Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Blairites like John Rentoul have got to stop looking at
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Blairites like John Rentoul have got to stop looking at GE2015 through the prism of 1997
There’s no doubt that Tony Blair’s GE1997 victory, coming as it did after four election defeats over the previous 18 years, was a stunning success. Blair did it by reinventing his party so it would appeal to large swaithes of voters who never before had done anything other than vote Tory.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Why not? How can we separate "buyers' remorse" from "Ed fandom"?
I guess all the polls on "better leader than Ed" have been total base, so the Lib Dem> Lab subset far too small to be meaningful?
1 day 2 hours 3 minutes 4 seconds
http://rt.com/uk/172464-uk-police-cia-rendition/
I don't think it's too cynical to assume that were David Miliband currently leading the opposition, the government would have worked out a way to dry out some of these water-damaged files.
In fact, if you look at the first sub-column, it tells you precisely where the campaign is going: although more than two-thirds of Con-to-UKIP switchers are dissatisfied with the job Cameron is doing (and I'm surprised it's not higher - surely by definition, switchers are dissatisfied with the party they've left?), still he leads Miliband by 85-9 among that group.
They feel cheated and angry and it will be very hard for the Lib Dems to get them to vote tactically again. But in many seats the only gainers from that will be the tories.
Much more important will be those who voted Lib Dem in seats Labour are competitive in, particularly seats Labour lost like Broxtowe. If Labour can squeeze the Lib Dems in seats like this they will gain MPs but I suspect the enthusiasm levels of these Lib Dems for Labour is much lower than those who lent their vote and got cheated.
These are people like Southam who consider themselves vaguely lefty but found it impossible to vote for the economic incoherence of Brown. Ed really needs to find an economic policy to tempt these voters and he had not done so yet. If the Lib Dem vote recovers (big if) many of these will drift back.
379 switching from Con to Lab or LibDem. Out of 26,025. And half offset by 194 LibDem to Con.
And of the 985 Con to UKIP - only 77 are so pissed off they'd prefer Ed Miliband as PM to Cameron....
Ed is no Blair but I agree with OGH that the current leadership of the tories are no Major either. He could reach tranches of the electorate that seem beyond the tories reach at the present time just as Blair could reach tranches beyond Ed.
2015 will not be a re-run of 1992 but it will be interesting. There are a lot of votes up for grabs who will be struggling to be enthusiastic about anyone.
The reluctance to accept past mistakes and to seriously grapple with the hard choices to be made is a complete turnoff to this group and Ed's failure to restore Labour's reputation can be measured by these tiny numbers of converters.
Most of the tory losses are to UKIP. If they still feel the same about the economy there is a good chance that these voters will come back to the tories where it matters. Both of these factors gives room for optimism for the tories but Labour do start with some formidable advantages. I still make them favourites.
Could they not be 'less loyal' in seats where it matters?
OGH asks us not to go on hunch but to go on the evidence. Is that evidence a bunch of polls which like YouGov swing about more than a pogo stick?
The evidence is:
Local elections 2014, Labour badly underperformed by everyone's expectations
Euro Elections 2014, had Labour not bucked the trend in London, the Tories would have ended up with both more votes and seats. Labour still managed only to beat the main government party by 1 seat and 1% of vote. By contrast in 2009 the Tories had almost double the Labour votes and seats.
By-elections week in and week out, we are seeing Labour pick up the odd one here or there. It is not winning consistently or well. Last weekend we even saw a swing to the Tories in Cheshire in one seat it managed to hang on to.
Newark, we saw the party supposedly heading for government retreat to a bad 3rd place in a seat it won in 1997 (albeit on different boundaries)
In short out there in the real world there is little or no evidence Labour is heading for a victory next year. Ed Milibland is Michael Foot Mark II
Come to think of it, the whole package of personal abuse was probably drawn up with David in mind.
Another group are Kippers who want to punish Cameron for not getting our borders under control and stopping Johnny-foreigner eating our swans - even if, bizarrely, it will put in place a Labour party that oversaw such a massive increase in the UK population. But their punishing of Cameron is not of this logic-based universe.
Another huge group are 2010 Tories, who still want to punish Labour for fecking things up so badly 1997-2010 (and every other time they have had power).
Yet another huge group are forever Labour voters, who want to punish Tories just for breathing.
And another large group are those who will look at things and - whilst not delighted with the way things are - will acknowledge that the Coalition have by and large fixed the economy and so don't see a reason to get off their arses and punish them. Whether they will get off their arses and vote to stop Ed Miliband breaking it again - that's the unknown for 2015. My instinct says enough of them will.
JR: - “Provoked by Mike Smithson and his commenter Edmund in Tokyo, I return to the subject of what would have happened had David Miliband won the Labour leadership in 2010. I have said before that the party would have been in a worse position, because the naive left would have reacted badly to being led by another warmongering neocon capitalist.”
