politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In 2010 only 47% of voters had decided the way they were go

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In 2010 only 47% of voters had decided the way they were going to vote before the election campaign began

Whilst most of us have been poring over the polls in recent days, I noticed this analysis by YouGov asking voters back in 2010 when they had made up their minds which way they were going to vote. I was surprised that over half the voters still hadn’t made up their mind by March 2010.

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

Charles

You mean that there are still people out there who don't realise that Ed Is Crap?!

GeoffM

Podium finish!

Paul_Mid_Beds

Is Ed Milifoot crap or is it just that the "fashionable" media are against him?

Michael Foot wasn't all that crap actually, he was just monstered for having loony policies like..er nationalising the banks....

audreyanne

I think pb.com is coming back on form. I'm trying not to say that's because I find myself agreeing with the threads once more, but because it feels like it is sharpening up. Perhaps the conference season has focused minds back on realities.

Top thread TSE, and very true. In fact, if anything I'd suggest 2015 will have even less firmed up voters than 2010 because of the fixed term parliament.

Financier

YG poll

Both Con & LAB 2010 retentions at 77%.

LD 2010 split back to normal: Con:12; LAB:37; LD: 29

Gender: Male: Cons: 33; LAB: 35.
Female: Cons:38; LAB: 32

audreyanne

p.s. Dreadful Times front page for Miliband.

Meanwhile the storm clouds are gathering: ISIS on Europe's doorstep and Ebola across the doorstep. I'm not sure how those play politically except that you can't really imagine Miliband being in charge. And that's my response to Paul mid Bed. Michael Foot may have been intelligent and once was a great orator, certainly a fine parliamentarian, but he came across as an incompetent fool. The 'donkey jacket' at the cenotaph summed it up when the press rounded on him, and I'm afraid Miliband has managed to do the same, first with the bacon buttie, and now with his 'I forgot' speech. He's not up to the job. Everyone knows it.

Freggles

But if polls don't matter until the last few months before an election... what are we going to do for the other 4.5 years of the electoral cycle?

OldKingCole

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Is Ed Milifoot crap or is it just that the "fashionable" media are against him?

Michael Foot wasn't all that crap actually, he was just monstered for having loony policies like..er nationalising the banks....

Indeed. Michael was a committed Lefty and everyone knew it. Consequently he could do very little right in the eyes of a significant part of the Press.
The worst incident was the famous “donkey jacket @ the Centotaph” where he was wearing a smart short overcoat from, in fact, Harrods.
He was never allowed to forget it ..... disrespectful to our War dead, to the Queen. They were all there.

DecrepitJohnL

audreyanne said:

I think pb.com is coming back on form. I'm trying not to say that's because I find myself agreeing with the threads once more, but because it feels like it is sharpening up. Perhaps the conference season has focused minds back on realities.

Really? There seems to have been an awful lot more off-topic chat about music and television series in the past few days.

Alanbrooke

DecrepitJohnL said:

audreyanne said:

I think pb.com is coming back on form. I'm trying not to say that's because I find myself agreeing with the threads once more, but because it feels like it is sharpening up. Perhaps the conference season has focused minds back on realities.

Really? There seems to have been an awful lot more off-topic chat about music and television series in the past few days.

I'm sure we can get a thread of cat pictures going if you're missing it.

DecrepitJohnL

Late-deciding voters? Indyref showed us that campaigns can be decisive -- in both directions. Alex Salmond, arguably Scotland's finest politician of his generation, more-or-less doubled the Yes vote over a short period and was moving ahead on points, until an even later swing to mop up DKs into Nos, when the union's champion climbed into the ring and Alex Salmond was KO'd by the great clunking fist of Gordon Brown.

Innocent_Abroad

The only people who can prevent a Tory landslide next year are... the Tories themselves.

Casino_Royale

Yes, pointed something very similar out a few days ago. The Ashcroft national poll last week showed only 54% who have 'already made up their minds' - see table 2: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ANP-summary-1409291.pdf

That might actually be slightly high.

logical_song

OldKingCole said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Is Ed Milifoot crap or is it just that the "fashionable" media are against him?

Michael Foot wasn't all that crap actually, he was just monstered for having loony policies like..er nationalising the banks....

