Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem incumbency would be overwhelmed on current polling
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dem incumbency would be overwhelmed on current polling
Cockroach-like. That was Tim Farron’s description of Lib Dems’ resilience in withstanding a hostile climate. The inference was that no matter how tough things might be across the country, where they have elected representatives, their vote would hold firm enough.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Excellent article (yet again), David. The cause of the Yellows' problem is simply stated: it's the 2010 election result. As Shirley Williams said at the time, there was no real alternative for them once they'd been invited into coalition (on the back, I believe, of the positive personal chemistry between the party leaders). And junior partners in coalitions get hammered.
Their best bet would seem to be to debate continuing in coalition or withdrawing to "confidence and supply" at their Conference in September. They ought to do the latter, not because it will help them next May, but because the clear yellow water should do so in the longer term. However, that rather depends on some scandal or other blowing UKIP out of the water. Perhaps there could be a book on that!
In 2010 I was derided on here for suggesting the coalition would be dissolved shortly before the election in order to allow differentiation, with the LibDems saying they'd restrained the Tories, and Conservatives saying they'd been held back by the LibDems.
The Tories current polling would see them in opposition or Ukip current polling would have them significantly represented in the HoC.
As for the LibDems the ICM "Wisdom Polling" is as good a guide as any to their likely national polling next year to which I'd add my own projection for a figure of around 14%. Even then a straight analysis is practically worthless without taking into account individual MP incumbency and Hotspot analysis.
PBers need to recall that from Feb74 Lib/LibDem national vote share has rarely has any direct relationship to MP numbers :
Feb 74 - 19.3% - 14 seats
Oct 74 - 18.3% - 13 seats
May 79 - 13.8% - 11 seats
Jun 83 - 25.4% - 23 seats
Jun 87 - 22.6% - 22 seats
Apr 92 - 17.8% - 20 seats
May 97 - 16.8% - 46 seats
Jun 01 - 18.3% - 52 seats
May 05 - 22.0% - 62 seats
May 10 - 23.0% - 57 seats
The trick with LibDem seats is to determine in each seat whether the hotspot remains hot enough to outweigh any other factor.
The citadels of strength most under siege are in Cornwall and the West country; South West London; and even in the rural and mannerly reaches of Scotland. Pockets of resistance may hold out: Clegg in Sheffield Hallam; Cable in Twickenham; Farron in Westmorland; Hughes in Bermondsey; and, the grey councillor in Eastleigh. But what do these disparate constituencies tell us about the identity of the party?
As for a political cause, there is no Iraq war to oppose and little current prospect of military adventure overseas. The EU is tainted with the Euro crisis and the current failure to rise from its ashes, with all media coverage currently about revolt, rebellion and the pan continental rise of the far right. The "party of In" is as currently appealing to voters as a bucket of yellow vomit. Even the Lib Dems pitch to the student and academic population has been compromised by the U-Turn on tuition fees.
So all the Lib Dems are left with is the faintly appealing role of being a force for moderation in coalition government. Even here their task is being made difficult by UKIP detoxifying the Tories; Cameron and Osborne's natural bias towards to the centre ground; and the Labour party committing at the next election, at least in policy promise, to fiscal continence.
And those who flocked to the yellows in protest during the years of Blairite folly are now being lured into UKIP to crush invading foreigners with jackboots.
The Lib Dems won't recover votes until they find a new or refreshed identity which suits the current political environment.
Weak leadership, no ideas, no convictions and relying on legacy support.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.se/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-1.html
http://newstonoone.blogspot.se/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-2-lib_24.html
http://newstonoone.blogspot.se/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-3.html
http://newstonoone.blogspot.se/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-4.html
I also agree with JackW's general approach of looking at individual MP incumbency and hotspot analysis.
What this does mean is that seats where the Lib Dem incumbent is standing down, such as Somerton & Frome, North East Fife or Gordon, look much more vulnerable than one might anticipate from the majorities of the current occupant.
The incumbency effect was neatly explained by Survation in one of the most important blogposts of the year on Lib Dem incumbency:
http://survation.com/so-how-would-changing-leader-work-out-for-the-lib-dems-will-nick-clegg-lose-sheffield-hallam/
This post repays careful reading from start to finish. It also suggests a mechanism under which Lib Dem polling will improve in the final furlong, as voters in Lib Dem held constituencies are reminded of the virtues of their own MP.
Right now I'd guess that the Lib Dems will hold about 30 seats next year.
Has the sun not yet risen in Warwickshire?
It took them decades to build this kind of local power base, and Clegg has destroyed it inside a single parliament. They keep protesting that people don't understand them, or they need to communicate their achievements better, or that they're a moderating force. Their former electorate seem clear - they didn't like to be openly lied to, they don't like the government, and saying they restrained the Tories is saying "we know we shot you dead, but the Tories wanted to shoot more bullets into your corpse so please give us credit for defending you".