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/06/21/that-david-miliband-what-if-updated/
And what is it with this North London thing? Why does adding that before intellectual make it so much worse?
Mike has also emphasised that the LibDems will circle the wagons for the GE 2015. Seats like Cambridge or North Norfolk or Colchester will receive all the funding, all the nearby activists will swarm into them, the leaflet and the poster war will be fought there, and so on.
I think seats like Ipswich (8556 LibDem votes) or Bedford (8957 votes) will see almost all their LibDem vote vanish.
That is what happens when there are no leaflets, no activists, no visibility -- because all the East Anglian LibDems have been sent to Cambridge or North Norfolk or Colchester.
In 2010, I think almost all the LibDem vote will vanish in seats other than the targets. Not just the left-leaning part (which has already gone). The right-leaning part will go Tory, and some LibDems will stay at home. Why go to the polls to vote LibDem in a constituency when there is so little visibility from the LibDems on the ground ?
And in fairness, there is one howling lesson of the byelections of this Parliament.
LibDem lost deposits. Almost all the LibDem vote goes, not just the left-leaning part.
That is why I don't believe Mike Smithson's argument.
However, a vote share in the mid-thirties seems to be as good as it can get for either of the big two.
"Who do you expect to perform better in the TV debates?" might also be interesting. Or, alternatively, the preference for Cammo is simply based on an expectation that he'll wipe the floor with Ed during them.
FWIW I suspect all four - including that Kipper whose name escapes me - will put people off. They are all public schoolboys, after all.
I think in answering opinion pollsters people respond in the abstract as opposed to their own private reality. They give responses which reflect the talking heads on the Beeb and C4. They want to come over as informed rather than parochial. By contrast in 1997 the weight of opinion was so strong that this abstract swung over into reality for many voters - although nowhere near as many as the polls suggested. Would the Tories hold 100 seats was a question at the time.
David Cameron must not take the electorate for granted: their faith in him is fragile but as yet unbroken. He is the first PM since Churchill not to be hated and or ridiculed by his opponents. He is within a grasp of a working Tory majority but it is he, not his opponents who will see whether this comes about or not.
Not long to Hockenheim. Susie Wolff gets a second go in the Williams during P1, not sure if it'll be Bottas' car again (I'd guess Massa's, to make it even). Williams have got to aim to beat Mercedes. Not sure whether FRIC suspension has been officially banned yet, or the relative impact on the teams if it is.
Another thing I'd like to see polled is Tory voters asked if they believe that. Outside of the Party membership, I doubt many do. Everyone on (or off) this site who has strong political beliefs is perceived as a weirdo by normal people.
He clearly needs to move up from low/mid 30s to nearer 40%. I suspect there are things he could push that will resonate both with the electorate and with Tory core values. Some themes:
1. Significant Devomax for Scotland with full tax powers. (Tory fortunes in Scotland can only really go up and this would put alot of pressure on other partied to do likewise).
2. Recognise England. EV4EL or English Parliament as part of a federal (and equal) arrangement between UK as a whole and the 4 countries. (I suspect this would be VERY popular in England).
3. Keep pushing personal financial freedoms (such as the budget move on pensions / killing compulsory annuities and make things better for savers).
4. Some red meat, anything, but genuinely ‘wow they mean it’ on the EU. If Dave can persuade Juncker / Brussels to accept a two speed EU in return for his full support on an ever closer Eurozone core – well the Kippers would love a two speed offering (benefits of ‘In’ without the nannying / democratic deficit of Eurozone bullying or potential losses of ‘Out’). We’d be effectively out but nominally in.
5. Keep it up on school freedom.
6. Meaningful red meat on immigration. Maybe a points system of ‘desirable vs undesirable’ immigration. Less PC than today. Canada and Australian examples are pretty solid and allow selection.
7. Continued squeeze on benefits cheats / limits on benefits. This combined with reduced taxes on the working poor. Make the difference in financial return from working vs benefits lifestyle much more beneficial to those who work.
Any views on what would be genuinely popular?
Come 2015 and a moribund LibDem Party, I can see a sizeable chunk of that right-leaning LibDem vote going Tory to stop an Ed Miliband-led Govt.
I actually think 2015 will not be a four party election, but a two and two-half party election.
Assuming they are going to unveil it?
Should be completely irrelevant, but I fear for some, is not.
He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the hair dryer controls the past.
2 -- England -- I'm not sure the English feel very strongly about this, especially once the Scots have voted "no", and it will be tricky to do without alienating Wales, where, let's remember, there are several Conservative MPs defending their seats.
3 -- financial freedom -- probably, but be careful not to undermine "we're all in it together".
