Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My anaylsis of 100+ polls shows that the 2010 LD voters who
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My anaylsis of 100+ polls shows that the 2010 LD voters who’ve switched to LAB are sticking and that’s bad news for the Tories
In a broad-ranging interview just published Britain’s leading political scientist, Professor John Curtice made these observations about Labour’s polling position and GE2015.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Irrelevant.
The question is whether they will continue to stick, right up to and including the next general election. My gut instinct says they won't, for the same reason that they voted Lib Dem in the first place: They didn't want, and don't want, a Labour government. When it comes to the crunch, the idea of Ed Miliband as PM will scare them so much that their elbows will fall off and their feet will turn into pumpkins.
The 2010 LDs who gone to LAB look as though they will remain.
Brown is gone, my vote has returned to Labour as I am much more comfortable with what I see with Milband than with Brown.
I suspect there are many in a similar position as myself, my only thought though are those Lib Dem->Labour 'stickers' primarily focused in places that do not really matter much anyway? Places like where I live where a goat with a red rosette would win?
Will probably wait and see who the new candidate is first.
If it's Boris, I may even rejoin the party.
The Lib Dems benefitted massively in 2010 from an anti-Brown vote with many ex-Labour voters showing their dislike for the leader of the day, the toxic Brown is gone, the Lib Dems are now far more toxic after 4+ years implementing Tory policies, I see that ~25% as those ex-Labour voters returning back to where they would have been pre-2010 anyway.
"Figures from the Safer London Foundation reveal that more than 500 young women were victims of gang-related sexual violence in the past year, a figure Hubberstey describes as just the "tip of the iceberg"."
If the media and political class hadn't lied about the inner city gang culture when it first started c. 40 years ago it would never have got as bad.
Most council bosses have defied government demands for pay restraint by handing out huge salaries while cutting services.
Around 61 per cent of councils paid their biggest earners more than the Prime Minister, who receives £142,500 a year.
The highest salary was thought to be the £318,500 paid by Somerset County Council – which is cutting jobs and services to save £18million – to Peter Lewis, director of children’s services.
Since 2011, six out of ten councils have raised its highest paid official’s salary - despite calls for belt-tightening as the economy begins to recover.
It will raise concerns that public sector bodies still ‘do not get’ the need to rein in profligate spending as Britain continues to drag itself out of recession.
Among the highest-paying 20 councils, only five reduced their top salary after ministers called for more austerity.
Other councils that bumped up their top salary included Wandsworth Council in south-west London from £174,271 to nearly £216,000 – more than £41,000 – and Birmingham by almost £13,000 to £212,000.
Labour-controlled Stoke-on-Trent City Council, meanwhile, approved a £5,000 salary increase for chief executive John van de Laarschot on the day it agreed to slash £21million from services.
The official who dressed as Superman to abseil down a building for charity, saw his pay increased to £195,516 – part of an overall package including perks and pension worth £232,000.
Dave Conway, leader of Stoke’s opposition City Independent group, said: ‘We’ve lost swimming pools, libraries and old people’s homes. I don’t know how the council can justify paying one man all this money at the same time.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2699482/Councils-cut-services-not-salaries-Two-thirds-ignored-Governments-pleas-pay-restraint-reduced-spending-libraries-retirement-homes-instead.html#ixzz384f9ZfNk
26 hours 22 minutes 18 seconds
If they have switched away from the Lib Dems since 2010 - not surprising, since the Lib Dem brand has been contaminated by the Tories, even as the Conservative brand has been enhanced by the LibDems- the real question is surely: what attempts have the Lib Dems made so far to win them back?
I suspect that the answer is, at best, patchy.
That said, even the best council chief executives cannot make much difference without political support from the leader, ruling group/s and - to an extent - their senior colleagues.
Now those people are gone, the LD’s have got mixed up with the Tories and, to those ex-Labour voters, some very unacceptable attitudes if not overt policies, and Kennedy is gone, too!
One stat mentioned the other day however was that only a small proportion of the electorate (31?) think he will be PM. Now, it may be that the 6-8% of the electorate that are the ex-LD switchers are well within that 31% and so know full well the consequences of what their collective vote means (and the general sub-polling suggests that they're particularly motivated to vote so that would support such a conclusion). But even if a larger than average proportion is, or if some of those who aren't don't care if Miliband does become PM, not all will be so.
