Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A reminder: The Tories need lead of 7.3 percent before they

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited February 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A reminder: The Tories need lead of 7.3 percent before they start winning LAB seats and stop losing to them

Tory hopes will probably be boosted a bit by today’s YouGov for the Sunday Times which sees the party on 35% just 4 points behind Labour with both the LDs and UKIP on 10%. Maybe they can even start to think of a cross-over – something on which there is an active betting market.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Out of interest what happens if you just keep plotting the current trend line right up to May, 2015?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Also out of interest, what were the headline numbers in the famous Ashcroft polling?

    I'm a believer in the law of diminishing returns. Presumably, if the Tory polling has improved since then it must have come from somewhere. And if they had already made relatively more progress in other seats then either (a) they are just piling up a meaningless advantage in safe seats or (b) they are making more progress in some of these LD-Con marginals.

    (b) feels more likely to me.
  • I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.
  • Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Just a few thread thoughts whilst I drag myself away from tweaking the cunning plan adopted by Scottish rugby to lull their opponents into a false sense of security, and lose all our Six Nations matches by at least a score, and then storm to World Cup Glory .... it's going to plan brilliantly so far !!

    UNS is a fine instrument to reflect over after the election but frankly I've never known an election where UNS actually exists on the ground. Somewhat like saying Scotland will score on average 50 points per match in the World Cup but never actually score 50 points in any one match.

    I've noted before that IMO differential turnout in the marginals will play a decisive part in the GE and effective squeeze down the bias in FPTP that Labour enjoy.

  • That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    I winder whether, consequent upon Labour's win in 2015, the voters who left the LibDems to support Labour will quickly return to the LibDems?
    Or whether it will take some "Illiberal" Labour action?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
    Why would Labour and the LibDems vote in support of increasing their opponent's tactical flexibility?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency
  • Charles said:

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency
    If I am verging on stupidity I am not - quite - stupid. Of course partisans of all stripes can devise scenarios which favour their own side, but really there is no more reason to suppose that the next election will be a re-run of a previous one than there is to expect that of a sports fixture.

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808

    Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
    That's fine when you're the party with some momentum as Lab was in 1970 but if you've just failed to win a majority in 2 elections it's a much bigger gamble. My guess is that it would make the Tories appear weak and benefit Lab in any snap Autumn 2015 election.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    The secondaries have generally shifted against the Government in the current YG (though this may mean it's NOT a biased sample and the lowish lead is right. In particular, Government approval, which was "up" to -20, has been drifting south for several polls (now -27). Probably what's happening is that the Tory core is rallying to the flag (hence UKIP softening), but others are not impressed.

    Striking that Gove is so unpopular - I'd have expected a majority saying "don't know". The Tube strike results are mixed - people somewhat against the strike, evenly divided on who is at fault, opposed to banning such strikes, critical of Crow's holiday.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency
    If I am verging on stupidity I am not - quite - stupid. Of course partisans of all stripes can devise scenarios which favour their own side, but really there is no more reason to suppose that the next election will be a re-run of a previous one than there is to expect that of a sports fixture.

    My comment wasn't aimed at you - it was highlighting SO's response to ever narrowing poll that Labour's 35% is rock solid and at that level they will win the election. He's probably right, but very complacent - I was noting a few things that could break the 35% barrier, relatively rapidly and possibly at the last moment.

    My general view is that most people who voted Tory vs Labour on economics will buy the "still more to do" line. Many of the soft Kippers will vote Tory given the alternative. I'm working on the assumption that some 2010LDs will return as well - giving them 15-16%.

    My base case is a hung parliament with Labour the largest party. When I am feeling optimistic I hope the Tories might be the largest party again.

    I think the election will be a rerun precisely because the big question from 2010 hasn't been answered yet and the two main parties still have the same fundamental proposition.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Another factor to muse upon is whether, as I believe, we may see much of a re-run of the 87/92 elections where a Conservative government facing the prospect of a tight election recovered considerably in the polls in the last months.

    In ICM Labour enjoyed a 6 point lead in May 86 only to see it slowly evaporate away and the Conservatives pull comfortably ahead by polling day.

    Similarly in April 91 Labour held a four point lead before again seeing the lead turn to dust and a Tory lead of 8 points at the April 92 election.

    Crossover ?!?! .... Late this year IMO.
  • Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
    We're talking about a situation the numbers make Clegg kingmaker, no? In which case if Cameron tried to do that why wouldn't Lib/Lab just vote him down in a confidence motion and form their own coalition?
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    It was interesting speaking to my sister last night who is very much a LD/Con swing voter in a seat where that is the battleground (Somerton). She was absolutely vituperative about Gove, to a point I've never heard her comment on any pol previously.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.
  • Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
    We're talking about a situation the numbers make Clegg kingmaker, no? In which case if Cameron tried to do that why wouldn't Lib/Lab just vote him down in a confidence motion and form their own coalition?
    This really deserves a thread of its own (and will doubtless get one at some point). I am also expecting some polling asking people what they would want the LibDems to do in such a situation. My guess - and it can only be that - is that Lib Dem and DK voters would want the existing coalition to continue whilst Tories would want Cammo to form a minority government and recover his freedom to call an election at a time of his choosing.

    I do think that for the Lib Dems to change horses would go down poorly with everyone (except Labour voters of course). I would expect the "5 year" rule to be scrapped by Tory votes and Labour abstentions.

  • Good morning, everyone.

    If UKIP remains strong I wonder whether this will remain true. It might be that this approach will not be able to withstand the UKIPalypse.
  • I winder whether, consequent upon Labour's win in 2015, the voters who left the LibDems to support Labour will quickly return to the LibDems?
    Or whether it will take some "Illiberal" Labour action?

