Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem deposit losses at the General Election
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem deposit losses at the General Election
The above graph shows just how badly the Lib Dems have done, all bar one, their share of the vote has fallen, it was only in the unique circumstances behind the Oldham East and Saddleworth by election that could explain the increase.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You might also note that that victory, whilst being a party of government, is something that the Tories last achieved in 1989. Every single blue defence since then had ended in failure.
Vote shares are irrelevant.
I agree on the betting analysis. The LDs will lose a lot of deposits where it doesn't matter. In seats where it does, it will hold on.
In fact there is only one seat, Berwick, where the bookies make the Tories favourite to take a seat off the yellows.
Couldn't we engineer the Scottish referendum into some sort of reverse referendum on membership of the EU? If we enable Scotland to be the primary part of the UK then a YES vote would mean the rUK would be the one that had to leave the EU, not Scotland. In addition we could create a new currency, pounds shillings and pence anyone? Plus we could right off the sterling denominated debt or leave it behind for independent Scotland to sort out.
There all the difficult issues resolved :-)
As Mike says below, the LibDems will shed loads of useless votes, although I differ from Mike and don't see them as 'No value' or 'Wasted' votes. If the LibDems go from a party of 23% to a party of 16%, they will lose some legitimacy, regardless of seat totals.
Through the fog of my mind (which I should be used to now as it has the clarity of pea soup most of the time), I want to see a Tory revival, but I really don't see where it is going to come from. They may pick up a percent or three to get to mid or just above mid 30s, but not high enough. And Labour? Well, they will get mid 30s or just below. This really will be the election in which all three established parties are seen as equally unattractive, and I think there is good reason for the electorate to be cynical about all three.
I'm on a quick trip to Australia (arrived Saturday, leave Thursday). There is a salutary lesson on how outside forces can influence your economy. Since the election here I am told that Holden (owned by GM) have announced they are ceasing production in Australia in 2015 - 17. As have Ford and Toyota. There will be no car manufacture in the country, three announcements form three foreign owned corporations and your manufacturing output, balance of payments and employment in an productive sector are put in jeopardy. I don't know if these actions are as a result of the plans of the incoming government, but if true, it will be painful for Australia, and a reminder to the rest of us how we are not masters of our own destiny in many ways.
To make matters worse, because of low production, the local small parts suppliers are not competitive either, meaning that they cost more. All in all, it seems that it is much cheaper to import cars.
It's been a long time coming as well - ISTR one of the manufacturers made their announcement a couple of years ago. So I'd not really blame a government of whatever stripe: they cannot blame their geographical position in the world, the size of their market, or consumer choice.
The simple truth is that the less lib dem MPs there are the less chance there is of a hung parliament. That is, after all, why the lib dems want to get rid of FPTP.
That is the Cons' biggest challenge - the perception that they are the party of the few. In times of plenty it doesn't matter; in difficult times it matters a very great deal.
The possibility of a returning Cons govt therefore relies either on people feeling so good that they don't want to ruin the ongoing and perceptible recovery not to say boom times; or on the perception that the Tories do indeed govern for everyone in the UK (September's vote notwithstanding) and this in turn will rely on them creating some identifiable person-of-the-people touch points whereby everyone from Wigan to West Sussex gets it. And I'm afraid Eric Pickles ain't it.
Even at the last election after the supposed Cleggasm the Lib Dems were on the back foot and their efforts in many parts of the country were token so concentrating their limited firepower on areas of strength will not be anything new.
In 2005 there is no doubt that some of these supporters were anti war Labourites and there may still have been a shadow of that in 2010. In 2010 there were also some economic refugees fleeing from the chaos and incompetence of the Brown catastrophe. I recall that Southam Observer was one of these. The polling suggests many of these have gone back to Labour and, so far, are not coming back. I think that will hit them everywhere not just in marginals making lost deposits more likely.
But it still seems to me that the Lib Dem vote will be more evenly spread that they might ideally like. It is the nature of the beast and the nature of their support. It is very difficult but I would be aiming somewhat lower than Mike.
As they hold many seats where the opposition is a Tory I expect those MPs to campaign as the anti-government party. In the seats where they are defending against Labour they will be the progovernment party. I keep reading about incumbency and how they will keep seats they hold, but I'm not so sure. You can't have a party lead by a reviled liar saying one thing in one seat and another thing in another and expect success. OGH bangs on about Eastleigh and yes they clung on despite a massive vote loss. So all they need to do is put every activist in the country into every seat they are defending simultaneously and I'm sure they will do fine....