Indeed. Michael was a committed Lefty and everyone knew it. Consequently he could do very little right in the eyes of a significant part of the Press.
The worst incident was the famous “donkey jacket @ the Centotaph” where he was wearing a smart short overcoat from, in fact, Harrods.
He was never allowed to forget it ..... disrespectful to our War dead, to the Queen. They were all there.

Yes, there's always an unspoken but agreed agenda and photographs and stories that fit get published

DavidL

I wonder if 2010 was slightly exceptional because of the Cleggasm. I really find it hard to believe that so many people are so indecisive. Or frankly don't vote a particular way out of habit without thinking about it too deeply.

My impression in recent times is that election campaigns have not ultimately changed peoples' views all that much and the media theme going into the election has continued. Last time it was pretty much the Tories saying, "this is going to hurt a bit" which made some, particularly in the public sector, pause and have second thoughts.

Recent polling is encouraging for the Tories and it will be interesting to see the effect on Fisher's projections. I suspect the Tories will be close to being back on track. Most of this is probably Conference bounce but the Conferences again fed into existing themes for Ed and Dave so their effect may be longer lasting.

[Deleted User]

On topic:

So is having a fairly high level of as-yet-undecideds good news for Dave or Ed? I think Dave. Ed's 35% strategy is very risky and I don't think Labour has such a strong irreduceable core as it once did. The big worry for Labour is surely that Ed will have to be on telly alot in the campaign. Likewise I think it highly likely some of the UKIP vote will support Dave on the day.

Itajai

Who will late breakers go for?

One presumption is Miliband will overperform as expectations are so low. I am not sure. His performance will probably be woeful, and I do not think the mass of the electorate have cottoned on how truly dreadful he is yet.

Clegg will probably recoup some territory. From a low base.
Cameron ditto from a higher base.
Farage may fizzle out. Depends if the media go for him. I am not sure manufactured stories about "racism"/"homophobia"/other PC-though crimes will hurt him though.

Innocent_Abroad

After their landslide, the Tories, Home Secretary Theresa May promises us, will bring in security legislation to prevent "extremists" from communicating with each other electronically or having the right to privacy or to a fair trial. She has mentioned two kinds of "extremists", viz. fascists and Islamists. However it is most unlikely that any such categories will be named on the face of the Bill. Its provision could theoretically apply to any of us.

Given the deeply-held views of Tory activists on the damage (expressed on this Forum and, I am sure, elsewhere) that has been done to the economy by successive Labour governments and indeed all those who prioritize social justice over wealth creation - not, as they like to think, in order to occupy some spurious moral high ground, but because they themselves, as individuals, do not have what it takes to create wealth and are therefore enemies of England* - why should this legislation not also apply to all those to the left of, say, Boris Johnson? Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

*No, I don't believe this myself. There are many here who do, though.

[Deleted User]

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Itajai

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

Financier

Just listened to Ed Davey spout total cr*p on R4 Today regarding energy policy. With him and his main predecessor EdM in charge of energy, no wonder it is a complete mess.

1. He said the LDs would shut all coal-fired power stations by 2025 and replace them with what??? Wonder what Frau Merkel would say to him as she is building coal-fired power stations as fast as possible to replace nuclear. Also most of our nuclear need replacing and currently one reactor in use has developed a crack - power cuts to come this winter or will we rely on importing energy from French nuclear??

He seems very happy to import wood pellets from the USA to fire some of our power stations - is that good Green energy use?

2. He claimed that UK renewable energy is now as cost efficient as hydrocarbon energy. Must have missed the drop in oil prices, as well as the fact that in the September period of high pressure very little wind energy was generated. Today all the turbines in my area are shut down due to too much wind!.

So if renewable energy is cost efficient why does it need subsidies? Yesterday Vince Cable acknowledged that the UK's high energy prices (partly due to the Green energy tax) was making UK heavy industries uncompetitive. So are the two ends of the LDs no longer talking to each other as well as slagging off the rest of the coalition?

Monksfield

Financier said:

Just listened to Ed Davey spout total cr*p on R4 Today regarding energy policy. With him and his main predecessor EdM in charge of energy, no wonder it is a complete mess.

