Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour in Newark: Ruthless or wrongheaded?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour in Newark: Ruthless or wrongheaded?
Conventional wisdom says that general elections are won or lost based on the decisions of a few tens of thousands of swing voters across the country’s marginal seats. As an assertion, it was never entirely true – those voters made next to no difference in 1983 or 1997 for example – but in an increasingly fractured party system, the assumptions on which it rests become more and more questi…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
#Newark makes it three consecutive lost deposits at Westminster by-elections for the #LibDems
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14h
#LibDems' GB by-election %-ages since GE 2010 - 9 lost deposits from 16. Only 3 polls higher than 20% #Newark
http://t.co/qMjidIWWTG
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14h
UKIP push LDs in 4th on by-election aggregate after #Newark.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 14h
% of aggregate vote at GB by-elections since GE 2010 (update for #Newark): Lab 44%, Con 18%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%
http://t.co/svsOGLOnjQ
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 ·15h
Bar chart of all Great Britain by-election results since GE2010, updated for #Newark http://t.co/CYFD8A4Zv3
And First for not quoting my own tweets as a comment
There'll be no effort to win votes in the CON-LAB marginals and in many of those the yellows were on 20%+ in 2010.
Aggregate vote shares might be fun to @Sunil_Prasannan but are irrelevant. Why bother? A better equation is, when the election expenses are published, to look at the cost in ££ per vote won. All the LDs did in Newark was put up a candidate. There was no other campaigning apart from the free distribution of one leaflet and my guess is that the cost per vote will be much lower than CON or UKIP. Labour's will be pretty low as well.
It's the seats where you think you are in with a shout and you put in the effort that matter. CON won on Thursday and UKIP lost. The other parties were mere bystanders.
UKIP are the fly in the ungent in that trying to work out where they've picked up, if they've picked up is going to be difficult. Also as the election gets closer the share in polling may diminish as voters concentrate on the core decision etc. Does that drop off occur uniformly or is there a stickiness in certain areas?
I guess the only thing the parties can do is proceed according to current plans until and unless information presents itself to challenge that approach.
My view is that Labour are in big trouble, but that might not entirely be the case for the reasons stated here. What should perhaps worry them most is that when the heat is turned up their support and lead seems to ebb, whilst that of the Conservatives rises. We must remember that there has been none of the normal febrile General Election posturing in this parliament. In previous years we would have endured months of GE speculation: will Cameron go to the polls, or wait for 5 years. It became one of the great rituals of British politics: endless streams of media hype and activity, questions constantly being fired at the leader(s). And all of that of course raised the anticipation in the electorate: the expectation of the need to vote was, if not replacing X-factor and BGT, at least 'there' on the radar. This year, and parliament? Zilch. When Cameron and Clegg brought in fixed term parliaments it extinguished that and, as a result, the electorate simply haven't been thinking about the General Election.
What Labour supporters should be particularly disturbed by is that by around January 2015 that will all change. Suddenly the spotlight will be switched on, and it's then we could see under the reality of the choice before the electorate, the Conservatives surge ahead. I say that based on the economic factors and Labour's legacy, but also Millband as a potential Prime Minister. In my view he simply doesn't have it, and it's that 'he is weird' aspect which I think will see the Conservatives take a lead, and quite possibly a lead to an outright win on seats.
Interesting ConHome piece on the impact of a UKIP MEP in Scotland;
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/05/brian-monteith-ukips-new-mep-in-scotland-is-a-blow-for-salmond-and-a-chance-for-tories.html
As for the LD's they lost their deposit, so in effect they lost all round for any effort. However the cost in moral and prestige adds to their all round misery rate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10882813/Peter-Hain-to-step-down-at-General-Election.html
Only 15 per cent of English and Welsh people who expressed a strong preference want a split, against 55 per cent who want Scotland to stay. Another 30 per cent had no strong opinion.
But the survey suggests fraternal feelings might come under pressure if nationalists win September’s independence referendum. English and Welsh respondents strongly are opposed to sharing the pound with a separate Scotland if this means taxpayers underwriting Scottish banks.
The poll found that 68 per cent of people in England and 59 per cent in Wales opposed an independent Scotland continuing to use sterling while retaining the Bank of England as its central bank and lender of last resort.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5473566a-ed9a-11e3-8a00-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz33vaLPi7z
To win the final battle a commander needs three things: seasoned generals who are not associated with previous defeats and have sound battle strategies (policies); well-trained and battle-hardened troops; and plenty of resources (money).