4 -- two-speed EU -- yes (and about the only formulation that will not split the party)
5 -- schools -- all the polling evidence is that voters despair of Gove and all his works, although probably this is mainly because of the mess he has made of school places.
6 -- immigration -- it is too easy to reignite the "nasty party" meme -- "are you thinking what we're thinking?" did not work last time they tried it.
7 -- benefits -- dangerous because while people hate scroungers in the abstract, they are sympathetic to those who need a helping hand. See 6.
Can I just say that Farage is a tactically outstanding politician, and his floating this balloon is a classically brilliant example of this.
The aim of this 'hint' is two-fold: Firstly, sow disarray among the Tories by getting them to argue over an offer that does not exist. There will be a great many senior, Eurosceptic, Tories who see this as a chance to (a) neutralise the effect of UKIP, and (b) bring the Conservative Party nearer to UKIP's stance on many issues. In addition, this enables UKIP to 'dog whistle' to many in the Shires and many UKIP-sympathisers that 'we too are a party of the right', and that supporting UKIP is the best way to bring the Conservative Party into line.
Cameron cannot, of course, enter into a pact with UKIP. Not least because it's not a serious offer. Farage does not want a pact with the Tories because it would frighten many of the more recent Labour converts. (I can see the Labour advert now: 'Vote Conservative, get Tory; vote Liberal Democrat, get Tory; vote UKIP, get Tory.')
And Cameron could not enter into a coalition, because what could he offer? What seats would he have to give up? And what seats would he get in return? And what advantage is there to validating an existential threat to the Conservative Party? More narrowly, as the Liberal Democrats on 7% would likely have more MPs than UKIP on 14%, the possibility exists that Cameron would be reducing the range of coalition options post election. (And a UKIP-Conservative pact might reinvigorate the LibDem left, by de-facto ruling out the possibility of a Conservative-LibDem coalition after the election.)
So, Farage can make the hints, safe in the knowledge that the Conservative Party cannot take him up.
Excellent analysis from Mike.
Polling vs Blairite columnist anecdote.
So you can understand why some Labour supporters see Blair as the benchmark.
If I were Osborne, I would be inclined to give a great big bribe to students. Say the Govt. will waive the first 10,000 pounds of loan repayments as they fall due. In practical terms, it pushes the pain on national finances off over the horizon in many cases - but takes away a worry from our graduates.
"The graduates from our universities and colleges are our means to secure this nation's prosperity in future decades. Many of them have had to bear a heavy burden to assist the country out of the economic woes inflicted by the last Govt. But today I am pleased to announce this Govt. will greatly reduce that burden placed upon them...."
1. Increasing the NMW in the autumn statement.
2. Really committing to a major transport investment in the north west, forgetting about HS2 for the time being.
3. Moving on IDS and getting someone in DWP who can actually get things moving with the focus on making work pay.
4. Breaking up the major banks.
5. Using tax breaks such as allowing more than 100% relief on new investment and training to encourage domestic business.
6. Accepting and declaring that removing the deficit is going to involve higher taxes for the better off as well as cuts in spending.
It's to say he's not really like the rest of the electorate
North London can be very nice and is certainly a lot nicer than it was 20 or 30 years ago. But it is also home to many of the most deprived parts of the country. Anyone brought up there and educated in the state system is going to be very aware of that.
Sounds like a PB Tory worst nightmare.
There will be lots of LibDems who insist on fighting in their own patch over the next year rather than travelling to one of the 50 or so key seats they are defending. These LibDems will be keen to help bolster the chances of their remaining local LibDem councillors and they can only do that by putting up a decent, if modest campaign for next year. As they are spending their own money in their own time, appeals from the centre to go to the aid of Norman Lamb etc are likely to fall on deaf ears.
Norman Lamb, David Laws, Jeremy Browne and others should be brokering a deal with Cammo to join the Tory party. That is their best route to keeping their political careers alive.
FFS.....
Indeed. Islington remains one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, in parts. Not that you would believe it from the way it is profiled.
Anyway as mentioned before I think, dealing with Farage would put off all the people who might otherwise vote tory in a seat to keep labour out and put off people in LD/Tory marginals, indeed put off everybody (90+% of the electorate) who hate UKIP.
Where we differ slightly, is the ‘soggy document theory’ – this shameful period during Labour’s tenure is well documented I believe, but it would be the likes of the Guardian leading the vanguard to expose it.
People generally are nice when they avoid the class warrior/smash the joneses BS
I think it is code for leftish politics.
