Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mr Rentoul might not like this but the polling shows that E
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mr Rentoul might not like this but the polling shows that Ed Milband has a special appeal to 2010 LD-LAB switchers
“My view, and this cannot be based on opinion polls, is that when the voters come to choose they will shy away from the prospect of Miliband as prime minister, just as they shied away from Neil Kinnock in 1992.”
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Secondly, it all depends on where they are. If they are in the SW it could ironically help the Tories. I haven't seen any polling data on this, but instinctively the sense of betrayal would make greatest sense if they were fundamentally Labour voters who had lent their votes to the LibDems for tactical reasons (i.e. because they saw the LibDems as equivalent to Labour, but with a better chance of winning). If those voters shift back to Labour then the Tories could *gain* a bunch of seats as a result
What is surprising to me is that there appears be no Tory>LD shift in those seats ....... eg Burnley, Hornsey & Wood Green ........ where a LD hold will reduce the chance of a Lab majority.
Unless no-one’s done the polling!
I for my part would prefer Cameron to Miliband; that does not mean that I want to see him as prime minister. It is just a matter of the lesser of the two evils.
It may be that these former LD voters prefer Miliband to Cameron. But do they really want to see him in No. 10?
But this doesn't matter to the Labour leadership, who simply need to consolidate their ABC1 vote (a stereotype might be a graduate non-white who is the grandchild of immigrants). More of a problem for them is to get their "lumpen" vote out - it'll vote Labour if it votes at all, but at each election less of it votes and more of it never has voted. These voters are why Labour needs to fight a good "ground war" & always puts energy into trying to do so.
I agree with Charles that much of the 2010 LibDem vote was "fundamentally Labour" but the reason wasn't always, or even principally, tactical. Much of it was a principled reaction to the sense that the Party - which had, after all, been in office for over twice as long as it ever had been before - had lost its way. It was also, I suspect, the fact that a Scottish (or Welsh) leader doesn't play in England (was that why the Tories lost way back in 1964?).
Leftist voters, pretty much by definition, expect a lot of government, and they may well expect more than it can provide no matter what it does.
This tells you all you need to know about that demographic.
29% + 9% - 4% = 34%
I suspect it will broadly remain the same in GE2015 except, perhaps, the 9% may come down to 6-7% because of CON-LD marginals and also Labour's own ground game with limit the leakage to UKIP/Green to about 2-3 %.
Labour will win virtually all the Lab-LD marginals and, perhaps, a bit more than that.
I am a Labour supporter. But I live in Surbiton. Do I waste my vote or do I help elect a non Tory candidate which would indirectly [ by keeping number of Tory MPs down ] help to achieve a Labour majority ? The logic is inescapable.
Many voters in the SW probably will do the same except those who do not eat and drink politics might be so pissed off with the LD's that they will vote Labour / Green regardless of consequences.
I am currently away on holiday but have been keeping an occasional eye on PB through my phone.
Yesterday I noticed some discussion about how to watch tomorrow's TV debate regarding Scottish Independence. I have a Freesat box with me and spent some time trying to add STV as an additional channel but couldn't get this to work as expected.
Eventually it dawned on me that the easiest workaround was to put the box through its initial installation process but using a Glaswegian postcode. This worked a treat (using G1 1YU which is the Premiere Inn postcode) and I now have STV HD as channel 119.
I am confident that the same process will work using a Freeview box.
Apols if somebody has already proposed this solution.
If Plato is about I plan to Gmail her later today.
I think it is inevitable that there will be some seats like this and that their loss makes a Conservative majority extremely unlikely and largest party problematic. The only way that the Tories can offset this loss is by winning 2010 Labour voters from Labour. They would of course only need half as many of these to offset the effect but the polling to date indicates that these are thin on the ground.
Of course this is on current polling. If the Labour vote continues its gentle decline and if the 2010 Lib Dem voters remain loyal some of the 2010 Labour voters are up for grabs. I just think they are more likely to go to UKIP or green than blue.
The only problem is that most hard-line Tories hate Ken Clarke, even more than they hate Nick Clegg.
So the logic breaks down. Perhaps some of the Labour-inclined in Lib Dem seats do realise that.
Some PBer .... I forget who .... made a pile of cash some years back by looking ahead at an outsider few had heard of, let alone regarded and piecing together a puzzle that eventually made this individual in January 2009 the President of the United States.
I wonder what happened to that PBer ....
Following that statement of the bleeding obvious, off to work.
I can't imagine Clegg going into coalition with the Labour, the question is how orientated are the Lib rump?