During the time of the war, it is necessary not to have suffered splits and rebellions in the ranks, dissention among the generals and drop of morale due to losing too many smaller battles.
So it is vital that when the unexpected opportunity for a battle occurs that tactics and strategies are tested, even if the outcome is a strategic withdrawl rather than direct engagement with the enemy.
Finally one needs a lucky commander who has the unwavering support of all his generals and all his troops.
Ipsos-MORI - Scottish Parliament voting intention
Fieldwork: 26 May - 1 June 2014
SNP 39% (+1)
Lab 30% (+1)
Con 14% (-3)
Grn 5% (+3)
LD 5% (-4)
UKIP 4% (+1)
At the last Scottish GE in 2011 the Tories, then led by Annabel Goldie, won 17% of the vote, so it looks like Davidson is going backwards.
'Support for Scottish Lib Dems falls to lowest level'
- Scottish Public Opinion Monitor June 2014 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3390/Support-for-Scottish-Lib-Dems-falls-to-lowest-level.aspx
[Edit] - Cheers Mr H - Insightful as ever.
The SNP claim that Scotland is different is also now proven to be a delusion. UKIP doubled its vote and won a seat, while the Conservative vote is now recovering.
Those two points together must mean that in net gains UKIP took votes from all the other main parties (including the SNP) except for the Scottish Tories.
Labour meanwhile, who still have a better one nation claim than any other party, got the result they must have expected but continue to lose GE momentum.
From an interesting article next to Carlottas: http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/06/how-we-won-newark.html
UKIP won Newark at the Euros just two weeks ago, and there was some ramping last week. Importantly though this was a dress rehearsal. It showed that the Conservatives have more young activists and well drilled central co ordination than seen for a while, that Labour and LibDems are demoralised and demotivated, and that kippers are enthusiastic but amateurish. I think we see the shape of next years election.
Labour are in opposition for the first time since the "80s/90s", it is generally easier for people to say you oppose X,Y or Z than support A, B or C. Vocal supporters of Labour in govt, were expressing something quite different and more likely to translate into a vote.
Labour have always struggled to get it's nominal vote out. If everyone who said they were Labour had voted Labour British politics would have been very different. It will turn out more for the GE than Euros, but the party is still missing that rallying cry.
@Sun_Politics: Roger Helmer: Farage’s Newark absence hurt by-election hopes: http://t.co/iElBgg8mXt
Yup - this is exactly what I have been saying for a while now. UKIP is potentially the best thing to have happened to the Tories in years. But Cameron did help to do it. What he has to do now is to capitalise on the emergence of an angry party to the right of the Tories. Some Republicans in the US may finally be learning that pandering to the tea party gets you nowhere. In the same way, trying to placate UKIP voters is a thankless task because they are generally too furious and alienated to be assuaged. Far more productive may be to focus on voters who previously would not consider the Tories because of their perceived toxicity. For them it's not the economics that is the problem, it's the rhetoric and the perceived lack of compassion in deed. These are both things that the Tories can do a lot about. And Labour would certainly have no answer. If Not Being the Tories ceases to be enough, any hopes that Labour have for 2015 will be done for. And that may, finally, get the party thinking about what it means to operate in and devise policy for the 21st century. Thus, in a funny way, UKIP may also turn out to be a very good thing for Labour too.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/ukip-officially-excluded-from-scottish-referendum-campaign/
UKIP vote in Scotland 10%
UKIP vote in England 30%
Scotland not different?
The recognition that UKIP are the baby eaters, who want to slash taxes and the welfare state and privatise the NHS, makes the Tories look like sensible middle of the road people
But if we did get our act together....
Hopefully exasperation with real world compromises will not be enough.
OGH makes the key point - this is First Past The Post. That means 650 separate unconnected unique elections where you need a majority of 1. National % splits and UNS were never that reliable, and now that the eminent psephologists appear on election night shows admitting their seats forecasting model "doesn't model UKIP" you know its increasingly irrelevant.