1. He said the LDs would shut all coal-fired power stations by 2025 and replace them with what??? Wonder what Frau Merkel would say to him as she is building coal-fired power stations as fast as possible to replace nuclear. Also most of our nuclear need replacing and currently one reactor in use has developed a crack - power cuts to come this winter or will we rely on importing energy from French nuclear??

He seems very happy to import wood pellets from the USA to fire some of our power stations - is that good Green energy use?

2. He claimed that UK renewable energy is now as cost efficient as hydrocarbon energy. Must have missed the drop in oil prices, as well as the fact that in the September period of high pressure very little wind energy was generated. Today all the turbines in my area are shut down due to too much wind!.

So if renewable energy is cost efficient why does it need subsidies? Yesterday Vince Cable acknowledged that the UK's high energy prices (partly due to the Green energy tax) was making UK heavy industries uncompetitive. So are the two ends of the LDs no longer talking to each other as well as slagging off the rest of the coalition?

I think you'll find LD and Tory are jointly and severally responsible for Policy. That's why they are a coalition Government. c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n!

numbertwelve

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Forgetting to mention the deficit and immigration may go down as one of those career-haunting moves like Willie Hague in a baseball cap and Neil Kinnock's Sheffield shriek. Expect it to be used again and again. It reinforced a narrative that Ed is, well, crap. A lot of people have said he was useless, but it perhaps took that event to demonstrate it more widely.

Innocent_Abroad

Monksfield said:

Financier said:

Just listened to Ed Davey spout total cr*p on R4 Today regarding energy policy. With him and his main predecessor EdM in charge of energy, no wonder it is a complete mess.

1. He said the LDs would shut all coal-fired power stations by 2025 and replace them with what??? Wonder what Frau Merkel would say to him as she is building coal-fired power stations as fast as possible to replace nuclear. Also most of our nuclear need replacing and currently one reactor in use has developed a crack - power cuts to come this winter or will we rely on importing energy from French nuclear??

He seems very happy to import wood pellets from the USA to fire some of our power stations - is that good Green energy use?

2. He claimed that UK renewable energy is now as cost efficient as hydrocarbon energy. Must have missed the drop in oil prices, as well as the fact that in the September period of high pressure very little wind energy was generated. Today all the turbines in my area are shut down due to too much wind!.

So if renewable energy is cost efficient why does it need subsidies? Yesterday Vince Cable acknowledged that the UK's high energy prices (partly due to the Green energy tax) was making UK heavy industries uncompetitive. So are the two ends of the LDs no longer talking to each other as well as slagging off the rest of the coalition?

I think you'll find LD and Tory are jointly and severally responsible for Policy. That's why they are a coalition Government. c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n!

I think, Monksfield, you need to understand that the only reason Davey and chums are in government is because of the irresponsible behaviour of the electorate last time in denying the Conservatives a majority.

The purpose of a General Election is to enable each of us to demonstrate our Patriotism by voting Conservative. At least I think that's its purpose. But I may be wrong. I often am.

Jeremy_Brown

Innocent_Abroad said:

After their landslide, the Tories, Home Secretary Theresa May promises us, will bring in security legislation to prevent "extremists" from communicating with each other electronically or having the right to privacy or to a fair trial. She has mentioned two kinds of "extremists", viz. fascists and Islamists. However it is most unlikely that any such categories will be named on the face of the Bill. Its provision could theoretically apply to any of us.

Given the deeply-held views of Tory activists on the damage (expressed on this Forum and, I am sure, elsewhere) that has been done to the economy by successive Labour governments and indeed all those who prioritize social justice over wealth creation - not, as they like to think, in order to occupy some spurious moral high ground, but because they themselves, as individuals, do not have what it takes to create wealth and are therefore enemies of England* - why should this legislation not also apply to all those to the left of, say, Boris Johnson? Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

*No, I don't believe this myself. There are many here who do, though.

Its the old double speak bullcrap from the home office whereby in order to defend our values we have to destroy them. This one statement from May at the TPC was enough to prevent me from voting conservative. I don't think Wealden will fall to the red hordes without me

Jeremy_Brown

Nice to see the DPRNK's PR department is making efforts to get back on the front pages after some woeful performances recently. A nice peninsular war to ensure each continent has its own woes.

volcanopete

The extent of the hostility toward Ed Miliband can only mean one thing.Fear.

