Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Dave outclassing Ed in the ratings and the economy’s g
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Dave outclassing Ed in the ratings and the economy’s getting better how come CON’s behind in the polls?
One of the ongoing mysteries is why CON continue to lag behind LAB in the voting intention polls. The economy is recovering and this is now being seen by voters. On top of that the Tories retain a solid lead over LAB as best party on the economy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But as you showed with YouGov, as do other pollsters, the Labour's lead is being eroded gradually over the last 18 months or so.
With 9 months to go, there's enough time for the Tories to remain largest party, I ruled out a Tory majority a while back.
In the last parliament, the last big shift in voting intention didn't start happening until Jan 2010
And let's not forget, the Tories are in the lead with the gold standard of UK polling and have been for two out of the three last ICM phone polls.
The political narrative would be different if News International were using ICM and not YouGov.
There's a long-running conflict between the forces of enlightenment, wisdom and reason (me) and those of silly sausages and historically illiterate obdurate types (Mr. Eagles) regarding whether Hannibal or Caesar was the better general. The answer, of course, is that Hannibal was better, by miles.
On-topic: I agree a Conservative majority is unlikely. We'll have to wait and see. There's the referendum, after which (even if No wins) we'll see changes as parties either sensibly offer an English Parliament or try to carve England into shitty little regional assemblies.
There's also the potential chaos that could ensure if ebola escapes Africa, but let's hope that doesn't happen.
Thanks, @Morris_Dancer. It just seemed such a strange non-sequitur that I was very puzzled by it!
And, at risk of being the victim of a coup de main by the forces of Revolution, I stand by my comment about Napoleon...
Is why.
It's even stranger given the rise in UKIP combined with that.
The next election is very difficult to predict.
So therefore, if the Tories can't win a majority that's rather good news for Labour.
Personally I think Davout was a better battle captain than Napoleon.
There really would be no point to the LDs in those circumstances.
He did have an Indian summer - his 1813/14 campaigns had flashes of his old brilliance - Champaubert/Montmirail are classic Boney. However, the allies just trounced his other generals and avoided fighting him unless they had overwhelming numbers.
Re Hannibal.
He's overrated, one notable victory in a battle is allowed to ignore the fact under his leadership Carthage lost the second Punic War.
It's like saying Hitler was brilliant because by 1940 he controlled most of Western Europe.
Ignores the fact that Germany was eventually defeated and split into two.
Take Zama, Hannibal had the better tactics, had a numerical advantage but was spanked sideways.
That's the indication of a poor General.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11001664/Tenants-pin-hopes-on-bedroom-tax-speed-dating.html
That said, I'm increasingly sure that Labour will win the day. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
Most of his soldiers then were raw recruits, whereas Scipio had an army of veterans that had spent months in Sicily training.
It'd take a complete incompetent to lose with veterans against raw recruits (like Caesar did at Dyrrachium).
In order to overcome that to get most seats, the Tories need to score around 40 themselves. As the election approaches they're recovering much of their 2010 vote, but it's not clear how they might get an extra 5 points or so from anywhere. (All figures YG, but the other companies show a similar picture of the main parties very close.)
Incidentally, a UKIP-voting friend was telephone polled by Populus yesterday - says the poll was mostly about Heathrow but included a VI question, which he says didn't include a UKIP option - he says the question was "If there was an election tomorrow, would you vote Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat?" I suggested that they'd surely also offered an "Others" option, but he flatly denied it, a bit frustratedly since it meant he couldn't express his view - he said "Conservative" as the best of the choices offered but doesn't plan to actually vote for them. Maybe a slipup by the phone canvassers, or maybe he just misheard, but it illustrates the problem of not prompting for them.
The Scottish referendum matters as does next May's general Election. All else is fluff and nonsense and YouGovery.
» show previous quotes
Poor management .
Just sent an FOI to your favourite Trust will let you know how poor their management is within 20 days.
Poor strategy and your tactics are irrelevant.
Note, Caesar was outnumbered, but still made sure the defeat wasn't epochal like Zama, which eventually allowed him to win the war a few weeks later at Pharsalus.
(1) Napoleon was indeed a better general than most of his opponents. That is more of a comment on his opponents than on him. They were almost all completely useless, which helped quite a lot. Napoleon was also more gifted than most of his marshals. That again is a bit of an indictment of his marshals, most of whom were unimaginative and brave rather than clever, and indeed promoted for that reason (clever marshals can become rivals).