Final point. Newark was to the Tories as Eastleigh was to the LibDems. Throwing every asset, every activist, every MP you have into one seat is OK in a by election, but unless you have a Tardis its not something you can repeat at the General Election. In Newark Labour decided to sit back and watch UKIP push hard, and lost 21% of our vote. The Tories spent what I'm sure was a legal amount of money, bussed in every activist and PPC and MP and Cabinet Minister they had every day, and lost 16% of their vote. I'm not sure I find the Tories performance that reassuring on that comparison.
If the Conservatives lose the female vote, they lose. If they win the female vote, they win. And this is now arguably THE decisive shift that is taking place. Thread leader I suggest? Look at this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14065717
It has been said that if women didn't have the vote the Conservatives would have lost every election between 1945 and 1979. When Mrs T won in 1979 they had a 12% lead among women.
And now after a lot of adverse comment about Cameron's attitude to women, there appears to be a shift away from UKIP amongst women, and that final Survation poll should make incredibly good reading for the Conservatives http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/06/06/round-up-of-the-latest-numbers-and-charts-from-this-exceptional-political-period/
UKIP may be returning women to the Conservative fold.
Win women, and you win.*
*A comment about General Elections, not SeanT
I've already nailed my colours on this one - Short term as bad an error in a by-election as has been made in many a decade.
Let us for the sake of debate consider that UKIP didn't exist or that they were a peripheral "Elvis Bus Party" presence. Would Labour then have ceded Newark to the Tories without a fight ? Clearly not. Labour would have fought the seat tooth and claw.
Instead the vocal presence of UKIP and their heady mix of Farage's claim of a continuing "earthquake" in Newark and locally Helmer's media profile effectively chased Labour from the field and we were left with the bizarre position of the principal opposition party and clear second placed party in the seat soft pedalling all the way to a poor third place.
Coming on the heels of extensive internal and public criticism in the Labour party that they had failed to tackle UKIP in the May elections, the Newark by-election provided the perfect opportunity for Ed and Co to hit back hard and quickly.
Labour failed, they retreated without a fight as the "leadership" decided it either couldn't beat UKIP or that the resurgent Conservatives were up for the fight in a way that Labour wasn't prepared to take on. Either way or perhaps a combination of both it doesn't auger well for Ed Miliband in the combination of political battles ahead in the coming year, let alone the electoral war come the full general election campaign.
Newark is symbiotic of Labour's difficulties - A weak leader poorly rated by the public and unable and/or unwilling to get down and dirty in the trenches of the open political warfare that UKIP's has created.
Rarely has an opposition looked weaker within a year of a general election.
London election May 2012:
Con 44.0%
SNP 0
Scottish election May 2011:
SNP 45.4%
Con 13.9%
Oh yes. So similar you could not put a fag paper between them.
I disagree that parties that have little chance (and Labour didn't have no chance - didn't you back them at one point?), should simply forget those seats. Minor parties might behave like that; they might have to if they don't have the resources. Parties that aspire to govern can't.
That's the best you can do?
Ironically, there is a strong case that the SNP strategy of isolating and berating UKIP actually delivered Farage’s party the votes it needed. The SNP attacks fed oxygen to UKIP’s publicity by issuing press releases and tweeting how the choice for voters was between a third seat for the SNP or a win for UKIP. The election figures reveal that the real battle for the last remaining seat was between UKIP and the Greens. Had the SNP called upon nationalist voters to support its partners in the independence campaign then the Greens could have benefitted and pipped UKIP at the post.
The visceral, partisan nature of the SNP could not allow it to see this strategic blunder.
Salmond’s claims about the BBC “beaming down” UKIP coverage are asinine and risible – after all, much of the coverage from the BBC and other broadcasters sought to ridicule UKIP and its politicians. What the establishment politicians just never understood was that the public is sick of their games and often interprets evidence of strange behaviour in UKIP as evidence of real people innocently feeling their way in the game of politics.
If Labour had chucked the kitchen sink at it and then lost, you would have been the first on here to criticise them for that.
Fo example I had always thought that David Laws in Yeovil [which equates virtually with South Somerset] (Ashdowns old seat) was safe. I'm not sure now. The place was a sea of UKIP flags for the Euros and in recent years has elected UKIP councillors.
In the Euro elections http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/660844/south_somerset_declaration.pdf
the results in South Somerset were 1) UKIP: 16786, 2) Tory: 14526. Libs were a poor third on 9736. Turnout was a respectable 39%. That is quite staggering in a place that has returned
Liberal MPs since 1983 and where Laws had a majority of 13,000 in 2010.