AlastairMeeks

I see that the Lib Dems are getting a conference bounce.

numbertwelve

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.

I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.

BannedInParis

numbertwelve said:

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Forgetting to mention the deficit and immigration may go down as one of those career-haunting moves like Willie Hague in a baseball cap and Neil Kinnock's Sheffield shriek. Expect it to be used again and again. It reinforced a narrative that Ed is, well, crap. A lot of people have said he was useless, but it perhaps took that event to demonstrate it more widely.

Yeah, I guess just monstering someone (possible example: Brown and the letter to the soldier's mum) raises sympathy. An unscripted moment where the actions hit the meme - :headshot:

Of course, different people have different memes for different politicians.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Financier, said for a long time that Davey's a simpleton. The sooner we get green zealots out of energy and someone whose priority is keeping the lights on the better.

Mr. Freggles, well, in a month and a half or so Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out, so that'll keep some of us entertained for some time. Also F1 (season ends two days after DAI's release), and Homeland's back on Sunday.

And I might do a spot of writing as well.

On-topic: I wonder about this finding. People can be rubbish at self-reporting, particularly historical things.

Not to mention the fact that someone could say they 'had not made a decision' but they might have a strong inclination for someone or a given party, or be anti-someone/anti-party.

Scrapheap_as_was

volcanopete said:

The extent of the hostility toward Ed Miliband can only mean one thing.Fear.

You are 100% right - he's doing just fine... more power to his elbow!

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labours-mr-micawber-election-strategy/

SimonStClare

volcanopete said:

The extent of the hostility toward Ed Miliband can only mean one thing.Fear.

Arf.

FalseFlag

Innocent_Abroad said:

After their landslide, the Tories, Home Secretary Theresa May promises us, will bring in security legislation to prevent "extremists" from communicating with each other electronically or having the right to privacy or to a fair trial. She has mentioned two kinds of "extremists", viz. fascists and Islamists. However it is most unlikely that any such categories will be named on the face of the Bill. Its provision could theoretically apply to any of us.

Given the deeply-held views of Tory activists on the damage (expressed on this Forum and, I am sure, elsewhere) that has been done to the economy by successive Labour governments and indeed all those who prioritize social justice over wealth creation - not, as they like to think, in order to occupy some spurious moral high ground, but because they themselves, as individuals, do not have what it takes to create wealth and are therefore enemies of England* - why should this legislation not also apply to all those to the left of, say, Boris Johnson? Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

*No, I don't believe this myself. There are many here who do, though.

I would expect the legislation to be mainly aimed at those sceptical of multiculturalism and immigration. An increasing police state will be introduced to keep our fractured society together.

I remember when I was in Moscow a Russian fella rhapsodising how much he admired the English tradition of free speech, I didn't have the heart to tell him this was long gone.

Scrapheap_as_was

numbertwelve said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.

I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.

I think I saw a Tweet exchange between Louise M and Lord Ashcroft asking if he'd do a GE poll in Scotland and he replied 'yes in due course' or something along those lines.

numbertwelve

BannedInParis said:

numbertwelve said:

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Forgetting to mention the deficit and immigration may go down as one of those career-haunting moves like Willie Hague in a baseball cap and Neil Kinnock's Sheffield shriek. Expect it to be used again and again. It reinforced a narrative that Ed is, well, crap. A lot of people have said he was useless, but it perhaps took that event to demonstrate it more widely.

Yeah, I guess just monstering someone (possible example: Brown and the letter to the soldier's mum) raises sympathy. An unscripted moment where the actions hit the meme - :headshot:

Of course, different people have different memes for different politicians.

You've hit on a good point.

The absolute worst thing the Tories could do in the campaign is go overly negative on Ed (and by that I mean his personality, mannerisms etc). They've been doing ok so far, simply talking about Ed Miliband in Downing Street (so, by extension, saying 'nudge, nudge, he's not PM material is he?') but they could have the whole thing backfire catastrophically on them.