    Excellent observation OKC, and the elephant-in-the-room that Junior's dad keeps ignoring: Why do people assume 2010 LD - the liberal ones, not the :tumbleweed: - will indicate their support for Labour in the weeks running-up to May 2015? Given thirteen years of parliamentary dictat, abuse and criminality - 1997 thro' 2010 - would they not re-think before casting a vote for Militwunt and Bolleaux...?

    Despite the "happy-clappy" from the left Labour are not making further any in-roads into the 'forties' in the polls. Polls would, I wager, be no more than instruments-of-the-heart: At elections people will tend to engage their heads....

  • F1: very important change that I'd forgotten about is mentioned here:
    http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/gearing-up-for-2014-the-rule-changes-uncovered-and-explained-part-one

    Teams only get 5 'power units' (engines plus ERS) per season. Last year they had 8 engines, and some were pushing it even then. With reliability likely to be much lower this will be a real issue. Needing more than 5 means starting from the pit lane. However, if you only need to change a component (the turbo, say) you get a 10 place grid penalty.
  • SchardsSchards Posts: 210
    I don't think any poll can take account of non-partisan people who, in the ballot box, when for the first time contemplating the reality of Ed Miliband PM and Ed Balls CoE, choose not to vote Labour despite having been inclined to for the previous 4-5 years. Kinnock is, I suppose, the nearest historical precedent.

    The Labour vote always falls when Ed and/or Ed are high profile and they will be wall to wall in May 2015. Labour have missed a trick in not sacking Balls and not, unequivocally accepting their mistakes on the economy. Even last week Balls was defending their record. Rightly or wrongly, the public's mind is made up on Labour's record, they would have done better to accept this and pursued a "we've learned from our mistakes" line rather than continuing to defend what the public have already decided is indefensible.
  • Charles said:

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency

    It is an observation, nothing more. I have no great hankering for a Labour government. I just don't want to see a Tory one. The polls indicate I am far from alone :-)

    For the Tories to win outright, they have to do something that no governing party has done since 1974: increase their vote share.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Schards said:

    I don't think any poll can take account of non-partisan people who, in the ballot box, when for the first time contemplating the reality of Ed Miliband PM and Ed Balls CoE, choose not to vote Labour despite having been inclined to for the previous 4-5 years. Kinnock is, I suppose, the nearest historical precedent.

    The Labour vote always falls when Ed and/or Ed are high profile and they will be wall to wall in May 2015. Labour have missed a trick in not sacking Balls and not, unequivocally accepting their mistakes on the economy. Even last week Balls was defending their record. Rightly or wrongly, the public's mind is made up on Labour's record, they would have done better to accept this and pursued a "we've learned from our mistakes" line rather than continuing to defend what the public have already decided is indefensible.

    That's what I meant when I was referring to the "pencil hoverers". I believe that was the term Major used to describe them.
  • Mr. Observer, since 1974 we've never had the prospect of four significant parties (in terms of overall vote share). I'm not saying that will necessarily make 2015 any different, just that it has the potential to do so.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    PB is entertaining, is it not? Each week posters find a new way for the crossover to happen. Sometimes it is a rambling post and other times we get the A, B, C scenario.

    Each week it doesn't happen.

    Straw anyone.
  • @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    PB is entertaining, is it not? Each week posters find a new way for the crossover to happen. Sometimes it is a rambling post and other times we get the A, B, C scenario.

    Each week it doesn't happen.

    Straw anyone.

    If you are referring to my (a), (b), (c), I was referring to May 2015.

    I don't really have a particular view as to when or if crossover will occur. If it doesn't happen before the end of this year, though, then the Tories will need a 1992 scale miscalculation by the pollsters (or a late swing)
  • @compouter2
    Since last year, we've probably had a few hundred words on PB about crossover, and many many thousands of words from you about "PB Tories" allegedly talking about crossover.
    Self-awareness, much?
  • It was interesting speaking to my sister last night who is very much a LD/Con swing voter in a seat where that is the battleground (Somerton). She was absolutely vituperative about Gove, to a point I've never heard her comment on any pol previously.

    That is not an uncommon reaction which is being picked up loud and clear by both LAB and LD private surveys.

    In May next year will see significant Anti-Gove tactical voting.

  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Charles said:

    PB is entertaining, is it not? Each week posters find a new way for the crossover to happen. Sometimes it is a rambling post and other times we get the A, B, C scenario.

    Each week it doesn't happen.

    Straw anyone.

    If you are referring to my (a), (b), (c), I was referring to May 2015.

    I don't really have a particular view as to when or if crossover will occur. If it doesn't happen before the end of this year, though, then the Tories will need a 1992 scale miscalculation by the pollsters (or a late swing)
    On the bright side, at least "mid-term polls" has fallen of the straw radar. However, we know we will get "swingback" until the dying embers of this parliament.
  • Patrick said:

    I suspect we may arrive at parity or crossover before 2015, especially as we see more of Ed n Ed on the TV. But that ain't enough. Hung parliament looms. A hugely diminished Clegg will be kingmaker. What a mess.

    No. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the "five year rule" would be ditched and Cameron would seek to emulate Harold Wilson's February 1974 tactic - minority government, snap election.
    We're talking about a situation the numbers make Clegg kingmaker, no? In which case if Cameron tried to do that why wouldn't Lib/Lab just vote him down in a confidence motion and form their own coalition?
    This really deserves a thread of its own (and will doubtless get one at some point). I am also expecting some polling asking people what they would want the LibDems to do in such a situation. My guess - and it can only be that - is that Lib Dem and DK voters would want the existing coalition to continue whilst Tories would want Cammo to form a minority government and recover his freedom to call an election at a time of his choosing.