If these posters weren't referencing Jewishness then I'm sure North London isn't a Jewish smear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4223091.stm
And
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4217009.stm
It's the same with "Oxford academic" somehow seeming even less worldly than "academic"
There are quite a lot of Lib Dem votes in Con-Lab marginals. For example, in my "Four to Forgo Forgetting", the Lib Dem share of the vote (with change on 2005) is:
Kingswood: 16.8% (-1.2)
Pendle: 20.2 (-3.0)
Vale of Glamorgan: 15.2 (+2.0)
Harlow: 13.7 (+0.7)
So, some up and some down, but the ~one-third of the vote that Labour is taking from 2010 Lib Dems amounts to >5 percentage points in the first three of those marginals, enough in the case of Kingswood to give Labour the seat, and put them very close in Pendle and Vale of Glamorgan.
It then takes only a relatively small number of Con-UKIP swing voters to hand Labour those seats.
I think the Conservatives will have to convince quite a few Labour 2010 voters to support the incumbent government if they are going to deny Miliband.
Or that's one problem. The other one is that as polled, a Con-UKIP pact seems to drive a bunch of voters away from Con.
<blockquote class="UserQuote">
In 2010, I think almost all the LibDem vote will vanish in seats other than the targets. Not just the left-leaning part (which has already gone). The right-leaning part will go Tory, and some LibDems will stay at home. Why go to the polls to vote LibDem in a constituency when there is so little visibility from the LibDems on the ground ?
And in fairness, there is one howling lesson of the byelections of this Parliament.
LibDem lost deposits. Almost all the LibDem vote goes, not just the left-leaning part.
That is why I don't believe Mike Smithson's argument.
Have a look at the "forced Con vs Lab choice" figures in the polls for CURRENT LibDems. Depending on how the question is put, they're broadly evenly divided. It's a mistake to think that the remaining supporters are right-wing. And to be fair I doubt if they're really up for grabs by anyone - someone who is loyal to the LibDems today after all the criticism is really not going to switch.
What do you make of the Ed is Weird stuff? Comfortable with it?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgrefurl=http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2005/02/posters_doodles/&tbnid=sGIIoHBy0DQZhM:&docid=MIGB9pAyUM9wiM&h=250&w=500
There is already major transport investment in the North - The Northern Hub. The Liverpool Manchester line is already being electrified. Osborne has already announced a proposal for even more transport links to unify Manchester Bradford Leeds Sheffield. HS2 is still years off, electrification of Liverpool Manchester will be complete by December 2014.
I would be interested to know what DavidL means by higher taxes for the better off - VAT has already gone up and in the main is on items which cover discretionary spending. Its broadly accepted i think that higher rate PAYE does not raise much if any extra money and leads to the widespread tax avoidance schemes by the rich which have been in the news recently.
1. They don't like sun?
2. They don't like Islington?
3. They don't like women?
4. They don't like shopping?
5. They don't like family?
6. They don't like lunch?
7. They don't like nice people?
8. They don't like people from other parts of the world?
Just what are you accusing a lot of people that post on this website of?
Same way Dave should embrace the out of touch Toff jibes.
At least the Tories never ran a by election focussing on Ed's weirdness like the way Labour tried to make the Crewe and Nantwich about Dave's background.
No argument about the Miliband / Foot comparison though. Miliband has the down-to-earth pragmatism of Foot and the gravitas of Neil Kinnock. His prospects as PM would be comparable.
Labour didn't withdraw the posters or apologise.
Utterly beautiful place.
Why should he have stood down just because his big brother wanted to run?
David had his chance and bottled it.
8. They don't like North London.
I have lived there and I know there are rough parts too but in the main it is a beautiful part of the world
The problem labour has is when people like @Bobafett confuse upper st, which is a great place to spend time in because of its diverse mix of culture with places like Barking which is a crap place to live for the same reason
The idea that all diverse multicultural places are like upper st is the reason north London means 'out of touch'... It's like Champagne socialism in the 80s
You haven't met him, I'd guess.
In person, he isn't actually weird in the slightest.
Very normal and affable. More so than most other politicians I have met.
Nick Palmer: "And to be fair I doubt if they're really up for grabs by anyone - someone who is loyal to the LibDems today after all the criticism is really not going to switch."
Look at any by-election. In Newark, the LibDems ran a low-key campaign, much like they will run in anything that is not a target seat.
All the LibDem vote went.
Mike wrote an article on Aug 9th 2013 suggesting that the number of LibDem lost deposits will be in the hundreds.
If there are to be hundreds of lost deposits, there is more for the LibDems to bleed.
NP: "Have a look at the "forced Con vs Lab choice" figures in the polls for CURRENT LibDems. Depending on how the question is put, they're broadly evenly divided. It's a mistake to think that the remaining supporters are right-wing."
Most of the LibDem held seats were taken form the Tories. Some of those voters would have once voted Tory.
Right-wing is probably not the right term, centrist is probably be better.
Very briefly.