Let's also not forget many 2010 Lib voters have gone UKIP or Conservative, albeit not in the same numbers I presume.
Tories of previous generations were focussed on winning above all else. The last two generations....not so much.
Seems to be working for UKIP. Lower middle class and respectable working class are very susceptible to this approach. Bizarre assertion. Cameron inadvertently attracted this voter to some extent last time despite his poor campaign strategy of targetting Guardian readers.
Will they vote next year? Who knows. Personally I suspect Labour is pinning too much on them and meanwhile it's non Guardian reading traditional voters will bugger off to UKIP.
In the many former Tory seats where these people helped the LibDems in, if they do return to their Labour roots, we will see a nice clutch of Tory gains. In Tory v Labour marginal, it is up to the local Tory candidates and sitting MPs to fight a tough campaign and establish their right to be elected/re-elected.
Isn't this rather obvious?
"Men who leave their wives say they want a divorce."
Still anything that speeds up Labour loss of their formerly core WWC base is to be welcomed.
I have more reasons, but this is one of them...
BBC News Business Tracker
I made this point at least a year ago. The LD->Lab switchers are actually the strongest link, one of the most politically motivated sectors of the electorate who would ROFL if you suggested they'd be deterred by Ed eating a bacon butty. The issue, as Charles says, is making sure that the traditional oh-I-suppose-so sector of the Labour vote actually bothers as much as its Tory counterpart. I'm reasonably confident that, in marginals, they will.
They vote for who they want to win and that's that.
And then of course whine and moan about it when the result doesn't go their way...
"Homeowners in Europe are more worried about energy bills than paying the rent or mortgage, a survey suggests.
The finding comes as part of research by Europe's largest DIY retail group, Kingfisher.
Kingfisher, which operates as B&Q in the UK, surveyed 17,000 households in nine European countries.
"There is a staggering increase in the number of people who intend to prioritise energy efficiency," said Kingfisher boss Sir Ian Cheshire.
"It is soaring bills that is driving this agenda."
The survey of attitudes to home improvement is a snapshot of how Europeans view their home. And it seems we're not that different from our continental neighbours.
More than three quarters (77%) of Europeans surveyed said their homes needed adapting to meet changing family needs
some 22% said they needed to create more space
and 46% of people have, or would like, a home office.
But the biggest priority in the home is improving energy efficiency. Almost a third (31%) said they intended to introduce measures to cut their energy bills. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28608574
There's been lots of lefty tactical voting, and the Lib Dems have always tried to ride two horses. When they had to pick one they were bound to upset a significant number of their supporters, even without the unnecessary cockup over tuition fees.
Some of this stems from ( apologies in advance) Margaret Thatcher and the way her government acted during the 1980's. To say that I disliked Thatcher would be an under statement. I think in 1992 John Major enjoyed extra votes from some, as he was a symbol of getting rid of Thatcher. Neil Kinnock made a massive error in celebrating victory before election day and The Sun headline did not help.
People can keep trying to write off Ed Miliband and say nasty things about him, but the British public have shown previously that they will back someone if they show the right spirit, willing to fight back. While Ed was in government during the Brown period, he does not have the baggage of having worked for Blair during the Iraq period. If the Tories make the mistake of making personal attacks, rather than concentrate on Labours economic policies, they will see Ed entering Downing Street with a majority.
If EdM represents the kind of true-left leader they've been missing since the days of yore then they will return. If they realise that not much has changed since 2010 personnel-wise and that the room for EdM to manoeuvre is limited fiscally, they might stay where they are.
The battleground is whether voters believe Lab can make the recovery broad-based so that "I feel it also". But the Cons will be able to fight on this ground, not only as events continue to take place in the run-up to GE2015 but the budget might make an appeal to many people's wallets which might keep them onside.
(Note: not the "big wallets" of yesterday evening, mind: they're already in the bag for the Cons.)
Top Scottish Lib Dem target seats for the Conservatives
Argyll and Bute
SNP 6/4
Labour 2/1
Liberal Democrats 3/1
Conservatives 7/1
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Liberal Democrats 4/6
Conservatives 11/10
Edinburgh West
Labour 4/5
Liberal Democrats 5/4
SNP 16/1
Conservatives 16/1
North East Fife
Liberal Democrats 1/3
SNP 9/2
Labour 10/1
Conservatives 10/1
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Liberal Democrats 8/11
Conservatives 6/4
SNP 8/1
(30/1 bar)
Note: BAXTER has all of those five seats as CON GAIN FROM LIB DEM, whereas SHADSY has none of them as Con Gain From Lib Dem. A bit odd that.