    I do think that for the Lib Dems to change horses would go down poorly with everyone (except Labour voters of course). I would expect the "5 year" rule to be scrapped by Tory votes and Labour abstentions.

    Fresh elections are a zero-sum game, so if you're in a situation where any two of the three parties can prevent an election by forming a government (which you would be) the only way it happens is if it helps two parties by screwing the third. In theory it could help Lab and Con by screwing Lib, but in practice the Libs will have so few seats at this point that it's hardly worth doing; So the point of a new election (or a minority government arrangement that allowed the PM to call one) would be to screw Lib plus one of Con and Lab, and whoever got screwed by it would veto it.
  • @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Voters are canny. More so than they often get credit for on here. They know when a party - embodied by its leader - doesn't deserve power. In modern times, Foot clearly didn't deserve power. Kinnock didn't deserve power. Hague and Howard didn't deserve power.

    I fully expect the voters to give the same verdict on Miliband. He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time and have offered nothing that looks even vaguely like an alternative proposition based on lessons learnt. Which is not a surprise, as Labour's business model is fundamentally, catastrophically broken. It involves the private sector being soaked by taxes and burdened with debt repayment to fund an unsustainable size of public sector. It is a deeply dishonest trick, played on the poorest in society. To say it is done with the best of intentions is no defence whatsoever.

    What would be really fascinating is to see what happens if the Tories do achieve cross-over and keep building. If the polls got to say Con 38 Labour 33 by the start of 2015, then a whole swathe of Labour voters might think, what is the point of the Labour Party any more? If Labour can't beat the Tories, I might as well give UKIP a try....
  • Mr. Mark, I hope you're right, but fear you're not.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2014
    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    I winder whether, consequent upon Labour's win in 2015, the voters who left the LibDems to support Labour will quickly return to the LibDems?
    Or whether it will take some "Illiberal" Labour action?

    Excellent observation OKC, and the elephant-in-the-room that Junior's dad keeps ignoring: Why do people assume 2010 LD - the liberal ones, not the :tumbleweed: - will indicate their support for Labour in the weeks running-up to May 2015? Given thirteen years of parliamentary dictat, abuse and criminality - 1997 thro' 2010 - would they not re-think before casting a vote for Militwunt and Bolleaux...?

    Despite the "happy-clappy" from the left Labour are not making further any in-roads into the 'forties' in the polls. Polls would, I wager, be no more than instruments-of-the-heart: At elections people will tend to engage their heads....

    Keep on day-dreaming ! The 2010LD crowd who have moved over to Labour are more left wing than Labour voters. They are not going to support Clegg after the Brokeback coalition [ credit: David Davis ]
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
    Do you know him personally to make that judgement?

    All the reports I've heard - I've never met him - suggest that he is charming, considerate and quietly spoken.
  • It was interesting speaking to my sister last night who is very much a LD/Con swing voter in a seat where that is the battleground (Somerton). She was absolutely vituperative about Gove, to a point I've never heard her comment on any pol previously.

    In May next year will see significant Anti-Gove tactical voting.
    Surely the only seat which will see "significant anti-Gove tactical voting" is Surrey Heath?

    Given he got 57% of the vote last time I doubt he's losing much sleep over it.

    Methinks OGH has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about Michael Gove......for the vast majority of voters, the economy will trump all else....
  • GildasGildas Posts: 92
    fpt

    NEW POLL Panelbase, the SNP's prefered pollster, finds Yes down & No up. Results: N 49% (+2) Y 37% (-1)

    That ICM "gamechanging" poll looks evermore like an outlier. There has been barely any movement towards Yes.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    It was interesting speaking to my sister last night who is very much a LD/Con swing voter in a seat where that is the battleground (Somerton). She was absolutely vituperative about Gove, to a point I've never heard her comment on any pol previously.

    In May next year will see significant Anti-Gove tactical voting.
    Surely the only seat which will see "significant anti-Gove tactical voting" is Surrey Heath?

    Given he got 57% of the vote last time I doubt he's losing much sleep over it.

    Methinks OGH has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about Michael Gove......for the vast majority of voters, the economy will trump all else....
    Gove is a marmite politician. You either love him or hate him.



  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited February 2014
    Fat_Steve said:

    @compouter2
    Since last year, we've probably had a few hundred words on PB about crossover, and many many thousands of words from you about "PB Tories" allegedly talking about crossover.
    Self-awareness, much?

    A few hundred words by PB Tories on crossover....selective memory, much?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Voters are canny. More so than they often get credit for on here. They know when a party - embodied by its leader - doesn't deserve power. In modern times, Foot clearly didn't deserve power. Kinnock didn't deserve power. Hague and Howard didn't deserve power.

    I fully expect the voters to give the same verdict on Miliband. He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time and have offered nothing that looks even vaguely like an alternative proposition based on lessons learnt. Which is not a surprise, as Labour's business model is fundamentally, catastrophically broken. It involves the private sector being soaked by taxes and burdened with debt repayment to fund an unsustainable size of public sector. It is a deeply dishonest trick, played on the poorest in society. To say it is done with the best of intentions is no defence whatsoever.

    What would be really fascinating is to see what happens if the Tories do achieve cross-over and keep building. If the polls got to say Con 38 Labour 33 by the start of 2015, then a whole swathe of Labour voters might think, what is the point of the Labour Party any more? If Labour can't beat the Tories, I might as well give UKIP a try....

    "He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time"

    Sorry ! I did not realise that Labour was responsible for bringing in recession in 18 out of the 20 G20 countries.

    I had not realised that Labour was responsible for the collapse of Lehmann Brothers [ which, officially started the credit crunch thouggh it would have come about anyway ]. Nor , I had not realised Labour were responsible for the shenanigans at Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG etc.etc.