Any other party would have removed a leader this catastrophic. Yet the LibDems leave Clegg and his entryist cabal in place. So they deserve all they get, and forget about UNS. Even if you counted national votes cast in a general election towards seats won, they are so badly damaged that I expect even their few remaining pockets of resistance will crumble. As the Oakshott polls showed albeit from a small sample.
Any other party would have removed a leader this catastrophic.
Labour didn't remove Brown and that was despite appalling ratings and more botched coups than the LibDems.
"Millions who backed Ukip 'will choose party' in general election" "Poll suggests vast majority of people who voted for Ukip in European elections will vote for the party in general election"
"The poll, by ComRes suggests that 86 per cent of people who voted for Nigel Farage’s party will do so again next year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10866335/Ukip-vote-in-European-elections-no-flash-in-pan-according-to-new-poll.html
The danger for the Lib Dems isn't necessarily the seats they hold, but those where they were making inroads. The party may find that it not only loses half it's representation but also a major slice of what would have been it's next steps. It could be that in seats with lowest support levels closest to current polling the vote holds firm, in the seats they have sizeable share but don't hold the share drops savagely towards the average and that further up the scale the drop is more in line with UNS and in a few outposts the vote holds up reasonably by which you'd probably see a drop of less than half that indicated by current polling. In such a scenario you might see the party retain a decent number of seats and the possibility of recapturing a few after a decent interval but it would also put an upper limit on their ambitions for a few elections
It really is though impossible to tell what's going on, I think the next election is shaping up to be quite the most fascinating election in a generation. The outcome may be far closer than a 1983 or a 1997 in terms of seats but the effect in terms of ripping up previous electoral geography may be every bit as dramatic.
1983-7 were the key years, certainly in Scotland. That was when the LibDem march to their current highish position began. In Scotland they took themselves out of their fringe, the Northern Isles and Cornwall plus the odd seat here and there. In Scotland they captured seats like Argyll + Bute, Gordon, Ross + Cromarty and NE Fife from the Tories, completing the job taking West Aberdeenshire + Kincardine and Edinburgh West in 1997. Next year we are likely to see loss of incumbency in several of these seats, the only question in each case is to whom?
Those who support FPTP should read and reread Jack W's [7.14] post and then ask themselves: do I really believe in representative democracy?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/30/david-cameron-still-centre-every-political-storm
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
I'm very glad to hear Mr. Day is doing better. If laughter is the best medicine the last week or so will have helped him immensely.
Off topic, then had a deliciously stupid dream last night. I was a Tory MP and we were (quelle surprise) engulfed in a scandal, with one of our MPs reported by Labour for something or other and booted out. So I cooked up the idea of stitching up Balls. However, it turns out he had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to 14 years for ramming his boat into another one and killing everyone on board. Ed Miliband was then leading a parade of the Labour MPs on the beach, and we taunted them with calls of 'where's Balls? Where's the killer?', which to my chagrin ended up losing us the votes of 'intelligent and curious young students'.
Yes, I need help.
For offenders it all gets very messy in the hanging, drawing and quartering department .... mind you you'd be able to see Inverness, Tain, Thurso and Fort William all in one go !!
enduredenjoyed New Kids on the Block last night. Although how they get away with calling a 30-year old troupe of middle aged men "new" or "kids" escapes me.Accurately forecasting the outcome of the next GE is neigh on impossible imho. Given the present climate of four party politics, one thing is for sure however and that is the Lib Dems are in for big loses on the night. - On a brighter note, the Lib Dems will always have Gibraltar..!
It was a most odd dream, though, if hilariously enjoyable in the cold (warm) light of a Norfolk morning.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
1. Why are you doing this now? What's got worse than last year?
Implied truthful answer: because we're about to ask for your votes.
2. If you no longer feel that you can support the government, are you ruling out a renewal of the Coalition after the election?
Answer; Well, no. We'll have to see, it depends on the figures, etc.
In combination, the two questions IMO would kill the differentiation factor and merely make people feel more cynical.
On Newark, replying to various posts: No, UKIP isn't yet doing efficient canvassing and postal vote recruitment, as reports of their campaign make clear - their approach is to have lots of activists and hope for the best. That said, the advantages of GOTV and an efficient ground war are significant but not massive - I'd guess they boost the vote by 2-3%, but they don't do miracles if the voters have had enough of you. The one poll so far does mathematically indicate a possible close race, though equally there could be a huge gap - with probably two more polls coming we should know much more by Monday.
Trying to out UKIP the kippers is a disastrous proposition because the Coke retort invariably follows. Why have that inferior brand when you can have the real thing? Far better to head to the centre and circle the wagons.
