voters who’ve now switched to Labour. If this hadn’t happened or starts to slip away then EdM’s dreams of becoming PM are in trouble.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And here's an excellent quiz. I got a miserable 5/10.
http://games.usvsth3m.com/crapper-mapper
http://comresupdates.eu.com/DCJ-24O6F-F21LMD8E11/cr.aspx
I'm not sure what this says about me, but I kinda like it...
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 12m
UKIP leader @Nigel_Farage calls handgun ban brought in after the Dunblane massacre 'ludicrous' http://bit.ly/M3GiRw
I have countered to some posts by pointing out that there are a number of indices based on confidence surveys and national polls which chart changing perceptions of household finances and that these are generally showing a movement from pessimism to optimism.
For PB to complete the circle we need to know how changes in expectations of financial health, as measured by such surveys, translate, if at all, into changes in voting intention.
But to know that with any reliablity, would make us all richer and would sharply diminish Shadsy's earnings expectations.
The monthly Markit Household Finances Index, which measures a wide range of 'tangible' effects of economic change, is not due until next week. But we do have published today the Markit Knight Frank House Price Sentiment Index.
It is worth looking at the headlines:
• Households in every region perceive that the value of their home will rise over the next 12 months
• The future House Price Sentiment Index hit a record high in January, indicating that prices are expected to rise at the fastest pace since the index began in early 2009
• Households in every region perceived that the value of their home rose during the month
On the metric itself:
Some 22.5% of the 1,500 homeowners surveyed across the UK said that the value of their home had risen over the last month, up from 7.7% in January last year. Only 5.1% of households said the value of their home had fallen over the last month, giving a HPSI reading of 58.7 [falling < 50 > rising ]
It is also worth noting when changes in sentiment 'crossed over' from expectations of falling prices to rising prices. When asked about 'current prices' respondents only started to report equilibrium at the end of Q1 2013.
Expectations that 'future prices' will start rising came in a year earlier. The Index for 'future prices' ("over the next year") is now up at 72.3, an all time record, and for 'current prices' at 58.7%, with all regions recording above 50.
Expectations of house prices rising is a fundamental indicator of changing economic confidence levels and this Markit Index underpins what Cameron means when he says people are beginning to feel the benefits of economic recovery.
Now could some reliable PBer do the calculations which will quantify the effect of rising economic confidence on voting intention?
c. a million LD to Lab votes could be returning Labour supporters - these are likely to stay Red between now and the election. I jotted some ideas on this here http://www.thehustings.co.uk/ex-libdems-to-feed-the-labour-bid-for-power-in-2015/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974
Gun enthusiasts might well appreciate having a party on their side.
And as we all know by now just because it's repeated on PB doesn't make it true.
Here we can clearly see the mass exodus from the lib dems under Clegg after the 2010 election.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
No surprise there but what is worth looking at is the tory labour movement AFTER the lib dems started flatlining at around 10% for the next four years.
Far from the lib dem exodus being the only factor the lib dem VI then becomes basically an irrelevance with the tories and labour still fighting it out. They then almost have a polling crossover at the time of Cammie's EU flounce that wasn't just before Osbrowne really kickstarted the kipppers with the omnishambles. Then the tory labour movement is being most clearly affected by the kipper rise, not the lib dems who by then are just part of the background noise. So it will continue. If the kippers crashed and burned in a Robert Kilroy-Silk like manner all those soft tory voters would start to run back to the tories pretty quickly as we saw from last May's kipper drop after the elections and the concomitant tory rise. That would put a labour lead in severe danger and the fact is it still might be since once the kipper vote gets high enough it takes an increasingly big chunk out of little Ed's polling too. But does such an enormous Farage crash look likely? Not right now it doesn't. Quite the reverse as we approach the May EU elections.
So to cut a long story short, no, not everything hinges on the 2010 lib dems no matter how much that would please Clegg and his amusing spinners. They theoretically could make a big difference but right now and since late 2010 it looks far more like it needs a small atom bomb to shift the lib dems meaningfully from their flatlining at around 10%.
An uptick in the lib dem VI is still likely for 2015, but a truly massive shift from where they are now? No. And certainly not under Calamity Clegg. The damage has been and is being done to their base right now.
A party that is getting beat by the kippers in scotland (of all places) is one that has very little hope of being central to anything unless the ostrich faction around Clegg take their heads out of the sand.
Welcome to the site. Do you have an easy link to a description of the model you're using for those projections? (I looked around a little but couldnt find one immediately - it was probably staring me in the face.) I hope there's monte carlo simulation in it but fear there isnt as there arent probabilities or ranges attached. We love monte carlo simulation on pbc.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Mojito.