    I also had not realised that Labour were instrumental In May 2009, to create a German „bad-bank law“ (Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung der Finanzmarktstabilisierung) which allowed banks to “clean” their balance sheets by transferring non-performing loans and other loss-generating assets to special institutions.

    Tens of hundreds of other banks were in serious trouble all over the world.

    Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland amongst other sovereign nations had to be bailed out. All were Labour's fault.

    The US Fed is just now after more than 5 years tapering off their QE which in size and incidence is much larger than ours. That is also Labour's fault. G W Bush must have been a Socialist !

    I am trulu sorry for all these mistakes Labour made !



  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    surbiton said:


    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party

    The Nasty Party is the one that condemned kids to a culture lacking in rigour, lacking in expectations, lacking in fitness for employment, lacking in a work ethic, lacking in preparedness for the sometimes grim reality of grinding life rather than X-Factor instant success.

    The Nasty Party is the one which massively increased this country's population on the sly - which meant it couldn't acknowledge the massive shortfall in educational or health places coming down the line.

    The Nasty Party is the one that treats the poor as vote-fodder. Tells them they have a right to a land of milk and honey, paid for simply by taxing bankers.

    The Nasty Party is the one that plays the poor for fools.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
    Do you know him personally to make that judgement?

    All the reports I've heard - I've never met him - suggest that he is charming, considerate and quietly spoken.
    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.
  • Voters are canny. More so than they often get credit for on here. They know when a party - embodied by its leader - doesn't deserve power. In modern times, Foot clearly didn't deserve power. Kinnock didn't deserve power. Hague and Howard didn't deserve power.

    I fully expect the voters to give the same verdict on Miliband.

    Those seem like post-hoc rationalizations to me, especially given the way a lot of the factors that control who ends up as PM are random things that can't possibly reflect on the quality of the person. For example, if you re-ran Kinnock vs Major with the current electoral playing field and the current profile of UKIP, there's a good chance you'd end up with PM Kinnock. Would that mean he did deserve power after all?

    BTW, if Miliband ends up as PM, will you conclude that the voters must be right and Miliband does in fact deserve power, or will you conclude that your Canny Voter theory was in fact cobblers?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    surbiton said:


    I am truly sorry for all these mistakes Labour made !

    Well, that is as near as anyone in Labour has come to an apology!

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited February 2014

    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    The country will heave a sigh of relief when these nasty toff Tories are consigned to the dustbin of history ! The people who presided over a 6.1% decrease in real wages !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
    Do you know him personally to make that judgement?

    All the reports I've heard - I've never met him - suggest that he is charming, considerate and quietly spoken.
    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.
    Since it is a little early to be drunk, I assume you mean that.

    I am very sorry for you.
  • Top man has another dig at Govey, a few more ludicrous political strikes and that one will turn.

    The Tories won't be too unhappy with where they are, they have a chance but they need something big and bold to pull the centre ground middle income vote. Over to OsBrowne and it needs to be done in this years budget, next year is too late. Tax Cuts targeted to hit pay packets just before the election. Extend the 0% Tax band, bring NI up to the same level and take the 20% band out as well, all need doing at once to work tell Clegg where to go if he needs to.

    £30 or £40 in middle income pay packets per month, double it for 2 earners in the family, a guaranteed vote winner. Has to be bold and this year though and the message has to be told. Tax Cuts for lower and middle earners.
  • Mr. Surbiton, inflation was higher than wages for the latter years of the last Labour government. For some reason this wasn't mentioned at the time and isn't much now, either. It's oddly reminiscent (in reverse) of how Brown used to boast of X consecutive quarters of growth, until the blues pointed out the first Y of those were under Major.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    macisback said:

    Top man has another dig at Govey, a few more ludicrous political strikes and that one will turn.

    The Tories won't be too unhappy with where they are, they have a chance but they need something big and bold to pull the centre ground middle income vote. Over to OsBrowne and it needs to be done in this years budget, next year is too late. Tax Cuts targeted to hit pay packets just before the election. Extend the 0% Tax band, bring NI up to the same level and take the 20% band out as well, all need doing at once to work tell Clegg where to go if he needs to.

    £30 or £40 in middle income pay packets per month, double it for 2 earners in the family, a guaranteed vote winner. Has to be bold and this year though and the message has to be told. Tax Cuts for lower and middle earners.

    When you can't win them with arguments, bribe them !
  • . He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time and have offered nothing that looks even vaguely like an alternative proposition based on lessons learnt..

    The time for that has come and gone - do it now or in the run up to the election it will come across as insincere - and as long as Balls remains in place it won't and can't happen as he genuinely believes his narrative is correct. It's too late for Miliband to sack Balls "I see the light now!" given he's invested so much capital in the government being wrong....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    surbiton said:

    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    The country will heave a sigh of relief when these nasty toff Tories are consigned to the dustbin of history ! The peopel who presided over a 6.1% decrease in real wages !
    This is clearly a Sun morning troll.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    surbiton said:

    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.

    The Tories. The last group in society you can feel good about REALLY hating without getting prosecuted.

    Nice. Real classy, surbiton.
  • @Compouter 2

    Remember that @ALP forecast crossover by Christmas 2013 (wrong) and this site's self-appointed swingback guru @RodCrosby (he of the ellipsis on every post) forecast it for May 1 this year. We shall see (...)
  • surbiton said:

    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.

    The Tories. The last group in society you can feel good about REALLY hating without getting prosecuted.

    Nice. Real classy, surbiton.
    Quite......try replacing "Tory" with "Jew" or "Black" or "gay".....

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Is Surbiton a spoof
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited February 2014
    surbiton said:

    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    The country will heave a sigh of relief when these nasty toff Tories are consigned to the dustbin of history ! The people who presided over a 6.1% decrease in real wages !
    I believe that you along with SO voted LD in 2010. I hope you both return to the fold come 2015.