(2) He tended to think of his armies as very much a blunt instrument to smash things, rather than try anything sophisticated to win battles cheaply and quickly. The favoured tactic was to march in big columns into heavy fire. This wasn't a good way of winning battles against well-organised opponents under tight command, well though it worked against disorganised rabbles commanded by idiots. It severely limited both the mobility and firepower of his armies, as well as making them unresponsive to changes in the battlefield situation.
(3) He didn't care about the losses he sustained as long as he won the battle. He is said to have commented, after Austerlitz (I think it was): 'Don't worry about the dead. The women of Paris will replace them in one night.' With such a cavalier attitude, it is surprising that he remained popular among his men (although he undoubtedly did). Many other generals who were much less brutal became unpopular very quickly for being reckless with the lives of their men (not the classic view of him, but Montgomery is a good example).
(4) When he actually came up against a situation where he couldn't win simply by battering at the enemy, he had no idea what to do, and did not have the courage to try and face his limitations. In Russia, as the Grande Armée disintegrated, he effectively deserted them. At Waterloo, he refused to retreat when it was clear that the battle was lost by a mix of better tactics and greater numbers. Whether that was ego, illness, or plumb stupidity we will probably never know, but it was a terrible decision to fight on. It inflicted a far worse, indeed completely shattering, defeat on the French than was necessary. A decent general would have saved many lives and possibly the cohesion of his forces by withdrawing in the face of the combined Alliance armies. That could have forced the Allies to negotiate a better peace for France. Napoleon didn't, and condemned France to a total humiliation that still rankled thirty years later.
I haven't read the biography you mention @Morris_Dancer but I have just been reading up on the French Revolutions 1774-1871 (teaching it at A-level next year) and I was surprised by just how much damage Napoleon did. I always rated him highly - but I'm having to revise that opinion.
If Carthage as a state had been as resilient as Rome the Zama defeat would not have ended the war. That it did speaks ill of Carthage, not Hannibal.
And the comparison you draw, as usual, is fatally flawed. Caesar and Pompey were engaged in a civil war against one another. There was no separate capital the other had to try and claim. Carthage was a city-state, and the city was unable to defend itself, hence the surrender.
Honestly. Perhaps I should write a first history:
Explaining to Mr. Eagles why Hannibal is Superior to Caesar.
Just saying.
Anyhoo, as today is Guardians of the Galaxy, I must bid you farewell, to spare you a crushing defeat like Hannibal at Zama
Chance to own their own home/car etc. before they are 40, if ever??? virtually zero, because they are paying huge rents to buy to let landlords or foreign millionaires. Or living at home with mum and dad, in the same bedroom, trying to save a few quid.
For them ideas like rent caps are very appealing, even if they are being told they won;t work. Why not try it, what's the alternative?
There are millions of them.
In my opinion, the British public are generally very fair minded people, who are slightly left of centre politics wise. For the Tories to keep attacking vulnerable people and to not seem to care about the numbers using food banks, I am not sure it helps their reputation. There was a case the other day of an ex Soldier who had died, after having his benefits sanctioned. DWP were aware of his medical problems includes being a diabetic needing mediction to be refrigerated and to able to eat properly. But they just cut his benefits off, without seeming to carry out a risk assessment. DWP responded by saying there was a hardship fund and he should have sought help. If the Tories think they can win votes by treating our ex services personnel in this way, they need to have a rethink.
Hope you enjoy the film.
From that should be able to work out the average cost per shift and any trend.
I have to say though that in my view merely because Hannibal lost in the end doesn't necessarily make him the most over-rated general in history. As I said before, the victories in Italy were in themselves a pretty notable feat, operating at the limit of his supply lines after a long and difficult march.
To give a modern example, Rommel and Von Thoma were both rather better generals than Montgomery, but there's a limit to what you can do when facing an enemy that's better organised, better trained and better equipped when all your best troops have been killed in previous heavy fighting. If you've thrown them away through rank carelessness, that's a bit different.
The soufflé is rising nicely. And the art of a good soufflé is in getting it to the table at the right moment....
The film is a Marvel film, part of the Marvel universe, and it features Karen Gillan.
I'm going to love this film.
It's so good, they've already commissioned a sequel before it was released.
Mr. Eagles, they also thought there'd be a sequel to Green Lantern.
Basically, next May is a battle of two toxicities.
That said, whoever's fault it actually was, there is a strong perception that the blow-up occurred under Lab ("not fixing the roof" has been a hugely powerful meme) and while the corollary "nastiness" of the Cons has gone nowhere, people will, as ever, vote with their wallets. As I said upthread, the "it's not fair" element might swing it for Lab although there are still months of economic aggregates to come before GE2015 so we shall see how strongly the economic competence angle can be played.
Plus there is the huge
bribebudget that we can expect, as @Patrick noted just before the election.It is a question of how many will be prepared to hold their noses.