Banking should be a way to grease the wheels of business, a somewhat boring but reliable business staffed by boring but reliable people, The emphasis on gambling (although numerically small in number) takes all the limelight. And for the lucky people involved, it's almost risk-free. You make a fortune or you lose your job - but with a big payout.
The best simile is with Premiership football. You have a faded star on a massive and lengthy contract. He may kiss the club badge but he doesn't mean it, he's only interested in number one. His agent is telling the manager that another club is interested and the manager falls for this every time, despite the player being unfit and suitable only for the scrapyard. So the fan's season ticket keeps going up and they can't move to another club.
All they can do is complain or hope he (Cameron) gets the sack, even though the new manager (Ed) would be just as gullible.
The cut in higher rate tax is seen as one example of this behaviour. We got relegated, yet the stars' wages continued to soar.
The manager may have his reasons but we think he's a fool.
I'm sticking by a prediction of 25-30 MPs; I think the incumbency factor will not be enough to save almost any sitting Lib Dem MPs in Lib/Lab fights, and I still maintain that they will do worse in Lib/Tory fights than the assumption. There will be an inordinate amount of lost deposits, although they might be flattered on that score by them not even running candidates in a few Tory/Lab marginals.
To stretch my football analogy further, the LDs are the second team coach who's tarred with the same brush as the manager, Ukip are an ambitious non-league manager who may need more experience before being considered.
At least, premiership footballers had a talent once, though.
Good morning, everyone.
Very interesting graph. It'd be even more cunning if we could compare the council seat performances in those areas and see whether there's a match between by-election woe and shedding councillors. Many think places where the stronger Lib Dem councillor base has been maintained will be easier to defend come the General Election.
If you are considering a plunge remember the LibDems will have almost parity in coverage on the broadcast media and that will bump their score in seats they are not contesting in any viable fashion.
True lefties now hate the LibDems because they are in bed with the Tories. They aren’t coming back.
Orange Booker / Libertarian voters now hate the LbDems because they are spouting lefty crap once again in order to seek rehabilitation with their lost vote. And because they’ve sold their soul to the EU.
Basically the LbDems represent no particular view point. If you are leftyish vote Labour, rightyish vote Tory and if you’re pissed off with all the machine politics vote UKIP. The LibDems are a spent force because there just are not that many confused hypocritical beardy yoghurt knitters in the country.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-india-2014/content/story/719779.html
What an extraordinary achievement. They are looking a pretty nifty side at the moment.
'the Brussels Appeasement Party'?
'the Britain in the EUSSR Party'?
'the Barroso Sphincter Tonguing Party'?
'the Jawohl Mein Fuhrer Party'?
In any case if the parliament are going to get in a bun-fight with the member states there are much more important things to fight over, like whether the President of the Commission is going to be decided by which of them won the election or by a traditional head-of-state stitch-up.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/censor-michelangelo-spoof-advert-disbelief-sistine-atheism
Back in the 1990s, the special privileges of the religious for their views to get extra protection from "offence" seemed to be on the way out... what has changed?
There is a possibility some of the member states might give them some deliberately ceremonial crap nominees to reject the first time and send back, on the grounds that repeated rejections look obstructive. For some appointments Obama sometimes seems to float a name for Republican Senators to shoot down, then give them the person he really wants when they've run out of ammunition. But that doesn't seem like a good game for Cameron to play, as his party would get all Dunkirk Spirit about the crap nominee and he wouldn't be able to switch to the one he really wanted. (Although maybe it could be done by floating somebody really unpopular like Mitchell then switching for Howard...)
And even if it were a democracy I equally detest the fact that we assume a EUSSR is in any country's interest. Why should a even a democratic EU govern the UK? Since when did the people of Europe expressly approve in referendums the destruction of their historic nation states?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26220638
It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does this, or just goes tub-thumping with slogans. It's also worth noting that a currency union requires both parties to agree, it's not something solely in the gift of the Scottish people. I wonder whether that will be acknowledged.
1 day
Six Nations: Dan Cole is out of the tournament: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26221035
He would, however, not go down well with the Tory->UKIP drifters, for exactly the same reasons.