Some are suggesting the Lotus and McLaren noses could be used by parents when they need to give their children 'the talk'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_by-election,_2013#Result
Smithsonian and Paris wrong.
On the grounds that polling today and behaviour in the polling booth in May next year are two different things. The LibDems are having a dreadful time and will be seeking to differentiate themselves from Dave. To succeed, that means being more lefty and trying to win back some of their lost tribe (and the all things to all men approach in different seats won't work anymore). Going lefty will help Dave in Southern LD/Con marginals - the south of England is a pretty conservative place. But going lefty will not be enough to reverse the exodus to Labour in the North.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100256434/is-nigel-farage-losing-the-plot/
"Is Nigel Farage losing the plot?"
"In April there had been a seismic shift in support from ‘blue collar’ workers but the Lib Dems chose to ignore it and stick wiht the tactic that served them so well in the past – scaring voters who might otherwise support Labour into voting Lib Dem to “keep the Tories out”.
Those voters now vote for Ukip – and it is no use arguing ‘Ukip can’t win here’ - that opportunity has been missed – voters now know Ukip can win in Eastleigh."
http://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2013/05/2013-county-election-results/
Here's what you do to figure out VI. Look at an opinion poll.
Don't waste everyone's time with economic stats and calculations that have no hope whatsoever of factoring in the complexities of party support and allegiance and the multiplicity of ways people view their own situations and feed that into an economic feel good factor or not. Ironically trust is likely most crucial. (which is something economists are not overly blessed with by the public) So I'm afraid there is no chance whatsoever that your amusing economic stat fetish can possibly overturn such a basic and powerful factor as trust when it comes to knowing how people will view any supposed recovery through the prism of politics.
(Smithsonian was easy though - clearly too much headroom to be a sub and too much lateral space to be a spaceship)
Are you arguing that a booming economy doesn't electorally favour the party that presides over it?
If that's the case, why do politicians bother to appoint a chancellor.
Yes, he did, It's been airbrushed out of the UKIP website but is available here, for now at least:
http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/UKIP-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf
Rather than reinforcing each other and benefiting long term, they now seem to seem to worry more about the tactical cost of each announcement and distance each other.
* For each Tory position in support of the LDs, Tory MPs whinge about the benefits for UKIP.
* For each LD position in support of the Tories, LD's worry about losing votes to Labour.
It's quite a bad state of affairs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm1CmWzWRgk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Sm1CmWzWRgk&app=desktop
If Farage is the CEO what he needs is a damn good CFO, COO, etc to turn a protest movement into a credible party. Hell, the LibDems ain't there yet and they're in government!
The Tory survival plan (which could yet be upgraded to a majority plan) is to retain their support from last time, and ideally win over some of the voters that they "lost" between 2008-2010; i.e. people who in the end "clung to nurse". If (a very big if, but the economic data is starting to suggest it may yet be possible) they do this they'll presumably be doing well enough to pick up a few seats off the LDs too.
Furthermore, I don't think incumbency just applies at the local level; I think it applies nationally too.
All that said I still expect NOM, Tories largest party, LDs down around 35-40.
He'll do well to beat this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYMN7l_wo5U
You really shouldn't go all anti-intellectual in a single post. Those familiar with your usual posting style will notice the change immediately and cry foul.
If you really wanted to understand the link between economic performance/confidence and voting, then you need look no further than the recent Markit Bank of Scotland Report on Jobs.
• Rates of staff appointments growth near record-highs in December
• Permanent salaries increase at fastest pace in 11-year series history
• Edinburgh sees strongest rise in both permanent and temporary staff placements
The latest Bank of Scotland Report on Jobs signalled near-record increases in both permanent and temporary staff appointments in December. The sharp rates of staff placements growth generally reflected greater client demand. Permanent vacancies in particular rose at the fastest pace since July 2007 and were a factor behind the sharpest increase in starting salaries in the 11-year survey history.
At 63.6 in December, the Bank of Scotland Labour Market Barometer – a composite indicator designed to provide a single figure snapshot of labour market conditions – indicated a marked improvement in Scottish job market conditions. Moreover, having risen for the fourth consecutive month, the Barometer signalled the second-fastest rate of growth since data collection started in January 2003.
Nothing more clearly explains last night's surge in Scottish Tory votes and the decline of SNP voting to 2007 levels.
I'm afraid the blatant and obvious stupidity of any out of touch spinners who are deluded enough to think economic stats win an election, is far greater than any possible rebuke from the likes of you.
Osbrowne was so happy about record unemployment stats since Feb 1997. So tell us all, how exactly did those great economic stats under John Major then help him in the 97 election? Because unless I'm very much mistaken Major and the tories were then subjected to the most devastating political defeat in modern westminster politics. Stats and all.