  • surbiton said:

    Voters are canny. More so than they often get credit for on here. They know when a party - embodied by its leader - doesn't deserve power. In modern times, Foot clearly didn't deserve power. Kinnock didn't deserve power. Hague and Howard didn't deserve power.

    I fully expect the voters to give the same verdict on Miliband. He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time and have offered nothing that looks even vaguely like an alternative proposition based on lessons learnt. Which is not a surprise, as Labour's business model is fundamentally, catastrophically broken. It involves the private sector being soaked by taxes and burdened with debt repayment to fund an unsustainable size of public sector. It is a deeply dishonest trick, played on the poorest in society. To say it is done with the best of intentions is no defence whatsoever.

    What would be really fascinating is to see what happens if the Tories do achieve cross-over and keep building. If the polls got to say Con 38 Labour 33 by the start of 2015, then a whole swathe of Labour voters might think, what is the point of the Labour Party any more? If Labour can't beat the Tories, I might as well give UKIP a try....

    "He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time"

    I had not realised that Labour was responsible for the collapse of Lehmann Brothers........

    I am trulu sorry for all these mistakes Labour made !
    Yes, yes "it started in America."

    A big boy made me do it then he ran away.....

    Rachel Reeves having a bit of a mare on Marr.......

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    Charles said:

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency
    I'd agree that nothing is in the bag 15 months out. But over three years of almost identical polling for Labour does suggest the same kind of settled intent that I find on the doorstep. On (a), certainty to vote is comparable for all three parties (and higher for UKIP). On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far. On (c), the belief that Government economic policy is going well is not shared by Labour supporters - see today's YG: 85% of Labour voters think they're handling the economy badly, 9% "quite well", and 0% "very well". Conversely 87% of Tories think they're doing well. Partisanship rules.

    The Tory hope should IMO not be that Labour will drop back to 29 but that the Conservative vote increases significantly over last time - to 41 or so. I think that's conceivable, though unlikely.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    FWIW, the current L&N 'forecast' is a 7.8% Con lead and a 65 seat lead...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ShippersUnbound: Andrew Marr has now had 5 goes trying to get Rachel Reeves to mention a single cut in benefits.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Funny how some of those complaining re talking about Tories/PB Tories/whatever as one homogeneous lump do it about teachers all the time.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    surbiton said:

    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.

    The Tories. The last group in society you can feel good about REALLY hating without getting prosecuted.

    Nice. Real classy, surbiton.
    Quite......try replacing "Tory" with "Jew" or "Black" or "gay".....

    Or 'teachers'.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Labour mistake was not wearing trunks when the sea went out, the hubris of believing they had ended boom and bust. The banking crisis of 2008 hit all governments, but Browns government as amongst the worst prepared, hence the need for the slow crawl back under the coalition. For all its faults the coalition government has done a decent job.

    Balls will be a disaster, and rather scarily he is seen to be on the right of his party.
    surbiton said:

    Voters are canny. More so than they often get credit for on here. They know when a party - embodied by its leader - doesn't deserve power. In modern times, Foot clearly didn't deserve power. Kinnock didn't deserve power. Hague and Howard didn't deserve power.

    I fully expect the voters to give the same verdict on Miliband. He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time and have offered nothing that looks even vaguely like an alternative proposition based on lessons learnt. Which is not a surprise, as Labour's business model is fundamentally, catastrophically broken. It involves the private sector being soaked by taxes and burdened with debt repayment to fund an unsustainable size of public sector.

    What would be really fascinating is to see what happens if the Tories do achieve cross-over and keep building. If the polls got to say Con 38 Labour 33 by the start of 2015, then a whole swathe of Labour voters might think, what is the point of the Labour Party any more? If Labour can't beat the Tories, I might as well give UKIP a try....

    "He and his party have offered no apology for trashing the economy last time"

    Sorry ! I did not realise that Labour was responsible for bringing in recession in 18 out of the 20 G20 countries.

    I had not realised that Labour was responsible for the collapse of Lehmann Brothers [ which, officially started the credit crunch thouggh it would have come about anyway ]. Nor , I had not realised Labour were responsible for the shenanigans at Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG etc.etc.

    I also had not realised that Labour were instrumental In May 2009, to create a German „bad-bank law“ (Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung der Finanzmarktstabilisierung) which allowed banks to “clean” their balance sheets by transferring non-performing loans and other loss-generating assets to special institutions.

    Tens of hundreds of other banks were in serious trouble all over the world.

    Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland amongst other sovereign nations had to be bailed out. All were Labour's fault.

    The US Fed is just now after more than 5 years tapering off their QE which in size and incidence is much larger than ours. That is also Labour's fault. G W Bush must have been a Socialist !

    I am trulu sorry for all these mistakes Labour made !



  • Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
    Do you know him personally to make that judgement?

    All the reports I've heard - I've never met him - suggest that he is charming, considerate and quietly spoken.
    All of which may be true but smacks slightly of the Kray twins loving their mum. Look, we know from the polls that Gove goes down like a lead tax increase with the voters, so the question is: why?

    Some politicians, fairly or unfairly, just don't cut it with the electorate. Ed Balls is one; Osborne seems to be another; perhaps Gove is a third.

    Another possible explanation is the way Gove is running Education. His spinners will say it is natural that Gove's reforms will upset teachers. Up to a point, Lord Copper. It seems unlikely that no teachers are interested in improving education, so it is surely a deep political failure not to carry the profession with him. Is it no longer part of politics to inspire and persuade?

