Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There can be no getting round the fact that Tories are stil
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There can be no getting round the fact that Tories are still being the most hurt by the UKIP surge
The above chart is based on the aggregate data from Lord Ashcroft’s latest round of CON-LAB marginals polling which had a total sample of 14,004.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Labour's strategy seems awfully risky: say nothing; hope ex-LD switchers remain; hope UKIP hurts the Tories. And now hope that DNVs vote.
Of that 12% on these figures about 3.7% worth voted Tory the last time. Losing those to UKIP if they do will clearly hurt in some seats but in many it will make no difference.
The interesting thing for me is whether there is likely to be differential behaviour of such voters where their votes do matter. If, for example, they live in a Con/Lab marginal are they more likely to return to the tories than if they live in a safe tory seat?
The evidence on here is that they will but those who post on a political blog like this are far from typical and many voters may not appreciate the implications of their choice unless this is made repeatedly clear to them. Which, in marginals, it will be.
There is also the factor that if the Tories poll 36% (big if admittedly) they will have replaced that lost 3.7% with more centrist support which might be in more useful places than the support they have lost.
There is no question that UKIP is a problem for the tories, that it makes the election more complex for them and that at the margins UKIP on 8% is more likely than not to cost them more seats than it will cost Labour. In a close election this may well be significant but it still needs to be kept in proportion.
I agree with Mike that there is no reason for Eds team to support a BOO referendum, and lots to lose. We know that Europe is way down the batting order for most voters, even most kippers. You could promise them the moon on a stick and they still would note vote for Ed. Far better to come up with a coherent vision of a sustainable future plan for Britain and put it before the electorate.
I cannot remember why I chose it, and if I ask a question its because I would like an answer, rather churlish of you to suggest otherwise.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask how popular Ed is in the marginal constituencies, it might well be affecting the voting outcome.
A lot of words from Boris.. Does he mean Ed's policies are a "pyramid of piffle"?
1. He seems a genuinely pleasant and forgiving man. Whilst my political opinion of him couldn't sink much further my personal opinion of him was much enhanced.
2. He's not up to being PM. Policy wise. Image wise. He'll be a disaster PM. Hollande in Downing Street. Labour chose themselves a duffer.
3. He's in the wrong profession. For a clever, ambitious and pleasant man to subject himself to the grinding abuse of politics seems a great shame.
4. For the first time I have decided I like Ed Miliband. Just keep him well away from the levers of power.
He does have a way with words. I liked
"It doesn’t matter, if you are a politician, whether you approach a bacon sarnie with the daintiness of Barbara Cartland or the carnivorous savagery of Luis Suárez."
"the carnivorous savagery of Luis Suarez". Love it.
"Britain will be governed in the interests of all, not just those of the fortunate.”
Because it appears to many that Cameron and Osborne look after the already fortunate.
Is it in the interests of "all" that the admittedly limited opportunities given to the disadvantaged by Free Schools and Academies should be further restricted?
Is it in the interests of "all" that Labour simply refuse to address, let alone make proposals to deal with, a fiscal deficit that remains our largest single economic problem?
It really is not enough for a putative PM to hide behind such bland nonsense.
2) which begs the question of whether balanced budgets are a panacea
3) the global financial crisis was not caused by Labour's budget or Labour's regulation or Labour's bacon sandwiches.
(1) You continue to jibe, self-pity & generally behave in a tiresome way. (1-4)
(2) You ask Mike Smithson to ban me. (7-4)
(3) You suggest we both knock it on the head and try to behave like grown-ups (100-30)
(4) We both convert to Islam (200-1)
I do not think that true of the 97 government. TB was immensely popular and New Labour a breath of fresh air after the cones hotline and cabinet bastards years, which is why in 2001 he won a second landslide. The problems came after 2001 when Brown went bonkers with spending and Blair went bonkers with sofa government and foreign wars.
The New Labour formula of spending restraint, non-xenophobic foreign policy, enlightened social policy and modest improvements in the welfare state is a popular one, then and now.
Any odds on SR spontaneously com-busting?
Factor that into the graph and it becomes clear that Labour is now being hit harder than the Conservatives by UKIP's presence. i.e. Labour is losing its own 2010 support to UKIP and is also failing to win back those who voted Con in 2010 but who also voted Lab in 2005 or 2001.
I also think that the Cons should lay off him or the natural British sense of fair play and affinity for the underdog could be mildly self-defeating for them.
But.
EdM is manifestly not fit to be our PM nor are his polices ones that would ensure economic strength and prosperity.
It is entirely possible for people, as you do, to like the man but most will, I expect, even if they had it in their minds to vote for him, experience a moment of clarity on the way to the polling station.