On the right there has never really been such a block. You kept Labour out by voting Tory. UKIP's arrival may have complicated this picture. We may see some Tories in unwinnable seats lending their vote to UKIP. But I can't see this bringing in a UKIP MP in a previously Labour seat. In my view the real challenge for Dave is to get out the vote.
Perhaps I have too much time on my hands but the combined votes of all Lib Dem MPs is just over 1.14 million. They got 6.8 million votes overall, so that's almost exactly 1/6th of Lib Dem voters in a Lib Dem constituency. If we assume that the yellow>red switchers in these places will swingback, that is still relatively few of the total yellow>red switchers. Those like Hodges who think Lib Dem voters are concentrated in areas Labour can't win and therefore not very important to Labour are wrong. In fact I would suspect that the Lib Dem vote is already holding up better in the seats they hold against the Tories and collapsing slightly more elsewhere (particularly in Lib>Lab battlegrounds but there aren't as many of these).
Motorists are being fined for leaving their diesel engines running, in a move aimed at cutting pollution.
A council has begun issuing on-the-spot £20 penalties for drivers who fail to turn their engines off when stationary, leading to claims it is introducing a ‘stealth tax’.
Others are likely to follow suit in order to meet European environmental targets.
The measures, in place in Islington, North London, are yet another blow to drivers with diesel cars.
London mayor Boris Johnson has already revealed plans to charge them £10 extra to enter the centre of the capital from 2020.
Communities minister Brandon Lewis called the fines a way to ‘tax drivers by stealth’ and warned that they could push people away from high streets.
Councils gained the power to issue penalties for idling in 2002 but the rule has not been widely enforced until now."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715200/20-fine-leaving-diesel-engine-running-On-spot-fines-drivers-cut-pollution.html#ixzz39PKy4Am3
So what is defined as idling. When a bus halts at a bus stop, a vehicle at traffic lights or just a traffic jam? Is this timed or have a time limit?
No real change - a very hung Parliament.
Con 296 (-2)
Lab 298 (+3)
LD 28 (-1)
UKIP 0 (-)
100% NOM
100% LD will poll more than UKIP.
Something that "Tories" fail to grasp is that the "left" tend not to think just of their own wallets.
"'No one should die penniless and alone': the victims of Britain's harsh welfare sanctions"
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/victims-britains-harsh-welfare-sanctions
Now, I can make a guess from the usual responses on here, which of you will even bother to look at the link, and the very few who will even read it properly.
To be fair, few of either side will read this particular story, but Dave's problem is that many people in Britain know relations or close friends in the same position.
Task for the day: give Clair field a bit of a google. David Cameron certainly has.
The public has lost faith in government claims about tackling immigration because it does not tally with what they see on the ground, Nick Clegg will admit.
In a speech on immigration tomorrow, the Deputy Prime Minister will say it is ‘no wonder’ that people do not believe what ministers tell them when they have been ‘repeatedly told one thing only to then see another’.
He will speak out in favour of the free movement of European citizens but seek reforms to ensure that fewer Eastern Europeans move here if more countries are admitted to the EU in future.
Labour’s welfare spokesman Rachel Reeves will also call for reforms to the freedom of movement – to tackle benefit tourism – in a speech tomorrow.
But the Tories claim her idea – to stop people being able to claim welfare unless they have built up sufficient National Insurance contributions – was likely to be illegal under EU law.
The two speeches on immigration from Labour and Lib Dem politicians indicate that both believe they need to speak tough on the issue in the run-up to next May’s general election.
On Saturday, Labour’s Ed Balls said the party could not win the election unless it became tougher on immigration.
The surge by Ukip – which stands on an anti-immigration platform – in May’s European elections particularly unnerved the Lib Dems, who were reduced to one seat. To tackle this perception, Mr Clegg will say tomorrow that more needs to be done on migration from Europe.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715064/Weve-lost-faith-public-immigration-says-Clegg-Deputy-PM-thinks-people-not-believe-ministers-tell-doesnt-tally-ground.html#ixzz39PN7xIRu
Ah, generalisations. They're always wrong.
No1 crossed off the list. ;-)
Norway has MASSIVE oil/gas reserves and cashflow. Oil and gas pays for their lefty utopia. They also know it won't last forever and so they're saving a huge amount into their national wealth fund.