    In any case, it is not just teachers who dislike Gove. Perhaps parents are concerned about lack of school places. There is probably something in this, as the new Conservative line is to blame Labour for encouraging immigration or shagging or whatever it is that has led to an excess of 5-year-olds, and for not having drawn it to Gove's attention in the nearly four years he has been head honcho. If there were nothing in it, why the spin?
  • Charles said:

    That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    You are assuming that (a) they will all turnout (b) there won't be any 'hovering pencil' effect and (c) the economic recovery will not impact any votes.

    At times you appear to be verging on complacency
    I'd agree that nothing is in the bag 15 months out. But over three years of almost identical polling for Labour does suggest the same kind of settled intent that I find on the doorstep. On (a), certainty to vote is comparable for all three parties (and higher for UKIP). On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far. On (c), the belief that Government economic policy is going well is not shared by Labour supporters - see today's YG: 85% of Labour voters think they're handling the economy badly, 9% "quite well", and 0% "very well". Conversely 87% of Tories think they're doing well. Partisanship rules.

    The Tory hope should IMO not be that Labour will drop back to 29 but that the Conservative vote increases significantly over last time - to 41 or so. I think that's conceivable, though unlikely.

    Tax Cuts for Middle Income should do it, specifically targeted so they kick in just before the election, just think your nice Mr Brown's abolition of the 10p Tax Rate in reverse. The furore didn't start until people had less on the bottom line wageslip. Scope is there with NI thresholds less than Income Tax, just has to be done and this year, not next.
  • surbiton said:

    I don't need to meet him, He is a Tory the last time I heard.

    The Tories. The last group in society you can feel good about REALLY hating without getting prosecuted.

    Nice. Real classy, surbiton.
    Quite......try replacing "Tory" with "Jew" or "Black" or "gay".....

    Oh my dear lord.

    Or teachers, or public sector workers etc etc etc.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far.

    But it does dip when Miliband is visible. This is all about the PM question - do people vote differently when they are in a polling booth vs when they are asked by a pollster. I suspect that Miliband will give people some pause for thought, while those who dislike Cameron are already committed to vote against him in some form (mainly UKIP)
    On (c), the belief that Government economic policy is going well is not shared by Labour supporters - see today's YG: 85% of Labour voters think they're handling the economy badly, 9% "quite well", and 0% "very well". Conversely 87% of Tories think they're doing well. Partisanship rules.
    For now. It depends on how things pan out - if the evidence becomes inconvertible, perhaps even some of Labour's supporters might be persuaded


  • That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    That's interesting, Southam. Not so long ago the PB Milibandiers were crowing about how great it was that the Labour poll share had been 38+ since time immemorial. In 6 months' time you will be posting about the stability of the Labour vote being at least 32% since Autumn 2010 or somesuch.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @GerryMander, if you are around

    Have you come across these guys before?

    http://www.haller.org.uk/
  • OT Tokyo: Governor elections today, following the resignation of the previous governor Inose (not right-wing gobshite Ishihara, the one after that) for taking undisclosed contributions from Torao Tokuda, who coincidentally once met my ex-girlfriend at a party and persuaded her to run for the Senate. Inose had tried to convince the assembly of his innocence with a version of the O J Simpson glove stunt involving proving that he couldn't have crammed that many banknotes in that bag, but it didn't go down as well as he'd hoped.

    The centre-left is split into two, an unrepentent lefty lawyer called Utsunomiya and former PM Hosokawa, who is also running on anti-nuclear platform and is supported by former PM Koizumi, who is LDP but likes annoying their key interest groups like the nuclear lobby. The LDP are supporting Masuzoe, who is alleged to have made a bunch of comments about women being untrustworthy in high positions because they menstruate, prompting housewives to threaten a sex strike if their husbands vote for him. This may or may not be related to what looks like a low turnout.
  • Charles said:



    On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far.

    But it does dip when Miliband is visible. This is all about the PM question - do people vote differently when they are in a polling booth vs when they are asked by a pollster. I suspect that Miliband will give people some pause for thought, while those who dislike Cameron are already committed to vote against him in some form (mainly UKIP)
    On (c), the belief that Government economic policy is going well is not shared by Labour supporters - see today's YG: 85% of Labour voters think they're handling the economy badly, 9% "quite well", and 0% "very well". Conversely 87% of Tories think they're doing well. Partisanship rules.
    For now. It depends on how things pan out - if the evidence becomes inconvertible, perhaps even some of Labour's supporters might be persuaded




    Ed was front and centre of a PPB the other day - his Mori ratings went up.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Carola said:

    Funny how some of those complaining re talking about Tories/PB Tories/whatever as one homogeneous lump do it about teachers all the time.

    Yeah, but Tories face the wrath of the electorate and get thrown out when they are perceived not to have performed.

    Teachers, on the other hand....
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    Carola said:

    Funny how some of those complaining re talking about Tories/PB Tories/whatever as one homogeneous lump do it about teachers all the time.

    Yeah, but Tories face the wrath of the electorate and get thrown out when they are perceived not to have performed.

    Teachers, on the other hand....
    Another myth klaxon.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    The Minister of the Silly Walk is a truly repulsive and nasty person. He rightly belongs to the Nasty Party [ credit: Theresa May ]
    Do you know him personally to make that judgement?

    All the reports I've heard - I've never met him - suggest that he is charming, considerate and quietly spoken.
    All of which may be true but smacks slightly of the Kray twins loving their mum. Look, we know from the polls that Gove goes down like a lead tax increase with the voters, so the question is: why?

    Some politicians, fairly or unfairly, just don't cut it with the electorate. Ed Balls is one; Osborne seems to be another; perhaps Gove is a third.