(Edit: still not wholly forgiven you for the EU in/out ref issue but I am prepared to move on)
"Many other generals who were much less brutal became unpopular very quickly for being reckless with the lives of their men (not the classic view of him, but Montgomery is a good example)."
I hate to keep you from getting on with your scheme of work, Mr. Ydoethur, but could you just explain what you mean in relation to Montgomery?
He probably persisted at Waterloo because conceding and retreating even with an army would definitely have lost him the war. Persisting and bringing off perhaps a Marengo-like reversal of fortune, OTOH, might have postponed this, perhaps indefinitely. So if it's a choice between definitely lose and almost certainly lose, you pick the second.
Also, experience would have taught him that the Prussians were quite easy to defeat. Their battle record against him in 1813-14 was pretty dire. And Wellington's army was considered politically dodgy, so worth a punt.
I get that people who tactically voted LD to stop the Tories winning would be angry and switch to Labour. But that surely helps the Tories?
Conversely, people that voted LD in 2010 in Tory/Labour marginals were surely voting for LDs because they genuinely wanted to vote for them. In which case, why would they switch to vote Labour? Surely they'd know that they'd only ever be in coalition? But I guess they never imagined it would be with the Tories and would prefer a Lab/LD coalition to a Labour majority.
Anyway, has anyone been able to look at these two different types of LD -> Lab switchers and is there any difference in their propensity to stick to voting Labour?
I don't have the ratings to hand ..
In July 2009, Brown's net rating was minus 42
In July 2014, Ed's net rating is minus 33
Dave's rating in July 2009 was plus 9
Dave's rating in July 2014 is minus 19
http://ipsos-mori.co.uk/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=88&view=wide
It has taken to almost the end of July for things to return to the pre EU14 state.
The Cons are now retaining more of their 2010VI and are up by 2pts on their January VI and losses to UKIP are down by two points but are still at ~15%.
Labour has increased its VI retention recently, but is down over 2pts since January, but losses to both UKIP and Green are still up by >1pt since January.
2010 LDs VI swings wildly. Their 2010 VI retention has recovered over the last month but is still 5pts down on that of January. Their losses to LAB are down by about 1.5 points since January but their losses to the CONS are up by ~2pts, to Greens by ~4pts, whilst those to UKIP remain about 10pts.
What is not given in the polls is how much of the 2010 VI translates to the 2014VI and how much to WNV and DK,.
So they are left with Clegg.
Why isn't Farage in that poll btw ?
He has as much chance as becoming PM as Clegg does.
Until now. The collapse of the Lib Dems is allowing the left to coalesce in a way we have not really seen since the 1970s. Mike goes on and on about the 2010 Lib Dems who have returned to Labour and in terms of vote share he is clearly right. Their movement is the undoing of the SDP after 35 years.
At the same time the right vote is being fractured by UKIP. This is less serious for the tories than the SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems were for Labour but it is still significant.
Taking these two factors into account the surprising thing is not that the tories are behind but that it is close. The points made by Mike in the thread header explain why. Labour is seriously underperforming its potential due to incompetent leadership. The tories are now exceeding their potential because Cameron is relatively well thought of and Osborne is now acknowledged by most to have done a good job.
The problem I see for the tories is that they are fighting against the tide of this strategically unhappy situation. They have already banked the Ed is crap vote. How much more of that is there to come? I think we will see less swingback and Labour as the largest party, possibly with a small overall majority.
Were Labour ineffective in helping feed the poor ? What proof do you have of this ? Any useful stats you would like to share ? Could food be more of an issue, because food prices have increased over the last 5 years, but incomes have remained static ? Some of the people using food banks, are the working poor. They can't get the work hours (part-time, zero hours contracts) and with other living costs, they struggle with food.
I am not what Labours answer is to this problem, but it may be that they will look to offer more support to those who are struggling. What extra support they can provide, when still dealing with the nations debts, I am not totally sure. I would think that Labour would have to look to bring in a higher living wage rate, changes to employment rights and changes to the benefits system, so that there are less people needing to use food banks.
The big question is what the Conservative response will be. Labour eventually realised that uniting the left was an impossible task and shifted to the hard right to gain Conservative votes, hence Blair and New Labour. Will the Tories do the same, swallowing their pride and moving to the left to appeal to Labour voters?
He has as much chance of becoming PM as Farage does.
It's an odd situation to be in, which is why it feels like no one is winning - but if Lab/Con do win more seats then in theory the chances of one getting a majority increases too - the question is which?
If I had to say either way, I think I'd go Labour majority of 20-30.
Either include both, or none.