Let Ed's crapness speak for itself.

DecrepitJohnL

numbertwelve said:

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Forgetting to mention the deficit and immigration may go down as one of those career-haunting moves like Willie Hague in a baseball cap and Neil Kinnock's Sheffield shriek. Expect it to be used again and again. It reinforced a narrative that Ed is, well, crap. A lot of people have said he was useless, but it perhaps took that event to demonstrate it more widely.

I doubt it. The first two you mention are easy to show, so can be kept in the public eye. Hague in a baseball cap -- one photo. Kinnock -- a short clip. But that's not true of Miliband -- half an hour of Ed's speech and then cut to David Cameron saying, "see -- he never mentioned it"? Miliband not coping with a bacon sandwich? That's more like it: one photo.

numbertwelve

FalseFlag said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

After their landslide, the Tories, Home Secretary Theresa May promises us, will bring in security legislation to prevent "extremists" from communicating with each other electronically or having the right to privacy or to a fair trial. She has mentioned two kinds of "extremists", viz. fascists and Islamists. However it is most unlikely that any such categories will be named on the face of the Bill. Its provision could theoretically apply to any of us.

Given the deeply-held views of Tory activists on the damage (expressed on this Forum and, I am sure, elsewhere) that has been done to the economy by successive Labour governments and indeed all those who prioritize social justice over wealth creation - not, as they like to think, in order to occupy some spurious moral high ground, but because they themselves, as individuals, do not have what it takes to create wealth and are therefore enemies of England* - why should this legislation not also apply to all those to the left of, say, Boris Johnson? Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

*No, I don't believe this myself. There are many here who do, though.

I would expect the legislation to be mainly aimed at those sceptical of multiculturalism and immigration. An increasing police state will be introduced to keep our fractured society together.

I remember when I was in Moscow a Russian fella rhapsodising how much he admired the English tradition of free speech, I didn't have the heart to tell him this was long gone.

Comparatively speaking I think we probably still do rather well...

rottenborough

Morning all,

Clegg's big interview with Evan Davis on NN was instructive last night. Not so much for the policy content and so, but the sheer preternatural calm exhibited. Yes, he admitted, LDs are on 6%, but this is what happens to small parties in coalition. It happens all over Europe and this is the way it is and we are happy to take it on the chin.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

I wonder if 2010 was slightly exceptional because of the Cleggasm. I really find it hard to believe that so many people are so indecisive. Or frankly don't vote a particular way out of habit without thinking about it too deeply.

My impression in recent times is that election campaigns have not ultimately changed peoples' views all that much and the media theme going into the election has continued. Last time it was pretty much the Tories saying, "this is going to hurt a bit" which made some, particularly in the public sector, pause and have second thoughts.

Recent polling is encouraging for the Tories and it will be interesting to see the effect on Fisher's projections. I suspect the Tories will be close to being back on track. Most of this is probably Conference bounce but the Conferences again fed into existing themes for Ed and Dave so their effect may be longer lasting.

2010 was similar to 1997 in that people were fed up to the back teeth with the incumbent and wanted a breath of fresh air.

The Cons were, sadly, still nasty at that point (still are now) so there couldn't be a coronation of Cam a la Blair.

That is where Clegg/the Cleggasm came in. Here was a Blair-ish type bloke spouting platitudes (and wholly unrealistic policies) which made everyone feel good and hence the coalition.

Today the reality of the economic situation is brutal enough for the Cons' toxicity to be the least of everyone's problems, IMO.

chestnut

volcanopete said:

The extent of the hostility toward Ed Miliband can only mean one thing.Fear.

Indeed. Like letting a lunatic loose in your knife drawer.

numbertwelve

DecrepitJohnL said:

numbertwelve said:

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Forgetting to mention the deficit and immigration may go down as one of those career-haunting moves like Willie Hague in a baseball cap and Neil Kinnock's Sheffield shriek. Expect it to be used again and again. It reinforced a narrative that Ed is, well, crap. A lot of people have said he was useless, but it perhaps took that event to demonstrate it more widely.