One other (related) reason why they might switch back away from Labour is that a decent proportion of them are naturally oppositionist - they're people more inclined to vote against something rather than for it. This is a problem for them as they undoubtedly want to vote against both government parties, which implies Labour, but they won't necessarily want to give the new government a mandate either. Which instinct will win out? As we're talking about many people, both will: some will stay firm but others will switch, whether to abstentions, minor parties or even back to the LDs.
Finally, there's the campaign itself. Campaigns can and do move votes.
So, three reasons. They won't necessarily be enough. They may barely matter at all. but I wouldn't ignore them at this stage.
FWIW, I'm torn. The polling evidence is so contradictory. As Mike rightly says, Labour is in a very strong position. On the other hand, Miliband is held in contempt by much of the electorate, including many Labour 2010 voters (a significant section of the electorate for him). The economy is recovering but also dropping down the 'issues' index. No party has won, being behind on leader and economy ratings; parties rarely increase their vote share in office. As a result, it's very easy to select the evidence to fit a conclusion already formed rather than the other way round, simply because it's easy to make a plausible case either way. I think it's right that Miliband is odds-on to be next PM. I also think that if he does, Labour will be polling in the teens in 18-24 months and it's possible Labour might never recover.
ICM April LD 26 Lab 21 DK 25
ICM May LD 31 Lab 14 DK 30
ICM June LD 21 Lab 25 DK 15
ICM July LD 25 Lab 15 DK 38
Still the Gold standard? Maybe, but its not just the spiral of silence adjustment that is making the difference in their numbers for the Lib Dems and Labour. The lower the don't knows, the better for Labour it seems, which would suggest that as they eventually unravel nearer the election the LD figure with ICM will go down to the level of other pollsters, but being 3:2 and more than 2:1 ahead of Labour amongst 2010 LDs seems well out of line with other pollsters, who have the 2010 LD subsample with a mixture of Labour and LDs ahead, but not by more than 10 points each time.
Assuming it was not Brown's own idea, which pillock advised him? Peter Mandelson, Damian McBride, Ed Miliband?
It is why EM is likely to be the next PM, and why the shrewdies aren't laying him, even at odds-on.
Assuming the yellow-reds have voted Labour consistently since they were 'betrayed' by the Lib Dems actually entering government then it is indeed a great boost for Miliband.
Not long at all until Hungary. Usually no safety car there, and Hamilton tends to like it. Typically hard to overtake, but often this year the significant speed differences and tyre degradation has seen more overtaking (even at a circuit like Bahrain).
Populus April LD 35 Lab 25 DK 18
Populus May LD 30 Lab 23 DK 20
Populus June LD 30 Lab 20 DK 22
Populus July LD 27 Lab 26 DK 18
ICM April LD 26 Lab 21 DK 25
ICM May LD 31 Lab 14 DK 30
ICM June LD 21 Lab 25 DK 15
ICM July LD 25 Lab 15 DK 38
Did their change of support heavily impact on the Euro elections -no.
Did their change of support heavily impact on the Council elections - no.
Is there evidence that their change of support is causing major upsets in council by-elections week in and week out - no.
Maybe I am missing something but with the exception of the pollsters frothing as they watch one another fiddling with their turnout filters and spirals of silence, nothing seems to be changing much beyond the normal practice of politics.
We are all agreed the LibDems have lost lots of support since 2010 and seem stuck around 10% in the real elections though they do better in some areas where they have been strong since 1987, the beginning of their rise to "3rd party player" status. There is little movement between Tories and Labour anywhere.
What we don't really know and wont know until May next year is whether everything else from the rise of UKIP to the appeal of the Greens to NOTA voters is simply protest.
The answer is to bring this group back in with the rest by reinstating national bargaining arrangements consistent with all local government staff and remove the elitism, and tackle the other abuses marketisation has brought about,including revolving door links with the private sector.
How many identical twin brothers do you have
Just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
The coalition demonstrated that the LDs are not a safe protest vote. So the vote is simply going home.
Absent a knowledge of how they are distributed what can one really say?
Kinnock 1992 ?
If Labour get 34.4% of the vote this time, they win.
This is because Miliband in Downing Street will lose vast chunks of support if he sticks to the coalition's spending plans and equally vast (but different) chunks if he doesn't.
Ed-will-never-be is supposed to be a Tory jibe, but losing next year might actually be Labour's best chance for survival in the medium-term. Even that is arguable: there are three right-of-centre voters to every two who are left of centre and that ratio is increasing in the Tories' favour every day, as race replaces class as the primary source of political cleavage.