To form a Labour majority, Ed has to climb Olympus Mons.
Although, Ed might be better acclimatised to the atmosphere he faces.....
But this simply highlights their strategic weakness. Going after more of these voters leaves their flank exposed to UKIP and their facile nonsense to the right. They really have to gain 2 centrist votes for every net gain of 1 and this is a big ask. Given the weakness of the Labour leadership they have a chance with more of these voters than they should have but it is an uphill task.
Big issues for Labour re the NHS is Wales. At the relevant time, I expect to see relentless comparison of Labour run Wales vs. Tory run England patient outcomes and it won't be pretty for Labour.
Equally Labour have a massive tax issue in that they have to increase the tax take just to cover all their currently stated policies. Labour did a create a huge client state on welfare which still to some extent underpins their vote. The Tories are creating a huge tax paying workforce who should naturally want to keep more of their own money. A higher tax vs. lower tax message is hard for Labour to sell.
Ed Milliband will never be Prime Minister?
(JackW told me to say that)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/31/uk-consumer-confidence-falls
I would add there is a general sense of being "ripped off" everywhere by energy companies,bankers,tax avoiders,train companies and scammers of all descriptions.The fact that there is not a welfare state safety net any more adds to the general sense of insecurity,one pay check away from homelessness and poverty.
Had the Carthaginians displayed the same spirit that they did in the Third Punic War, they might well have won.
While the economy is not the main issue for the voters that have changed their voting intention since the 2010 GE, its ideological issues that have risen from the policy merger of the LD and the Tories. Thus left LD voters vote Labour and right Conservative voters vote UKIP, its an amazing feat that he Tories are polling this high but they have replaced their lost right wing with centrist LD voters.
My answer would be Cameron every time, not because I think he has been any good at all as prime minister - because he hasn´t - but if the alternative is Miliband, then Cameron has to be the answer.
But there is no way that I am going to vote Conservative. So that is the disconnection between the question and the overall polling.
Apart from which, I live in a safe Tory seat, so my vote does not matter anyway.
And if Rome had managed to keep that sense of pathological patriotism, we'd probably still have the Empire with us today.
Mr. StClare, huzzah!
Cost of living crisis, inequity and NHS are Labours best cards.The Tories cannot neutralize these in last 9 month. Will they even try to limit the damage I doubt it, I predict they will concentrate on immigration and economy but the latter if still not benefitting most voters will be less important than usual IMHO
Cost of living - a dead duck, more people in work than ever, lower taxes, everyone knows Labour screw the economy, so any issues would have been worse. If you work or want a job, things are better & getting better which is by far the majority of voters.
Inequality which is what I think you mean has reduced from its high's under Labour.
The NHS run by Labour in Wales is a disgrace. The NHS in England is better and gets better. As with all Labour's narrative lines over the past 4 years, its all about scare tactics and only works if they can depress people.
Be interesting to follow just how big the resources are that the Lib Dems will throw at Hallam. If their strategy is to maintain as many seats as possible then it shouldn't be more than any other seats they are defending. doing a rough count there are around 65,000 students/postgrads in the two major Sheffield universities. That's the potential for a pretty big activist campaign. They won't all actually live in Hallam of course. Could the Tories send some people in under to help Clegg? And what about Ukip voters? There will be some even in Hallam. I can imagine in a forced choice some would prefer an unknown Labour type to Clegg.
The first election I was able to stay up and watch was 2001 (hardly thrilling). Subsequent elections haven't got us excited either. I can safely say many in Generation Y are hoping for our Portillo moment..
If Labour gets into power and despite their best efforts the economy does OK - Will ALP be bringing us yellow boxes espousing the "Good News" of Ed Balls ?
"Executives from some of the biggest suppliers have said privately that Ed Miliband's pledge to freeze bills for 20 months if he wins the general election has made them more reluctant to cut prices. They feel that any future rises in the wholesale price could leave them exposed should a freeze be imposed under Labour."
Who would have thought that Ed Miliband would already be partly responsible for the cost of living crisis?
Well, only those of us who predicted this very situation as Ed's arse was barely sat down after his Conference speech.....
People should feel quite a bit better by next year I'd have thought, though the "glory day's" of the 90's and early/mid 2000's are gone and won't be coming back anytime soon.
Inequality which is what I think you mean has reduced from its high's under Labour.
The NHS run by Labour in Wales is a disgrace. The NHS in England is better and gets better. As with all Labour's narrative lines over the past 4 years, its all about scare tactics and only works if they can depress people.
The above is a quote; don’t know what it isn’t shown as such
Cost of living is still rising and faster than incomes, so a lot of people feel, and indeed are, worse off.