The tories only dropped 4,500 votes of the 18,500 votes they got in 2010, with a turnout of nearly half that of the election (39% as against 69%) - noting that the Euros also cover a little bit of Somerton and Frome. Liberals have lost 2/3rd's of their votes, mostly to UKIP who go up from 2,300 in 2010 to 16,800.
The Euro elections tell us that what has been happening has not been a great love of the Liberal party but that as they were the only feasible opposition to the tories they picked up lot of votes which have now vanished. UKIP have split the Liberal vote, not the tory vote, to the great, massive, benefit of the tories.
In Tory/Lib seats the message will undoubtably be that a vote for the Libs will let weirdo Miliband in the back door who will tax you to the hilt and ruin the country in a way that makes what Brown did look like a vicarage tea party.
Ditto tory/lab marginals where UKIP are conveinently eating into the white van man labour vote.
The tories will be aware that all they need to do is hold the seats they won in 2010 and win 30 liberal seats and they have a working majority. Many liberal seats like next door Somerton and Frome where the Lib Majority was only 2,000 over Conservative will be far easier to win.
The 2015 election will be won or lost in rural seats such as Wells, Yeovil, Somerton, Taunton, St Ives, St Austell, Cornwall North, Devon North, Torbay, Mid Dorset, Chippenham, Yate, Lewes, Eastbourne, Norfolk North, Brecon, Westmoreland and Berwick on Tweed, Berwickshire, Abderdeenshire West and Fife North East; along with outer suburban seats in big conurbations such as Solihull, Carshalton, Kingston, Southport, Cheadle, Hazel Grove.
With Labour taking back urban Libdem seats like Brent, this would leave the Liberals with a handful of seats in Northern Scotland and a few uber Liberal places like Eastleigh, Oxford Bath and Cambridge.
Seems UKIP are the biggest threat to the Liberals at the moment.
The bigger question is why Labour were not in a position to make a real fight of this seat.
We are not holding our breaths.
UKIP are a bigger problem for BT than they are for YS.
http://budapesttimes.hu/2014/06/06/confusion-hits-turnout-boosts-euroscepticism/
A substantial body of voters appear to have been deprived of the vote.
Incidentally, it's suggested in the article that there are almost 200,000 Hungarians in London. I doubt that, but if it were true it would make London Hungary's third biggest city, just behind Debrecen.
I'm old enough to remember 11 General Elections and that tired mantra has been tripped out every time, invariably by the side that is losing. It's similar to the other one that 'we're doing better in the marginals than nationally' which cannot withstand a national mood swing, a narrative or meme change. But try telling that to Mike Smithson …
Actually maybe we could have some fun with tired old political cliches. Here's another classic:
'They're all the same anyway.'
I remember that gem being said to me in February 1979 …!
However you seem to forget you are in a worse position having conceded the seat. Not turning up is a sure way of not winning, not being seen to want to win and allowing others the opportunity to do so.
You've allowed the Conservatives to unusually retain a seat, UKIP to retain a huge electoral profile and Labour to retain a position of weakness.
As a plan it had loser written all over it and it that respect it certainly didn't fail.
SNP are the Scottish Snake Oil Peddlers selling Independence as a panacea for all ills
No difference between the two .
The electoral battlefield favours Labour and the consolidation of the lefty vote with the collapse of the Lib Dems is a major concern but the Tories are up for the fight and look ready for it in a way Labour just don't.
I note that us F1 fans have had had to deal with a blackout to a literal channel 3 upgrade in the space of weeks.
Not long till the world cup now though!!!
You are not boring me today PB - however, given our cosmopolitan outlook, May I ask -
What team are you/we supporting?
What you are describing is tactics.
It certainly has a place at a general election. At a by-election, in Labour's shoes as the putative next government, I think they have made a mistake standing back like this. They have ceded an important mantle of primary challenger; they have disrupted any momentum they may have gained pre-summer; they have raised more questions about Milibanjd appeal to middle England.
And for what? They've saved £100,000 and, perhaps, avoided being beaten - again - by UKIP.
Doesn't seem to me to be sensible: there should be a message that they can use to appeal to the resident of Newark and similar places, and effort that they can put in without spending a fortune.