Scotland simply doesn't have this. Production decline will happen - albeit we can flatten the speed of decline with better application of technology and bringing previously uneconomic fields into production. But either way it's decline. It's a simple fallacy to state that Scotland could continue on a high spending economic policy even if all the oil & gas were to come their way. And there's for 100% certain no Scottish National Wealth Fund to palliate the masses once the oil & gas declines really bite.
Scottish independence referendum 18 September
Yes 5.7
No 1.2
Matched: GBP 1,165,772
He supported the Liberal Democrats before the last election, but like many of the others says he looked to Ukip after the coalition government tripled tuition fees."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/03/ukip-youth-wing-fighting-form-young-independence-conference
Supporters of George Osborne and Boris Johnson are increasingly convinced David Cameron will not continue as prime minister beyond 2018 if he wins next year’s general election.
Although Mr Cameron insists he will seek a full second term, Tory MPs and rivals for the succession are working on the assumption he will step down voluntarily midway through the next parliament.
Mr Cameron is expected to announce his resignation as Tory leader immediately if he loses next year’s election, but Tory MPs are growing more confident that he will win in May 2015.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/018e2d6e-18c7-11e4-80da-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39PVjWWdS
The first had probably a significant tactical element, the second represented the opposition to the Iraq War.
I'm very familiar with Clair. My employer has a significant stake in it. It's not a huge field and the capex / opex profile for recovery is quite steep. The economics are OK but no more than OK. Here's the reality of North Sea oil production that an independent Scotland would be betting the farm on:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgrefurl=http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/mearns/&tbnid=Sk6HTuLKCHUmvM:&docid=UC3Ap8oMUiIJpM&h=432&w=678
Of these famous Red Liberals, around a quarter are said to prefer Cameron as PM; some are even satisfied with him. I suggest that these doubtfuls will not in the main vote Labour; some may even do the unthinkable and create a new Blue Red Liberal demographic at the last minute. How solid is the UKIP vote? And the 2010 Labour vote? We do know there are very few Red Blues. But there is scope aplenty to keep the 2015 result obscure for many weeks to come.
Well, this morning
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/presenting-one-of-the-best-newspaper-corrections-of-recent-times--ly35GvcDzl
...and I'd point out that when you rely on oil and gas you need to keep it flowing. Norway has a better record than the UK here. We have seen disasters such as Piper Alpha, investment delays when tax regimes were fiddled with (Gordon and George) and also simple operational fu<k-ups. For example the Gannet field is not producing right now (and has been out for months) because of a stuck pig in the export pipeline.
The US economy can absorb a Macondo. Scotland couldn't...
Has anyone done an analysis of change in polls before and after the elections are actually announced, to see how much of the narrowing effect can be explained by this?
The answers are also forced to be given to the questions asked and not necessarily to any other motives. This is a long way from saying that EdM has some sort of 'special appeal'.
The LD to Lab switchers left because they were really Labour voters anyway. They were anti war peacenik anti Blair lefties, just the type not to like any tory leader.
2018 would be after the Euro referendum. It might even be when the finances return to surplus. A sensible time. The only why Cameron should could would possibly ever stay on is if everybody but everybody urged him to stay. Under those circumstances of course only the most loony Tory would actually want Cameron to retire, but I do not think we should ever underestimate the loony tendency amongst some tory backbenchers.
Judge: The expression as I have always understood it is 'sober as a judge'. Perhaps you mean 'as drunk as a lord'?
F.E. Smith: Yes, my lord.”
I have no figures, but here is an overview as I remember it:
1964 - forced election, gov't lost
1966 - polls positive, govt reelected
1970 - polls positive, gov't lost
1974 - polls positive, gov't lost
1974 - polls positive, gov't reelected
1979 - forced election, polls negative, gov't lost
1983 - polls positive, gov't reelected
1987 - polls positive, gov't reelected
1992 - forced election, polls negative, gov't reelected
1997 - forced election, polls negative, gov't lost
2001 - polls positive, gov't reelected
2005 - polls positive, gov't reelected
2010 - forced election, polls negative, gov't lost
On the Tory leadership election link, the FT seems to me to be pretty dogmatic. Johnson Osborne, and May as the frontrunners? Well, perhaps, but it's hard to see May in a top job beyond the election, Osborne is toxic - really toxic - and Johnson may be just popular enough to win London against a tired and discredited Labour candidate, but it's hard to see him being trusted as Prime Minister on the strength of his record.