    Another possible explanation is the way Gove is running Education. His spinners will say it is natural that Gove's reforms will upset teachers. Up to a point, Lord Copper. It seems unlikely that no teachers are interested in improving education, so it is surely a deep political failure not to carry the profession with him. Is it no longer part of politics to inspire and persuade?

    In any case, it is not just teachers who dislike Gove. Perhaps parents are concerned about lack of school places. There is probably something in this, as the new Conservative line is to blame Labour for encouraging immigration or shagging or whatever it is that has led to an excess of 5-year-olds, and for not having drawn it to Gove's attention in the nearly four years he has been head honcho. If there were nothing in it, why the spin?
    I don't disagree with your comments. Clearly the unions are dead set against his reforms (and the local councils as well). I simply don't know enough about schools to determine whether the majority of teachers are following the lead of the unions or whether they have made their own assessments.

    But none of this makes him a "truly repulsive or nasty person". The personalisation of some of surbition's comments today are deeply concerned. At least SeanT was funny and probably didn't 90% of what he wrote
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Can I just say I am not convinced by the Con share.The coverage of floods has been incessant and the government hasn`t come out smelling of flowers.I expect the Con share to drop slightly and we need a few more polls to see what`s happening out there.

    I thought the Cons need circa 7% to get a majority.Is it right that they need 7% just to start winning Lab seats?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:



    On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far.

    But it does dip when Miliband is visible. This is all about the PM question - do people vote differently when they are in a polling booth vs when they are asked by a pollster. I suspect that Miliband will give people some pause for thought, while those who dislike Cameron are already committed to vote against him in some form (mainly UKIP)
    On (c), the belief that Government economic policy is going well is not shared by Labour supporters - see today's YG: 85% of Labour voters think they're handling the economy badly, 9% "quite well", and 0% "very well". Conversely 87% of Tories think they're doing well. Partisanship rules.
    For now. It depends on how things pan out - if the evidence becomes inconvertible, perhaps even some of Labour's supporters might be persuaded


    Ed was front and centre of a PPB the other day - his Mori ratings went up.



    How many people watch a PPB?
  • That Labour vote share is relentless. That's what really needs to change. But it's been 35+ in YG since around June/July 2010.

    That's interesting, Southam. Not so long ago the PB Milibandiers were crowing about how great it was that the Labour poll share had been 38+ since time immemorial. In 6 months' time you will be posting about the stability of the Labour vote being at least 32% since Autumn 2010 or somesuch.

    I doubt it. I have been saying the same thing for a very long time now. If the Labour percentage dips below 35% I will be saying that they are in very deep trouble.

  • The Scots are making (excellent) gin - now the English are going to resume making Whisky:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/10624038/English-distillers-race-to-profit-from-the-4bn-whisky-boom.html
  • Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    I imagine that is because you are profoundly ignorant.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited February 2014
    SMukesh said:


    I thought the Cons need circa 7% to get a majority.Is it right that they need 7% just to start winning Lab seats?

    According to UNS.

    But of course there's quite a bit of leeway in that. If the LDs collapsed in seats, for example, it would be mostly to the benefit of the Cons, without them necessarily winning any Labour seats.

    It's also conceivable that a small swing against the Tories could still produce a small net gain from Labour, or a small swing to the Tories could produce a fairly substantial gain from Labour.

    UNS should be viewed as just a (fairly imprecise) estimate.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    The Conservatives are reported to be targeting 20 LD seats. What lead over the LDs do they need to win those?
  • SMukesh said:

    Can I just say I am not convinced by the Con share.The coverage of floods has been incessant and the government hasn`t come out smelling of flowers.

    That's because we Tory voters are intelligent enough to know that the Government doesn't create the weather and that many of the problems are long term and relate to the way the EA has managed the environment for ten years and more.

  • The Scots are making (excellent) gin - now the English are going to resume making Whisky:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/10624038/English-distillers-race-to-profit-from-the-4bn-whisky-boom.html

    I was at a whisky-tasting in Glasgow recently - there was an English whisky to sample there. It was very easy drinking, which at 43% is little bit dangerous.
  • @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    I would vote LD without hesitation if I felt it would prevent a Tory being elected.

    I happen to agree that Labour has done little to indicate it is ready to return to government and that under Brown Labour was appalling (saving the way Brown and Darling responded to the crash - thank God it was them in power and not GO and DC). All in all, the thought of Labour in power does not fill me with any enthusiasm; I rather dread it. But when I read some of the views expressed by Tories on here and elsewhere about immigrants, people on benefits, teachers and all the other people living in this country that they so clearly dislike and hold in contempt, I am afraid that preventing a Tory government has to be the priority.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The Conservatives are reported to be targeting 20 LD seats. What lead over the LDs do they need to win those?

    20 votes.

    ;-)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Chris Smith, the Labour lord and former New Labour minister, runs the Environment Agency. He should be next quangocrat for the sack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/07/flood-somerset-levels-lord-smith-environment-agency-visit

    SMukesh said:

    Can I just say I am not convinced by the Con share.The coverage of floods has been incessant and the government hasn`t come out smelling of flowers.

    That's because we Tory voters are intelligent enough to know that the Government doesn't create the weather and that many of the problems are long term and relate to the way the EA has managed the environment for ten years and more.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    I would vote LD without hesitation if I felt it would prevent a Tory being elected.

    I happen to agree that Labour has done little to indicate it is ready to return to government and that under Brown Labour was appalling (saving the way Brown and Darling responded to the crash - thank God it was them in power and not GO and DC). All in all, the thought of Labour in power does not fill me with any enthusiasm; I rather dread it. But when I read some of the views expressed by Tories on here and elsewhere about immigrants, people on benefits, teachers and all the other people living in this country that they so clearly dislike and hold in contempt, I am afraid that preventing a Tory government has to be the priority.

    chortle

    consistently inconsistent SO. last year you were telling us you couldn't vote Labour after one of the scandals.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    Can I just say I am not convinced by the Con share.The coverage of floods has been incessant and the government hasn`t come out smelling of flowers.