I doubt it. The first two you mention are easy to show, so can be kept in the public eye. Hague in a baseball cap -- one photo. Kinnock -- a short clip. But that's not true of Miliband -- half an hour of Ed's speech and then cut to David Cameron saying, "see -- he never mentioned it"? Miliband not coping with a bacon sandwich? That's more like it: one photo.

The bacon sandwich is a good one, but the speech writes a narrative as well. It's just such an easy attack, it will be brought up at every opportunity, therefore making it somewhat infamous... Even if it doesn't have an easy sound bite or photo.

Artist

The 2010 splits from today's YouGov look pretty normal. Slightly higher Labour to Conservative switching.

DecrepitJohnL

Jeremy_Brown said:

Nice to see the DPRNK's PR department is making efforts to get back on the front pages after some woeful performances recently. A nice peninsular war to ensure each continent has its own woes.

Who knows? If KJU has been sidelined, then is it by people who want rapprochement and unification, or by the die-hard isolationists? Does this incident provide cover for a treaty, or is it intended to rule one out?

bigjohnowls

Latest BJESUS

7.10.14 LAB 325 (334) CON 269(260) LD 31(32) UKIP 1(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 211 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer

bigjohnowls

Every BJESUS

17.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
24.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
1.7.14 LAB 329(330) CON 268 (263) LD 29(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24(24) (Ed is crap is PM)
8.7.14 LAB 330 (329) CON 264(268) LD 32(29) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
15.7.14 LAB 329 (330) CON 264(264) LD 33(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
22.7.14 LAB 331 (329) CON 261(264) LD 34(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
29.7.14 LAB 332 (331) CON 260(261) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
5.8.14 LAB 330(332) CON 262(260) LD 34(34 UKIP0(0) Others 24 (Ed is Crap is PM)
12.8.14 LAB 332 (330) CON 260(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
18.8.14 LAB 331(332) CON 261(260) LD 34(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
26.8.14 LAB 333(331) CON 259(261)LD(34)UKIP 0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
2.9.14 LAB331(333) CON261(259) LD24(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM
9.9.14 LAB332(331) CON260(261) LD34(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM
16.9.14 LAB 331(332) CON 262(260) LD 33(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
23.9.14 LAB 334 (331) CON 260(262) LD 32(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
30.9.14 LAB 334 (334) CON 260(260) LD 32(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
7.10.14 LAB 325 (334) CON 269(260) LD 31(32) UKIP 1(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)

OblitusSumMe

In today's YouGov poll 8% of Labour 2010 voters now declare their support for the Conservatives with 5% of blue support in 2010 going the other way. These percentages aren't directly comparable because of the different share of the vote in 2010, so converting them to numbers of poll respondents we have:

Lab -> Con ~34
Con -> Lab ~27

Net swing to Conservatives of ~7, or ~1.5 percentage points of their headline 35%.

This is the highest amount of Lab/Con switching that I have seen since the aftermath of the Omnishambles budget when lots of Conservative 2010 voters supporting Miliband. There are votes for Cameron to win from Labour.

The Male:Female splits are also interesting. Has anyone seen UKIP support at an equal level across the genders before? As far as I can remember they have always had a lot more support from men.

Socrates

Innocent_Abroad said:

After their landslide, the Tories, Home Secretary Theresa May promises us, will bring in security legislation to prevent "extremists" from communicating with each other electronically or having the right to privacy or to a fair trial. She has mentioned two kinds of "extremists", viz. fascists and Islamists. However it is most unlikely that any such categories will be named on the face of the Bill. Its provision could theoretically apply to any of us.

Given the deeply-held views of Tory activists on the damage (expressed on this Forum and, I am sure, elsewhere) that has been done to the economy by successive Labour governments and indeed all those who prioritize social justice over wealth creation - not, as they like to think, in order to occupy some spurious moral high ground, but because they themselves, as individuals, do not have what it takes to create wealth and are therefore enemies of England* - why should this legislation not also apply to all those to the left of, say, Boris Johnson? Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

*No, I don't believe this myself. There are many here who do, though.

And all at the discretion of the Home Secretary. We once had a fine tradition in this country of these sorts of decisions being left to independent judges, but now the government controls it all directly: from GCHQ watching our web cams to individuals being removed from fair trials.