Where was the equivalent of Gove's reforms or IDS's reforms? There was a lot of talk but too little action. The increase in in work benefits was a major reform but most of that came later. The Academy program came too late and too small to affect the chances of most children. The money poured into an unreformed NHS created a behemoth that we still struggle to pay for with declining productivity.
Where was the house building programs, the challenging of special interests and the emphasis on increasing opportunity? It is understandable that his biggest regrets in his book was the failure to go far enough. There was much to be done to make this a better society for all and he had the sort of golden opportunity that does not come around very often.
Cheers for posting that Boris link, Mr. P. Entertaining stuff to read.
Almost as entertaining as my riveting analysis of the Hungarian Grand Prix:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/hungary-post-race-analysis.html
Mr. L, Blair and Brown had a golden opportunity thanks to their huge mandate and majority, as well as a great economic inheritance, to permanently improve things for the better. It was a great opportunity missed due to bickering, idiocy and incompetence.
As regards the Hungarian GP I have to confess I am not usually much of a fan but remained absolutely riveted from start to finish when there was a test match on the other channel and Cook was finally getting some runs. Surely the best race for years.
By the 1980s, Tuberculosis was considered to be almost eradicated in the UK.
Now London is the TB capital of Europe.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/12December/Pages/tb-tuberculosis-cases-rise-london-uk.aspx …
Curiously, both are circuits that are typically dull processions.
Anyway, 4 week break to Spa. Will see about a mid-season review.
If the chart is based on 15% ukip, then that's up to 20 of the 43
Changes Since the GE
Con minus 1
UKIP plus 10.
Have been away from PB for a couple of days and, catching up, I note some expressions of sympathy for EdM and even it seems some vague longing for Lab.
Sam.
PLEASE DO NOT WAVER.
If it's going to be UKIP, OK then fine. But, if you are thinking of coming over to your spiritual home, ie Cons, then of course we would welcome you with open arms.
Blair and Brown were far too afraid of, and consequently reluctant to tackle, the City and the growing casino culture.
A colour by numbers class attack on David Cameron by Kevin Maguire actually ends up as worse for Ed in my eyes...quite damning stuff I think, wonder if it was intentional?
"The Labour leader’s wrong when he claims style doesn’t matter.
I think he knows he’s wrong when voters don’t hear the message if they’re sneering at the messenger.
To be proud to be a geek is better than whingeing, which he does in private.
The most angry Miliband’s been in four years was over the bacon mockery, effing and blinding at the criticism."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-geek-david-cameron-3923102#ixzz38kWIH7DO
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
I agree with the disbelief point but I fear that the Brown/Blair feud and turf wars was the greater cause of the paralysis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10994923/Ukip-on-sale-party-makes-80000-from-selling-umbrellas-polyester-ties-and-bumper-stickers.html
We've got Populus, The Good Lord A, ComRes and YouGov all coming up today!
#CrossOverMonday
What I found most odd about Eds marr interview was the contradiction between his claims that the Scottish referendum was great because it go people enthused and involved in politics, but he won't offer an EU referendum
**although on my ratings it wouldn't be a massive shock if ukip managed to make it close
Unless you only count from when the UK joined.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-to-mark-the-real-centenary-of-the-start-of-first-world-war-9631887.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27585765
"Why did UKIP do less well in London?"
"A significant microcosm of both the problem and the solution is London - where, significantly, UKIP resonated less and performed less well than elsewhere.
Part of the explanation is that globalisation - which gives many a sense that they have little direct control over their economic destiny - enriches London."
...
True version of reality
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/12December/Pages/tb-tuberculosis-cases-rise-london-uk.aspx
"London is “the TB capital of Europe”, The Daily Telegraph has reported. The newspaper says that Britain is now the only nation in Western Europe with rising levels of tuberculosis"
"attributes the rise to people living under “Victorian” conditions, with poor housing, inadequate ventilation and overcrowding"
...
Families driven out of once affordable family homes in London to new built family homes on flood plains in the country while the ex family homes in London are gradually turned into slum housing with 5 or 6 families and all because a few thousand banksters who employ large amounts of unskilled labour are paying the political class to keep the borders open.
But then of course, if the GBP is willing to be patronised like that, then good luck to them.
Put the champagne on ice.
And I don’t think the Blair/Brown feud really got going until it became apparent that Blair was going to renege on the Granita Agreement.
That along with the ukip strategy seems to be Labours plan... And it does seem to be all tactics/no conviction
The left are almost uniformly pro-EU. The BBC's pro-EU. There won't be a major problem for Miliband over this, as not many Labour MPs would want such a vote.
Which we haven’t done!
Whilst there was a referendum and it was ages ago it was about a trade agreement, not political union. As for 'participating fully': we've got an FTT which will harm our national interest, a CAP that's vile and utterly unreformed, German dominance of the EU economy, and a single currency which isn't so much bad as deranged and inherently unworkable.