    That's because we Tory voters are intelligent enough to know that the Government doesn't create the weather and that many of the problems are long term and relate to the way the EA has managed the environment for ten years and more.

    Compared to the way Obama tackled the Sandy aftermath and enhanced his reputation,the government hasn`t done a brilliant job.Everyone agrees that the weather is uncontrollable but the government has given the impression of being asleep on it`s job.

    Obama`s Sandy response won him re-election.This flood response,if nothing else, is a missed opportunity for the Tories.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    Charles said:



    On (b), if that was going to happen, the Labour vote should dip when the Government has a good week. It hasn't, so far.

    But it does dip when Miliband is visible.


    No it's doesn't. If we're talking YouGov, it's been in the 37-39 range forever, with a few outliers. Ed being visible has no particular effect either way, IMO because unlike Gordon, Maggie and a few others (perhaps Gove?) he doesn't trigger a strong emotional reaction.

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    RodCrosby said:

    SMukesh said:


    I thought the Cons need circa 7% to get a majority.Is it right that they need 7% just to start winning Lab seats?

    According to UNS.

    But of course there's quite a bit of leeway in that. If the LDs collapsed in seats, for example, it would be mostly to the benefit of the Cons, without them necessarily winning any Labour seats.

    It's also conceivable that a small swing against the Tories could still produce a small net gain from Labour, or a small swing to the Tories could produce a fairly substantial gain from Labour.

    UNS should be viewed as just a (fairly imprecise) estimate.

    Fair enough.

    There`s going to be no swing to the Tories in this election,that much is clear for Labour are going to improve their tally by atleast 3 or 4 and the Tories by less.I think you might disagree.
  • After today's match, which I fear will be as one-sided as the two yesterday, there's a fortnight break in the Six Nations. However, all the matches after that look good.

    Wales host France. To help the English and themselves the Welsh must win.

    Italy play Scotland. That will probably be the wooden spoon decider, and Italy at home can be tough.

    Last but not least, England welcome Ireland to Twickenham. To help the Welsh and themselves, the English must win.
  • @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    I would vote LD without hesitation if I felt it would prevent a Tory being elected.

    I happen to agree that Labour has done little to indicate it is ready to return to government and that under Brown Labour was appalling (saving the way Brown and Darling responded to the crash - thank God it was them in power and not GO and DC). All in all, the thought of Labour in power does not fill me with any enthusiasm; I rather dread it. But when I read some of the views expressed by Tories on here and elsewhere about immigrants, people on benefits, teachers and all the other people living in this country that they so clearly dislike and hold in contempt, I am afraid that preventing a Tory government has to be the priority.

    chortle

    consistently inconsistent SO. last year you were telling us you couldn't vote Labour after one of the scandals.

    Where have I said I would vote Labour? I doubt I will. I would certainly vote LD if it would keep a Tory out though. In fact, I'd probably vote LD full stop, but for the likes of Laws and Alexander.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    @Charles

    I don't think there's any great incentive for 2010 LDs to return to the fold in most seats. Only those where LD can genuinely claim to be in the game, and most of those are LD/Con battlegrounds.

    Indeed. The anti-Tory urge may well see 2010 LDs return home in places where their votes might stop Tories winning.

    You being one of those returning 2010 LDs.
    Governments should be judged on results. Labour left the economy and much else in tatters. The Coalitition, Tories and LDs, has done a marvelous job in righting the ship of state.
    It would be a travesty to see Labour, under Brown's two delinquent dauphins, returned in 2015.

    I would vote LD without hesitation if I felt it would prevent a Tory being elected.

    I happen to agree that Labour has done little to indicate it is ready to return to government and that under Brown Labour was appalling (saving the way Brown and Darling responded to the crash - thank God it was them in power and not GO and DC). All in all, the thought of Labour in power does not fill me with any enthusiasm; I rather dread it. But when I read some of the views expressed by Tories on here and elsewhere about immigrants, people on benefits, teachers and all the other people living in this country that they so clearly dislike and hold in contempt, I am afraid that preventing a Tory government has to be the priority.

    chortle

    consistently inconsistent SO. last year you were telling us you couldn't vote Labour after one of the scandals.

    Where have I said I would vote Labour? I doubt I will. I would certainly vote LD if it would keep a Tory out though. In fact, I'd probably vote LD full stop, but for the likes of Laws and Alexander.

    Well you're in a Con\Lab marginal what other way are you planning to get your Tory MP out ?
  • Chris Smith, the Labour lord and former New Labour minister, runs the Environment Agency. He should be next quangocrat for the sack.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/07/flood-somerset-levels-lord-smith-environment-agency-visit

    SMukesh said:

    Can I just say I am not convinced by the Con share.The coverage of floods has been incessant and the government hasn`t come out smelling of flowers.

    That's because we Tory voters are intelligent enough to know that the Government doesn't create the weather and that many of the problems are long term and relate to the way the EA has managed the environment for ten years and more.

    We're an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
    Our principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. We play a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through our functions and roles.

    http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx

    Given the above, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs either approves of the job Smith has done or it has been negligent. Which one would you go for?

    And, of course, we do know this:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3999935.ece

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Its no surprise to me that teachers don't like Gove. They want to protect their cushy 16-17 weeks holiday, its natural innit. Any suggestion of upping standards and achievement of pupils is seen as a direct attack on the teaching profession in as much that they are doing badly..

    I imagine that is because you are profoundly ignorant.
    Thank you Southam. Must have hit the nail on the head for you to revert to insult.
This discussion has been closed.