The fact is that no major party wants to be suspected of sharing any of UKIPs views. In the same way that having the BNP inside your tent is not a benefit.
Such a bull argument.
ICM Aug 86 - Lab + 6 .. Result Jun 87 - Con +11
ICM Jun 91 - Lab +10 .. Result Apr 92 - Con +8
Ooppps
That doesn't mean things are in the bag for Labour, since the 2010 Labour vote includes people who vote Labour out of habit, because they're not too busy on the day, etc. They aren't tempted to vote Tory, but they could easily stay at home. That's why so much of the Labour strategy is ground war: we need to identify them precisely and get out next May. If in a process we win some converts, that's great, but it's not really the key factor.
Part of the Tory vote is just the same, which is why the lack of a Tory ground game in most of the marginals is going to be a problem for them. There are limits to what you can do with glossy direct mails from Birmingham.
May I ask Gert do you have a Daisy ?
Compare that with the 63% of CON voters in same poll who said they were satisfied with Cameron.
1) The polls, if they are roughly replicated next May, would suggest that actually no one party will have done well enough to form a majority government, a minority government, or a two-party coalition with the Liberal Democrats/Nationalists/DUP. In fact, it's not totally impossible that for the first time since 1910, the two leading parties could end up equal in terms of seats.
2) What would happen then - and I'm asking particularly people who've been there and have inside knowledge, like Nick Palmer? Is there any chance/danger (take your pick) of a grand coalition between the Conservatives and Labour? And if so, what would the impact be on the parties' supporters given how polarised their rhetoric has become (although frankly as a swing voter I don't see a vast difference between the meaningful elements of their programmes in practice)?
Just a nagging concern I have in light of all the uncertainty.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2699746/Welcome-Beverly-Hills-Britain-Surrey-residents-pay-tax-head-Britain-corporation-tax-Google.html
It reminds me of that scene in Prince Caspian where the dwarves have recruited a few of their Old Narnian mates to the cause. Unfortunately, while authentically Narnian, they are quickly IDed as hags and werewolves, and despatched.
The perception of being a discreditable fellow-thinker makes BNP support toxic to UKIP, and also makes UKIP support toxic to the Tories. Interestingly, however, the reverse is not true. UKIP actually think having people from the other parties on board makes them more rather than less respectable, and confers a sort of vicarious respectability on them.
It's a funny old world when Neil Hamilton can go from the Conservatives to UKIP and in so doing improve the perceived integrity of both parties. Says it all really.
One other noteworthy little morsel to chew over is that since WWII no Labour opposition has improved its vote share in its first election after losing office.
Something has to give .... and you have to say that Ed is the gift that just keeps on giving.
That said, these voters do not have two votes. They have one. So if they are not going back to the LDs from where they now are, then this makes a "less than 30" LD MP forecast more of a reality. Afterall UKIP are a better home for protest votes than the LDs now are. The Greens are also a more attractive home for leftie environmentalists than the LDs now are. Likewise the Conservatives for sound economics and welfare reform.
This article is actually more bad news for the LDs, yet it is written as bad news for just Cameron. It is also very bad for the LDs.
That's the way.
I know half a dozen people with very similar recent patterns and I think John Loony is in for a bit of a wake up call if he thinks that those voters are going to be scared off by Ed M. I think what he is failing to understand is that the majority of people who switched from Labour to Lib Dem between 1997 and 2010 did so because they thought the Lib Dems were more left wing/ radical than Labour. Clegg and Coalition laid that to rest for a generation, I doubt many of us will be terrified at the thought of Ed as PM
Head v heart on cricket today - just the 219 - only takes one stand...
Head says 175 ao.
Davey let slip the forecast while speaking at a conference organised by the left-leaning Lib Dem Social Liberal Forum group in Shoreditch, East London, on Saturday. His comments offer an insight into the strategic thinking of the party leadership as May 2015 draws near.
m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5602547?1405930063&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Why should I go out and vote for a Labour Party that won't change anything?
Won't axe free schools.
Won't raise public spending.
Won't reverse the majority of benefit changes.
Won't do anything differently to the current government on immigration, certainly not from the EU.
Won't renationalise the rail industry, let alone power, water, or anything else.
Never has the range of views on offer between the main three parties been smaller.