Step forward, UKIP.
I shall return to see where the political winds have blown us this afternoon.
Laters peebee peeps.
There are two other factors at play at the next election which are suggest a seat result worse that UNS. First retiring MP's.The incumbency premium disappears.So far the list includes( I think )Menzies Campbell,Malcolm Bruce,Alan Beith,Mike Hancock,David Heath,Sarah Teather and Annette brooks.Now depending on the UNS the majority would be lost anyway on UNS but the chances of holdsin Fife NE,Gordon and Portsmouth S are reduced.
The second problem is the tuition fees backlash. LD MP's Leeds NW,Bristol W,Cambridge Manchester Withington and even Sheffield Hallam may encounter a swing above UNS.
However the key will be UNS driven by the relative vote shares of the parties.here I am more optimistic.A year is a long time in politics.One side effect of being junior coalition partner is that the LD's have been less visible than when they were in opposition where they were asked for their views ona regular basis and were able to put forward a distinctive position.As we get nearer to the GE in 2015 they will have more chance to get across their achievements in government and hopefully clear radical policies such as continuing to increase the personal allowance( I would hope to £15000) which could attract back some deserters to Labour.
The low point is now.In May ICM the top GE polling company in 2010 had the LD's on 13%.I reckon that a 15% ICM figure going into the election is feasible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27630604
However, they've been marooned on about 10% for well over three years, without even the fluctuation that the Conservatives have had. For example, YouGov have conducted getting on for a thousand polls in that time and every one has been in the 7-13 range. Likewise, and as I mentioned in the leader, the recent local and Euro polls are entirely consistent with a 9-10% Westminster national share (and that will take into account local factors). The Lib Dems may receive an election bonus but whether they do will depend to no small degree on whether UKIP are still winning the NOTA, on whether the debates take place again and if so, who's in them.
Ref the vote share / MPs figures, I agree that there's a loose relationship but there are boundaries. There comes a point where it's impossible to lose further vote share without losing MPs as the only votes you have to lose are those which got your MPs elected. For practical purposes, 9-10% is - in my opinion - some way the wrong side of it. They would stand a chance of holding most seats if they could get up to 14-15%. On the other hand, were they to drop further, you'd be looking at the kind of disaster they suffered in Scotland in 2011, without even the compensating factor of regional top-ups.
In fact, that Scottish example is instructive. Although the Lib Dems suffered their worst declines in proportional share of the vote in their worst seats (for example, Glasgow Pollok, where they dropped from 7% to 2.1% - a loss of seven in ten voters), in absolute terms, these were quite small swings. The reverse applied in their best seats (i.e. the ones they held): while they retained a greater share of their former support, the actual swings were bigger than the average. There was a really good analysis published on PBC though I can't find it.
The reverse is also true: there comes a point where you can't gain more votes without starting to win seats, and when you do, it'll be in large numbers. In a three-party system, as it was for the Liberal-SDP Alliance, that's probably around 30%; with four-plus parties, it'll be low-to-mid twenties - some way off UKIP Westminster polling but below their European election scores (which proves the point given how many districts they 'won').
I may be wrong, but from where I stand their best pitch is to be a party that is very pro-private sector, believes in a relatively small, highly decentralised state, and is uncompromising on civil liberties and equality; all bound up in a strong social conscience that goes beyond words and would not countenance measures that actively harm the vulnerable and the voiceless. No vested interests; no alliances (tacit or otherwise) with big business, big finance or big labour; and no compromises on fundamental values.
I suspect that the LDs have learned an awful lot from the last four years. They are going to pay a big price in 2015. But they could well emerge much the stronger a few years down the line. I hope so.
The LDs local election NEV results do suggest a further loss, but surely less than 40%.
2011: 16%
2012: 15%
2013: 13%
2014: 11%
Dunrobin castle must be one of the most inappropriate names ever.
A few decades ago the owner and title holder sent out a begging letter to do restoration work, to the ancestors of those his family had kicked off the land to make way for sheep.
Stillrobin castle?
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/unanswered-questions/#comments
Will Project Fib engage? Don't hold your breath.
Your pathetic use of Project Fear demeans you and is extremely poor from a usually intelligent poster. Use of fake numbers is a pathetic last gasp attempt by Westminster to try and appeal to the base instincts of people.
Hopefully they will fail and people like this will never darken our doorstep again.
It is just a rehash of the lies from the Treasury , they were shot to pieces last week and had people laughing at them.
My beneficence knows no bounds .....
............................................................
Laters .....
You'd have to come up with heroic assumptions (which, as David points out, aren't supported by existing local polls and results) to argue it down to 9%.
You simply couldn't mathematically argue it below 9%.