A second point could be made from Tory history as well. There is an old saying about the RC Church's elections of Popes - he who goes in the favourite, comes out a Cardinal. The same is true of the Conservatives. The last time a 'clear front runner' won the leadership would surely be Eden in 1955, the time before that Chamberlain in 1937, and the time before that Balfour in 1902 - none of them lasted more than three years, and all had a thoroughly miserable time in office. In fact, I have to go all the way back to Disraeli in 1867 to find a leader who was (a) the clear front runner on the retirement of the previous leader and (b) didn't make a complete mess of the job (and he had a few close calls in the late 1860s). Of course, some of the outsiders haven't been exactly great either. But that's a different point.
I would guess that whenever Cameron goes, the new leader will be somebody if not totally unexpected, at the very least not widely tipped. Sajid Javid might be a possibility, or even Esther McVey or Mark Harper. Or it might be somebody so obscure that nobody has so far ever heard of them, a la Major or Baldwin who both rose very suddenly to beat more prominent, experienced and arguably more able candidates to become leader.
Pompous and not very popular judge: 'I am afraid, Mr Smith, that I am no wiser after that speech.'
FE: 'Certainly not, my lord, but I trust your lordship is at least better informed.'
Doesn't bode well for the future of the LDs - no longer a depository for protest votes and no natural constituency.
Judge: You are extremely offensive, young man!
F. E. Smith: As a matter of fact we both are; and the only difference between us is that I am trying to be, and you can't help it.
Oh my, whatever you do, do not visit tubegalore.mobi
Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero 32m
.@mehdirhasan's porn site of choice describes itself as "a vortex… the only porn resource you'll ever need"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuLvpVbIgAEjTRv.png
"Charybdis, the last holiday destination you'll ever want to visit!"
"a vortex is a region within a fluid where the flow is mostly a spinning motion"
Well, Libya is now in flames, British Embassy staff are fleeing the country and the place is far too dangerous for anyone to go there and report on it. Massacres can proceed with impunity, and refugees head unhindered to Italy – and eventually here – in their thousands.
Let me remind you that Mr Cameron was quick to claim an easy triumph. He told the Commons on September 5, 2011:
‘Some people warned, as Gaddafi himself did, that the Libyan people could not be trusted with freedom; that without Gaddafi there would be chaos.
Compare and contrast what I said here that same week:
‘Just because existing regimes are bad, it does not follow that their replacements will be any better… The test of any revolution comes not as the tyrant falls, but two or three years later, when the new rulers have shown us what they are really like.’ "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2714462/PETER-HITCHENS-These-vainglorious-fools-march-inferno.html#ixzz39PsAYOJM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As for the Tories,Johnson enters fray and,what else,bangs on about Europe.He must know his old mate Dave is going to lose and he smells blood,these Old Etonians know no mercy.
Con 35 (nc) Lab 37 (+1) LD 9 (+1) UKIP 12 (-1) Greens 3 (-1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OmOnline_Vote_04-08-2014_BPC.pdf
"How much further can it fall? Are we past peak UKIP? Will they now plumb back to the depths of the 3% they managed to attract in 2010? Or is this merely a Summer blip, addressed by renewed vigour in Autumn? Both circumstances have their pitfalls for Labour.
Some strategists at Labour HQ are banking on this being a blip. They believe that if UKIP poll 9% or more next year, they will have taken enough votes from the Tories to ensure Miliband enters Number 10. By their reckoning, if UKIP’s vote continues to drop, a Tory resurgence will spell trouble for Labour.
In an interview yesterday, however, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said he was “not comfortable” with UKIP getting 9% in “the medium or long term”, suggesting there are deep disagreements at the top of the party about how much of a threat Nigel Farage’s party are to Labour. He’s right to be uncomfortable.Balls is right to be uncomfortable: too many in our Party are deluding themselves about UKIP. They are going to be very, very damaging to us.
A quick glance at Lord Ashcoft’s recent marginal polling should be enough of a warning. Not only are UKIP on track to win some of our main target seats, there are some constituencies where they are attracting so many swing voters that they split the anti-Tory vote, leaving the Conservatives in place.
I can only assume that those who advocate a 9% UKIP vote must be blinkered by London-centric view of politics. On the morning of May 23rd, having stayed up through the night for LabourList’s election liveblog, I was reflecting on a poor night so far for Labour."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/03/salmond-tv-debate-scottish-independence-referendum-darling
Well, quite.
What about another hung parliament like this one? What sort of bold offer would Dave make to the Lib Dems next time? In fact what sort of offer would he be allowed to make by his party? Some of whom we expect to be gunning for him the morning after the election if he does give them their promised majority.