I have much more sympathy for the LibDem strategy: they are in a defensive mode, not looking to be in government in the lead role but keen to maximise the conversion rate of seats contested* : seats won.
* by that I mean seats they fight for, not seats they stand in
It clearly wasn't because the objectives you set failed so clearly - the governing Conservatives both saw off UKIP and comfortably held a by-election seat, UKIP did well enough to come a decent second and Labour slipped to a poor third. When did the main opposition in second place in a by-election last fall back in position and vote share ?
Newark was a by-election banana skin that Labour spotted and then willingly and deliberately stood on in the hope of not falling base over apex - Sadly for Labour Ed Miliband has ended up on his rear looking up in puzzlement as Dave and Nigel stare down with barely concealed amusement.
You really couldn't make this level of incompetence up.
[What team are you/we supporting?]
As a Scot, for perfectly understandable reasons, I will be supporting England.
Bland enough for you? Here's my insider knowledge-
I would have found this easier if-
1) the friendly I watched they showed any indication that they could play football
2) emotional reflexes I have little control over - and anyway, tend to be there for fleeting seconds.
Deciding where to spend resources is strategy. What you do with those resources is tactics.
As you also mention below, UKIP have detoxified the Tories, and Leftist voters seem to be all about keeping out the most baby-eating party, if UKIP have now taken this place it means the Cons will figure into their tactical voting equation where this would not have been possible before. This is completely uncharted territory and will be difficult to predict. It could give some surprise results. Enfield North is one to look out for. A strong WWC voter base that could defect to UKIP from Labour leaving a Con vs UKIP race with some Labour voters opting for Nick de Bois to keep UKIP out.
I very much doubt Labour could have done much worse by actually fighting the seat as opposed to retreating to complete defeat.
Your position appears to be :
It's was all too difficult and those nasty UKIP boys turned up and spoiled our chance of giving the Tories a kick on the shins.
I have news for you. Labour had better shape up and grow a spine otherwise a year from now you'll be resembling William Hague and the 2001 General Election .... or worse !!
To illustrate Mike's point: in order to win in 11 months, I need a net gain of 1 LibDem vote in 17. This assumes that other things are equal - no big Con<->Lab switching, UKIP not damaging Lab more than Con, turnout similar to last time. None of these assumptions are outlandish. The Ashcroft poll suggested I was getting 7 LibDems in 17 (hence, partly, the overall 16-point lead when respondents are prompted to think about the candidates). Similarly, in Sherwood, Labour needs to gain a net 1 LibDem in 15. There are lots of other similar seats. Of course the Tories can win, but the hill is pretty steep.
A fresh point for discussion: the experiment with (almost) fixed 5-year parliaments has proved a failure, hasn't it? - at least in a coalition period. The Government is extending Parliamentary holidays because of a lack of things they can agree to do, and the Opposition has leisurely punted policy ideas around, feeling that anything not announced in the final year will be yesterday's chip paper. There will now be quite a lot of policy stuff from all sides, but really it would have been better all round if Cameron had had a reasonable option to go for a majority earlier. But having 5 years locked in office is very tempting for any government, and I suspect we're stuck with it.
As you're an ex Mp I have to limit what I pick from this.
Let me say that the holiday point has also been made on daily politics - so we have to take it seriously now. It just feels intuitively wrong - and you, well at least I, could never tell from the papers that the problem is bored parliamentarians.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/06/lets-move-to-beeston-nottinghamshire
Politically this is the Lab/Lib heartland, with around a third of the constituency vote depending where you draw the boundary: it has 7 Labour councillors and one LibDem, though there are 5 Tory councillors in adjoining, slightly less prosperous, Chilwell. The balance is made up by two smaller towns (which are mainly Lib/Lab/UKIP) and several villages and large commuter suburbs (which are heavily Tory). It's an interesting mix to try to represent overall.
For £50,000 max, you could run a very credible campaign.
Let's assume that Labour had increased their share of the vote - even if they still came third - by running a cheap but well targeted campaign.
Narrative would have been: we couldn't win anyway because it's a Tory heartland seat, but we've shown we can win over swing voters in middle England. Didn't we do well in Newark (and/or suburbs) - this increases our confidence that we're going to win X, Y and Z seats (e.g. South Dorset someone mentioned previously) in the GE.