The whole continent would be better off if the EU were dismantled.
As for the Tories getting support from UKIP, hard to call, they won't get the working class defectors back, or probably the hard right wingers but some of the UKIP vote may be soft. All guesswork but could be crucial.
What Lordy's poll showed last week though was that in areas with a high wwc population, like many of the marginals here in the East Midlands there is the potential for Labour not to gain seats they need and expect to. Nick's seat is far from a certain gain and there are others close by.
why not ? The EU keeps having them until they get the answer they want. Our last one was 40 years ago about half the people who voted in it will have died since then. I'm 53 and have never been consulted on the issue.
I think you want to look after yourself , leave the big boys to get on with their discussions.
It was a decade or so before I was born. I'm not sure it's rational to suggest I don't deserve a vote because some people born in 1900 didn't meet your expectations in a vote nearly half a century ago.
As for campaigns and lies, you may as well use that argument to abolish democracy too.
It may be possible to improve by doing absolutely loads of them like the Swiss do, so the voters have more data to work out who is telling which fibs and more chances to ignore them next time.
28/07/2014 10:25
In the 1980s social democrats in France encouraged the rise of the radical right as it 'divided the right'. Look how that turned out.
"This election is confusing and messy. People need to come to peace with that. I have. I am dealing with it. My models have been tweaked and tested, scrapped, tweaked and tested, re-calibrated, tested.....etc, etc.
So when I hear Labour make a statement saying that UKIP voters will put Ed into No. 10 I am staggered at how unprofessional it sounds. Labour are in the business of winning campaigns. Their voters, members and candidates want them to win elections. Any other raison d'etre would need to be explained to me. So we are in a situation where Labour is effectively choosing to ignore a party which is polling between 10 and 15 per cent nationally (UKIP). Does that strike anyone as the professional approach? Speaking as a cold fish, that is. Applying cold logic, does it strike anyone as the professional approach?
It's worse than that. Because [and I'm exasperated just having to explain this again] the impact from UKIP is not randomly distributed. It depends on where you live. So 10 per cent for UKIP nationally translates to between 25 and 38% in seats across the country, depending on the particular demographics and voter behaviours in each seat. Which brings me on to the 'irresponsible' part."
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/labour-and-ukip.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28511862
Two things stand out:
it's not really spelled out what the law will be, unless I missed it
someone should point out to Cooper that a very large minority of victims are men persecuted by their girlfriends/wives (and that gay couples also have domestic abuse)
It's not merely outdated, it's dangerous to try and portray domestic abuse as only something men do to women. Whilst most cases are man on woman, a very significant number are the other way around.
This kind of thing really irritates me. The shrieking harpies who wet their knickers whenever women don't have 'equal' opportunity for playing football or somesuch nonsense never raise a murmur when the vestiges of sexism and prejudice lead to the utterly false assumption men are not and cannot be victims of domestic violence.
Referendums suffer from all those things but the bottom line is you should trust the people.
Lies are all part of it on both sides. Regrettable but a fact or politics. Understand it? Great. Not understand it? Such is life.
Your argument is the same as that which credited The Sun with winning UK general elections. It denies agency by the electorate. Some of them are even as bright as you and me.
Trust them.
And as for timing? Yes I think we have had a couple of generations since the last one. High time we had another.
However, what I also said was that we should be making much greater efforts to make it work a lot better. I agree, for example, about the CAP; a policy which, for example, subsidises grouse moors is , IMHO anyway, in very urgent need of reform.
Do you really believe CAP reform will happen? I'd like to see it happen. But then, I'd like a 100/1 winning tip every race weekend too.
Note the word citizens.
Eid Mubarak everyone.
Minor point, grouse moors are generally also sheep moors. Major point, how many of the 28 member states contain grouse moors, and does the answer to that question not cast into doubt the concept of an agricultural policy common to all of them?
Of course the flaw in this timid approach is that he will end having nothing much to say, and letting others define his position for him. It's also a guarantee of high unpopularity if he does become PM, when voters find that the choices have to be made after all.
Of course in a referendum campaign there may be no right choice.
AV has some point but on the other hand so does FPTP. And there are many flavours of AV and indeed its possible to vary FPTP as well. (boundaries and multi member constituencies for instance).
Take an EU referendum. There is no perfect answer - arguably there is no least perfect answer either. We have problems staying in and we will still have problems if we leave. Not least the EU will not go away and we will have to agree somehow to trade and deal with them. Lick a finger and hold it up to the wind. Will the EU grow closer together and then we will be faced with the power of a massive contenental wide political and economic giant - or will the EU without us crumble because of some inate failings? How are we supposed to know?
Why should there have to be a right or certain course of action? At the end of the day this is why we have democracy and politicians and governments - they make the choices between an endless series of imperfect options and then at least one section (if not all) of the self serving electorate blame them.