I suppose it's a sign of political virility to run candidates in every English, Scottish and Welsh seat - the Liberals didn't for many years but we've seen parties like Referendum and Natural Law try to run full slates.
Of course, a pragmatic view would be what's the point either the Tories or LDs putting up candidates in a seat like East Ham but that's not how the game is played. None of the parties is truly "national" in the sense that they can fight every seat everywhere. Labour and the Conservatives will probably only seriously contest 150-200 seats (ignoring safe seats), the LDs maybe 75, the Greens fewer than 10, UKIP maybe 25-30.
Given that a very large number of people live in safe seats and given the finite resources in money and people, it's not surprising resources have to be concentrated and that, in truth, for many millions of people, such as myself, under the present system, my vote won't matter.
On the specific of by-elections, I've noticed Labour moving very quickly to hold contests - this is a great tactic in areas where they are the dominant force. For an opposition group, from a standing start, to build or import an organisation capable of taking a seat from nowhere in three or four weeks is a huge ask. I also think both Labour and Conservatives have come to recognise the need to be seen to be active even in the safest of areas between elections.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-weathers-not-weird-at-all-its.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26222407
I get the desire to appear not as a mini-me of Cameron or the Conservatives' underlings, but it makes Clegg/the Lib Dems look like they'll do and say anything for power. (Not exclusive to them, of course, but the message seems cackhanded). They should bang on about the personal allowance and... er... there are probably other Lib Dem policies which would be popular.
It might be that Clegg's tainted, though.
the UK pound is Scotland’s currency now precisely because Scotland is currently part of the UK. Although certain UK assets could become subject to negotiation between the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state, there is no rule or principle in international law that would require the continuing UK to formally share its currency with an independent Scottish state.
The status quo would remain for the continuing UK; the UK pound would continue to
be printed and the Bank of England would continue to fulfil its current functions as a continuing UK institution. However, the position would be quite different for an independent Scottish state. Independence means leaving the UK’s monetary union and leaving the
UK pound.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279454/CM8815_2901849_SA_SterlingUnion_acc.pdf
But looking at the current anti-secular / anti-free speech strains, they come from two angles:
1) Pro-establishment people - Blair, Prince Charles, some Christian leaders - who want to prop up what they see as traditional religious values, and do it by making very general social arguments about religion being good for society, but aren't able to draw a credible line just around Christianity. This is how we end up with traditionalists like Gove backing some fairly sketchy-sounding Islamic schools.
2) Bits of the anti-establishment left allying with religious Islamists. This happened partly because ongoing UK/US support for Israel and invasion of middle-eastern countries brought their enemies into alignment, and partly because the left was a bit stuck for allies after Communism fell apart, and their least bad option was the Galloway coalition. They're also reacting to the pro-Christian / nationalist side doing things like public Koran burnings and opposing Mosques, which are understood (and often intended) as racial provocations.
Remember the "no platform" policy for Conservative MPs.
We have apologised to the Atheist Society for the actions taken and the distress that it has caused. From a Union perspective the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ Poster has not been banned and we have agreed with the Atheist Society to reprint these posters and distribute them on campus for them. They will also be displayed inside the Union’s locked poster boards in order to prevent them being taken down by other students. We respect that all students are able to have opinions, but as a Union we wish to support the promotion and growth of any Union Society or activity without having to be subjected to harassment by fellow students. We remind students that the appropriate response to opinions they may find offensive is to engage in healthy debate respecting the rights of others to hold views or beliefs differing from their own.
https://humanism.org.uk/2014/02/12/london-southbank-university-issue-full-apology-flying-spaghetti-monster-censorship-issue/
PS. Speaking of which, does the British parliament get to vet cabinet appointments? It feels like they should at least be holding hearings to question them before they start the job...
At the next election, voters will want to vote against him rather than his party though the party will of course suffer just as the Conservatives did in 1997 and Labour in 2010 but once that vote has happened and once he is publicly removed, the party can start again, just as the Tories and Labour have done, under a new leader.
Trying to dodge the bullet by getting rid of Nick before the election isn't the point - the voters need to have their opportunity to kick him in the ballots but once the anger has been released, it's done and the new leader can start with a clean slate and begin the process of rebuilding the party's fortunes.
It's possible to argue the same is true, on a smaller scale, for David Cameron. A number of those who will vote UKIP (or not vote at all) will be voting primarily against David Cameron.