There will be approximately 2m more people in work. This is a quite stunning number but I fear that the tories will get comparatively little credit from it. Many of these jobs are low paid and the majority of the 30m in employment will in fact be worse off in real terms than they were in 2010. Still, I remember that in 1992 there were significant numbers of unemployed voting tory because they thought they had a better chance of a job. The factors OGH has highlighted shows we are getting back to that territory.
There will be approximately 1m fewer working for the public sector. This is another massive shift, even when you strip out various reclassifications (approximately 1500 per constituency on average). Many of these might have voted Labour in 2010 because they (rightly, as it turned out) feared for their jobs. Will they be resentful? Depends on what has happened to them since.
The Tories have not managed to dismantle the client state of benefits that Brown built but they have changed its shape. Many at the upper end of the scale no longer qualify. Many more have lost out to some degree. Again, do they accept that or do they resent it? To slightly misquote Mr Sox excessive government spending is spending on someone else.
Labour outperformed in Scotland last time on the back of a Scottish PM. They will not do so the next time although the difference in seats is likely to be relatively modest.
Pensioners have, in large part, been protected but have paid the price of 0.5% base rates and QE reducing their pensions and their investment income. There will, as the population ages, be even more of them in 2015 and they are a key Tory constituency. If Osborne finds any spare cash expect a significant chunk of it to be thrown in their direction.
Saying with confidence how these changes are going to work out in votes is tricky but models that assume the UK has remained the same are unlikely to be right. It hasn't.
But if you're right then the Conservatives are completely screwed for the foreseeable future. Where are they going to gain votes from going forward? Especially since Labour won't always have "Ed is crap" depressing their vote.
increase in GDP != improving economy
increase in GDP = increase in media saying the economy is improving
not the same
What I meant was that Montgomery had a reputation of pointlessly throwing troops at a heavily defended battlefront with minimal support in the hope of smashing through it. The disastrous charge of Ninth Armoured Brigade at El Alamein is the best example in terms of its sheer pointlessness, but there were others of which Arnhem is perhaps the most famous.
It probably didn't help that he was taking over from Wavell, who has received a very unfair press for disasters not of his making and who was genuinely popular with his men. So Montgomery was seen as a bit of an establishment stitch-up (Wavell's retreat was caused by Churchill's futile attempt to hang on to Crete in a gesture worthy of the Dardanelles - hence the motto of the New Zealanders, covering two thousand miles mostly over the same short stretch in a few days, 'never in the whole history of human conflict have so many been buggered about so much by so few').
It further didn't help, I imagine, that he was rather cold and distant, not to say rude, to his junior officers, by contrast with Wavell, Auchinleck and Alexander. Didn't exactly help morale in an army shattered by its sudden collapse in Libya, although fortunately it didn't matter in the end.
And finally, he was compared to Rommel, who was a very popular general on both sides - well, perhaps popular is the wrong word, but he was very definitely respected. Although Lucas Philips and others try to downplay Rommel's skill and elevate Montgomery's, that wasn't the view of ordinary soldiers.
In case you are wondering, my source for much of the detail in this is my grandfather. He was an officer in the Eighth Army, and although he died many years ago, I vividly remember how he had few good words to say about Montgomery. I was inclined to think at first that he was exaggerating due to the fact that his brother was in one of the wrecked tanks of 9th Armoured, but when I came to research Montgomery myself, I have to say I came to agree.
From the poll tax, to having to go into hiding during the 2001 election, to claiming that he wanted to stop "normal people" being able to fly, to eating Pizza and falling asleep while Ed Milliband and Hacked Off dictated media regulation, this loser has been a one man, walking, talking political disaster area for the best part of 30 years!
Can somebody please explain to me how this ridiculous, brainless, idiot is still involved in our public life?
Don't think you are on a winner with that argument
Its called privatisation of monopolistic supplies.
Alternatively maybe your energy bills have plummeted prior to last few months.
What I hope they will do is really push on unemployment - for example, a commitment to lower unemployment below the (recent) baseline of 5% and approach economic inactivity. This is an area to which everyone can relate - either they or their family either have been unemployed or feared for their job. Equally there's plenty of room to emphasis traditional Tory values: keeping people in work helps them gain skills; contribute to their area and their economy; lowers crime and makes for a positive future.
What I fear they will do is bang on about immigration and get bogged down in whether Romanians (itself a grim reminder of the narrowness of the debate) are or are not coming here/taking our jobs/claiming our benefits/committing crime. And Europe would have to feature.
Apparently you shouldn't listen to the people who fought as they had no idea what was going on.
Instead you should read about the war in books which give you the big picture, and the opinion of the authors.