I originally wrote "to abstention" and then deleted it to simplify the post. Whilst I do think that that's where the majority would go (further weakening democratic credibility as they did) some would go Green and I would also expect in places like Tower Hamlets that "ethnic" Mayors etc would also seek, and win, Parliamentary seats.
***
To deal in short order with Jack W's tiresome precedents - in all those cases the outgoing Government consisted of a single Party. This one doesn't.
This situation is toxic for Labour, not only because it undermines Ed but because non Labour and swing voters will be more determined to ensure Ed never becomes PM.
Ed also has to sharply reverse his "weirdo rating". A man that is giving Nigel Farage a run for his money in this area isn't going to occupy Downing Street.
The only one that was an utter failure was Magnussen to be top 6, although he did well to climb from 10s behind the backmarkers to finish 9th. Due to technical woe, it was also a very rare case of me not backing something I'd tipped (I learnt my lesson after the 70/1 Button tip).
So, it's a red weekend (third in a row, sadly). But I finished ahead. Bit odd.
Edited extra bit: Hamilton tends to do well at Hungary, so I'd advocate taking advantage of the evens for him to take the title, if you haven't yet (assuming you're green on Rosberg, of course).
"We would tinker in a slightly different way - and obviously channel funds to our public sector vested interests/paymasters - oh and no referendum on Europe.
The Labour manifesto.
All that said, I do take your point. My issue with Labour is that it is totally uninspiring and almost entirely reliant on Not Being The Tories. Given the challenges this country faces in so many areas that is just not good enough.
Clearly, it was a compliment to keep you were you are.
Think of all those tax revenues Elmbridge is generating, you're needed where you are to keep them flowing, you're responsible for George O being so popular, if the Tories win in 2015, you should take a big share of the credit.
The precedent is the performance of the Labour party not the government that replaced it.
I have faith in Joe Root and the Bearded Wonder.
Hearing the @metpoliceuk have delayed #plebgate report (due for publication today) indefinitely
Who will respond on behalf of Lab?
Still, we can speculate on how solid they will remain. If they are motivated by the hope of unrealistic public spending and by the expectation that Labour will act in the interests of public-sector workers and halt or reverse reforms, then they have got a bit of a shock coming to them. As the French are finding, there is no such thing as a free déjeuner. The only question is whether the disappointment will come before or after the GE.
Obviously Labour, by avoiding making any plans at all, hopes to postpone the day when they have to own up to the reality of the economics. Will they be able to maintain this pretence through the period of the election campaign and having written a manifesto? That is going to be a tough sell, balancing not putting off those with unrealistic expectations against not putting off those who already have severe doubts about their economic competence, honesty and seriousness. (There's also the important consideration that coming into government on a false prospectus is just storing up problems for the future).
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
IMO all this points to Labour's support fraying as the election approaches. Included in that fraying will be some of those Red Liberals, as Labour's offering becomes more specific. I doubt that they will go back to the LibDems - more likely to the Greens, or they will not vote at all.
Someone make this man PM, quick!
@TheScreamingEagles - well, nor could I under normal circumstances, agreed. But supposing the options are a grand coalition or no government at all? What would happen then? Particularly given that the country remains in a profound economic crisis that it is going to require more painful measures to sort out.
I'm hoping this scenario doesn't happen, incidentally, for all sorts of reasons, but it seems a possibility and it therefore seems worth analysing the likely consequences.
Harriet Harman expected to respond to Cameron's #MH17 Commons statement. Miliband in Washington for 'brush-by' with Obama
The Red Liberals are deepest red
There love for Yellow is long since dead
Though Bookers flinch and Tories sneer
They'll keep the Red Flag flying here
A serious politician would have cancelled this trip - fan boy Ed gets it wrong again.
If WW3 is imminent, it will be an American finger on the button.
Cameron can only do a bit of "jaw jutting", and hope the less intelligent will not see through his posturing.
"Do as I say Putin, or else I will get very red in the face and have a tantrum!"
The Red Liberals are deepest red
Their love for Yellow is long since dead
Though Bookers flinch and Tories sneer
They'll keep the Red Flag flying here
Voting intention may not shift markedly after a second election, but a random +10 in either direction from the worst-case scenario makes things a lot easier for one side or another.
Friday's Populus poll showed 23% of Lib Dem voters from 2010 going to Labour: 13% to the Conservatives; 9% to UKIP.
That produces a net gain of 2.4% to Labour over the Conservatives. Useful, but not decisive in my view.