And the Admirals one is indeed one of the less well known prizes in the field!
"That does sound an interesting work on the wider issues. The amazon review is robustly on the side of the RN!
I expect that you have read NAM Rodgers excellent work on the Navy : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Ocean-History-Britain-1649-1815-ebook/dp/B002RI9XVK/ref=la_B000APIJRQ_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392592057&sr=1-1
I hope the third volume is as good!
This one is good as well, not least as one of my ancestors features briefly: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Admirals-Andrew-Lambert-ebook/dp/B004MW5FY8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392592560&sr=1-1&keywords=admirals"
It would take some mighty shifts for the libs to lose those two seats....and there's a vocal UKIP presence in Kingston at least - I've seen them campaigning in the shopping centre.
In the opposite direction, Brown's government finally abolished Britain's blasphemy laws in 2008, which were still on the books after years of Blair's Home Secretaries tinkering around with all kinds of related areas, and Thatcher refusing to fix them when the issue came up over the Satanic Verses death threats.
I wonder why?
Ok I think currency union is in Scotland's and rUk's interest, but it takes two to tango and the entire political establishment, 99.99% certain to be RUK's Govt for the foreseeable future disagrees. So today I'm outlining a more "Braveheart" view of independence rather than the "wee timorous mousie" we Nats have been peddling so far 'cos we're scared we won't win over swing voters if we say it as it really is, ie " Sterling's off the cards officially, we'll have to come to an arrangement with the debt with rUK as otherwise they can make life really really difficult economically for us, and only Mr Putin will lend us anything. Europe is fuzzy - we'll almost certainly get back in even if we were out for a bit, but it will take two or three years and involve horse trading a bit, happy Clydeside shipyard workers, will not be welding Royal Navy frigates, as Portsmouth will be kept open instead, and other UK public sector jobs will go south too because stuff that's administered in Scotland for the whole of the UK (bit like the DVLA in Wales so to speak), will get relocated too) rUK students will be foreign (no really) so we'll have to stop charging them tuition fees.
However, not all is bleak, we can set up the Scots Pound after agreeing a two/three year transition with London, (during which time we'll agree to run our budget past them for approval), and if we're responsibly fiscally (no really, really, not just pretending we will be), after a probable little discount devaluation against Sterling we'll probably rub along at about parity, might involve slightly higher interest rates but nothing too scary. This does however, mean we'll have to be careful with a declining oil revenue and make sure we put a bit away for a rainy day, and contrary to expectations public spending won't increase and might have to be trimmed a bit. ( No free unicorns pooing tartan chocolate on every street corner in Airdrie I'm afraid kids). We should really save a bit on defence as we only need a few fishery vessels (not much use for 8% of an aircraft carrier really), and I doubt we'll need sophisticated jet fighters.
There we are, a real independent country, that can pay its way, tailor its public services as it wants and not how those nasty money grabbing so and so's in the Home Counties want, its own currency, friendly relations with England ("a good neighbour, not a surly lodger" I think A Salmond once said).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100259829/ukip-needs-to-do-something-about-its-online-nutters/
Perhaps reports of his political skill have been exaggerated..
17/02/2014 07:57
On the hatefulness of liberal-lefties - or Why I'm joining Breitbart.com breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond… @BreitbartNews
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/02/16/Delingpole-Why-Breitbart
I wonder how long it will take for a Tory government minister to make the next speech in support of their energy baron paymasters - sorry, I mean fracking!
I imagine it'll be very quiet on that front for a while.
Kingston is always a hard one to read - Labour could come back strongly in Norbiton and I wouldn't rule out a Hung Council.
The bitter ranting of the party's supporters on comment threads is profoundly off-putting to UKIP-friendly voters who read politics blogs and are looking for reassurance that this is more than an insurgency.
The kippers on PB are (generally) a more thoughtful lot - I can't recall an instance of "EUSSR" and there's only the occasional "LibLabCon" - but the stringent aroma of bellicose-colonel which wafts from every Telegraph or Mail article on UKIP, the EU, immigration or Islam is profoundly off-putting.
Eastleigh is often mentioned as an example of the LD vote 'holding up', yet it was one of their worst declines, masked by the decline in the Conservative vote.
That in a seat that has an active LD branch, and in a contest supported by the full resources of the national party.