So - 13% and above and they MIGHT have a lot to play for. 9% and below and it's doom. Between 9-13% (which is where they seem to be hovering) and they're in a twilight zone where the slightest twitch up or down could imply several seats held or lost.
Given the MoE around even the most accurate opinion polls, this makes it incredibly difficult to see through.
Are you going to get down to our part of the world again any time soon? Another evening with you and Mr Brooke would be something to look forward to. We can solve the problems of our Sceptred Isle over a few pints. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland working in harmony to create a better world!!
With no sense of irony at all, @StephenTwigg tells #pac14 Ukip are offering "easy slogans in the midst of the cost-of-living crisis".
Lady Williams told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the issue had been "hugely blown up".
"He was a very decent and loyal member of the party as the chief executive, he did huge amounts for the party," she said.
"And I think his private life... he has already apologised for, and that's fine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27647721
No wonder the Lib Dems have the smallest % of female MPs (of the main 3) with the attitudes of their senior female members. Where is Lynne, Lorely or Annette on this female matter?
LOL, unfortunately not travelling much at all these days, but would love to meet up again. I will do my best and will be in touch if coming down.
Against this why would sane people vote LD if it meant weakening the tories against UKIP and letting in labour. Lib dems may get squeezed as the centre vote to keep out Miliband and are agast at ukips extremism.
The 1950s are rightly regarded as the low point for the Yellows and in national terms, they didn't feature - very frequently quite literally. In 1951, they contested only 109 seats; in 1955, just one more. Even by 1970, they were standing in only half of the constituencies. True, those they did stand in were likely to be those they were strongest in and when the level to retain your deposit was 12.5%, that was a serious consideration.
Even so, while the Liberals' lowest ever share of the vote was about 2.5% in 1951, that's seriously distorts their popularity because of the small number of constituencies they stood in. To get an exact average vote share, you'd have to go through each result but as a rough figure, multiplying up by the ratio of seats existing to those contested, they averaged about 15% where they stood: not too bad.
On that basis, their lowest ever vote per constituency was 12% in 1950 and the next worst 14% in 1970.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10866517/Right-to-be-forgotten-means-old-rules-of-the-Internet-no-longer-apply.html
Found this last paragraph particularly interesting.
"More than half of the UK requests to have information removed have to date come from convicted criminals, with an ex-MP seeking re-election also among the applicants to Google’s new service."
There can't be that many Ex-MPs seeking re-election next year. I wonder which one is embarrassed about their past and trying to cover it up? I am damn sure it is not our Nick as he has always been pretty open about all his activities so I wonder if we can work out which one it is?
On topic, of more concern to the Lib Dems than the voters who've switched to Labour is the number who voted for them last time now saying don't know. I'm also fascinated by how individual MPs might get a different personal vote. Will the likes of Laws and Alexander get treated differently to Hughes and Farron? Alexander's best hope it seems would be in getting Tory tactical votes. How Tories have not yet shown themselves prepared to vote tactically. A bigger point is that despite Clegg moving his party closer to the Tories he has completely failed to win over Tory switchers (more have gone the other way).
However, I am starting to wonder whether they really could be heading 10% or lower and may be facing near oblivion?
The local elections weren't quite as bad as most recent local elections, so that does kind of back up the idea that the GE might not be quite as bad as expected, but then again the European elections and subsequent blood-letting has been very, very bad.
Let me add a little fire and sparkle by going off thread.
"Meriam Ibrahim: Sudan death sentence condemned by UK leaders" flash the headline on the BBC web-site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27646747
Cammo and Co call the goings on barbaric. When oh when will somebody besides Kippers get the gumption to tell the truth and shout out loud that Sudan is itself barbaric. That many countries with a muslim majority, especially around the Horn of Africa, are barbaric in their laws and customs, and their level of civil discourse is the rock and the stone, when they haven't got an AK47 to hand.
My wild stab in the dark is Helen Clark nee Brinton
"A former MP seeking re-election and a convicted paedophile have already applied to Google to have details of their past removed from search"
If the name does come out it will look very bad for whoever it is being put in the same bracket as convicted paedophiles and other assorted criminals.
@craigawoodhouse: Uncomfortable silence at #PAC14 as @YouGov president Peter Kellner sets out all the reasons why Labour can't win next year.
Does this mean Dan The Man has been right all along!!!!!
In any case I'm a bit sceptical about it working - say someone has a terrible expenses record, surely the opponents will remember even if Google blots out the references? And will the memory-blanking work for all the other search engines like Bing etc. too?
I would guess that said Ex-MP will suffer a mega Streisand effect. If they do get selected to fight a seat, the associated negative publicity will blow their chances out of the water
PS Is this case now over and definitive, or is it something that can be appealed somewhere else or reversed by legislation?