If only he had you to help spin those stats more successfully, is that it?
LOL
"The Tory survival plan (which could yet be upgraded to a majority plan) is to retain their support from last time, and ideally win over some of the voters that they "lost" between 2008-2010..."
Then they need a new plan because that one ain't going to work.
Oh come on Mick the answer to that one's easy.
The tories weren't given credit for the late 90s boom because they were seen as the architects of the early 90s bust - remember the EMS crisis and dear old Norman Lamont?
It's much easier to claim the credit this time around - and much more difficult for Ed 13 years in government Miliband to criticise.
In other words, it could have been made by any party leader. ;-)
In this case, it will be thrown in Farage's face at every election. It's a stupid thing for him to admit.
From my spies on the ground the Tories actually thought they were going to lose the seat but Rennard came just in time..there may have been a swing because as usual the Lib Dem ground war is conducted primarily in locals through the use of postal votes and a lot of them would have gone back before this Monday when the scandal really broke.The GOTV on the day did not work for them and in fact energised some Tories to actually go out and vote..so this election result can not just be looked at normally
They will be putting up only 1 candidate per ward rather than the 3 that are up in each ward.
On the doorstep not much appetite in suburbia for UKIP
Now those are all Westminster issues, but will it affect the Mail's approach in May?
Mike's thesis looks right. Considering that we've had three quarters of a Parliament, it's remarkable how little animus there is between Labour and LibDems - less so than in 2011, in fact. If they continue to pick fights with Cameron over this and that, I think they'll hold at least half the usual Labour tactical vote. Conversely, the absence of campaign finance will make the modest LibDem effort in the Con/Lab marginals obvious - especially (something not mentioned before, I think) in seats where there is a nearby LibDem seat to defend.
And yes (to taffys), I don't think the economy is going to change anything much in the remaining year and a bit. The Labour 37-39% has continued regardless of really pretty good economic news - they are by and large implacable anti-Tory voters, patiently waiting to vote them out. If the Tories could get to 40% they'd be in business, but that really does need a UKIP meltdown.
http://bit.ly/LQFcrJ
If some factor such as being seen as hugging Tories for the Union mean that the Labour vote goes down outside their current stronghold area, then things could get interesting. There are areas in the old Labour heartlands which used to have wall to wall red rosettes but are now partly SNP. Midlothian is one that I can think of - council and Scottish Pmt are SNP but the Westminster seat is still a Labour MP.
But in any case we need to wait and see what happens at the Indy referendum. A yes would presumably man that people would vote for the non-London parties because of the ongoing negotiations that would be needed. Under FPTP that would mean the SNP. It is also conceivable that an immediate GE in 2014 could be called if Cameron and the Tories fall on a Yes, or that the Pmt term is extended to Inpependence Day in March 2016 - we had interesting arguments for both, a week or two back on PB as you may have seen. A no would probably not make that much difference at Westminster given the current situation.
It's not going to BE about giving credit. It's going to be "Don't let labour ruin it again" 24/7 set to footage of the economic crash played out in slow motion with Darling and Brown in starring roles.
The reason a feel-good factor matters is that for that attack to work most effectively the voter can't just turn straight round and ask "Don't let Labour ruin what again?" Which they will if they don't feel like anything has improved sufficiently or there is not the prospect of it doing so with any great success under Osbrowne.
If there is no real feel-good factor it also means that little Ed's "cost of living crisis" is going to resonate that much more with voters, even if he personally doesn't.
Nobody is going to win it throwing economic stats about. It's all about trust.
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
http://survation.com/2013/12/alan-bown-polls-4-new-constituencies/
Has an MP ever been elected to parliament for a party supporting either a straight In-Out EU referendum or a Better off Out party?
MPs with these views in opposition to their party policy don't count. I can't think of a single one. Can anyone here?
There has been more movement then is generally accepted in support between the two largest parties, and some of those 2010 Tories currently declaring their vote for UKIP may well end up voting for the main opposition party at the GE in 2015.
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
I'm pretty sure too that, at various points, Sinn Fein, and various Unionist parties have advocated withdrawal.
Those voters now vote for Ukip – and it is no use arguing ‘Ukip can’t win here’ - that opportunity has been missed – voters now know Ukip can win in Eastleigh."
http://www.eastleighnews.co.uk/2013/05/2013-county-election-results/
Farage probably didnt read a lot of it...
My point here is that people on PB that dont like UKIP keep predicting disaster for them because they are judging them by their standards, not UKIP voters standards and by what they want to happen rather than what is happening.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.