And of course, the security services are now interfering with a free press too, showing that Cameron's commitment to the concept only comes when he's batting for Murdoch:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/06/police-ordered-reveal-ripa-powers-identify-journalists-sources

MarqueeMark

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score.

Gordon was a wretched Prime Minister, but at least he had a line to offer on the economy: he had saved us all from certain and imminent doom. And some Labour voters bought that.

Ed is a wretched Prime Minister wannabe. But with no line to offer on the economy. Or rather, he has one, but it is provided by his opponents: that he will lead us all to certain and imminent doom. And some former Labour voters will buy that.

Thinking he could do worse than Gordon is by no means crazy talk. Imagine if during the campaign he had an economy-related "bacon sandwich" moment. Where people look at him - perhaps properly look at him for the first time - and recoil at his crapness. 2010 could seem like a dream result in comparison....

Gadfly

antifrank said:

I see that the Lib Dems are getting a conference bounce.

Red bounces down, blue bounces up, so yellow must be mid-bounce.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/0x8co976xtcn6sx/12-month YouGov(2).jpg#

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, not putting up an early F1 post this time. As well as general lack of comments (which was the main purpose for the early post), the next race is only a few days away, and the only story that matters is Bianchi (and there's not much to say beyond hoping he recovers).

MarqueeMark

bigjohnowls said:

Every BJESUS

17.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
24.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
1.7.14 LAB 329(330) CON 268 (263) LD 29(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24(24) (Ed is crap is PM)
8.7.14 LAB 330 (329) CON 264(268) LD 32(29) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
15.7.14 LAB 329 (330) CON 264(264) LD 33(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
22.7.14 LAB 331 (329) CON 261(264) LD 34(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
29.7.14 LAB 332 (331) CON 260(261) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
5.8.14 LAB 330(332) CON 262(260) LD 34(34 UKIP0(0) Others 24 (Ed is Crap is PM)
12.8.14 LAB 332 (330) CON 260(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
18.8.14 LAB 331(332) CON 261(260) LD 34(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
26.8.14 LAB 333(331) CON 259(261)LD(34)UKIP 0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
2.9.14 LAB331(333) CON261(259) LD24(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM
9.9.14 LAB332(331) CON260(261) LD34(34) Others24 (24) Ed is crap is PM
16.9.14 LAB 331(332) CON 262(260) LD 33(34) UKIP0(0) Others 24 Ed is crap is PM
23.9.14 LAB 334 (331) CON 260(262) LD 32(33) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
30.9.14 LAB 334 (334) CON 260(260) LD 32(32) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
7.10.14 LAB 325 (334) CON 269(260) LD 31(32) UKIP 1(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)

I really look forward to the first Ed is crap is NOT PM BJESUS. Before Christmas maybe?

OblitusSumMe

My thanks to SeanT for keeping us updated on the advance of Islamic State yesterday. I wonder whether today he would be able to keep us informed of the latest phase in the Eurozone crisis?

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Incidentally, not putting up an early F1 post this time. As well as general lack of comments (which was the main purpose for the early post), the next race is only a few days away, and the only story that matters is Bianchi (and there's not much to say beyond hoping he recovers).

I'd just like to say thanks for all your work, Mr Dancer. I read almost all your posts, but rarely comment as you cover things so well. Don't think your hard work is not appreciated.

Charles

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Is Ed Milifoot crap or is it just that the "fashionable" media are against him?

Michael Foot wasn't all that crap actually, he was just monstered for having loony policies like..er nationalising the banks....

I think he's too clever by half. Tries to come up with cute policies but doesn't appreciate (or doesn't care) about impact on expectations and behaviour of his musing

numbertwelve

MarqueeMark said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score.

Gordon was a wretched Prime Minister, but at least he had a line to offer on the economy: he had saved us all from certain and imminent doom. And some Labour voters bought that.

Ed is a wretched Prime Minister wannabe. But with no line to offer on the economy. Or rather, he has one, but it is provided by his opponents: that he will lead us all to certain and imminent doom. And some former Labour voters will buy that.

Thinking he could do worse than Gordon is by no means crazy talk. Imagine if during the campaign he had an economy-related "bacon sandwich" moment. Where people look at him - perhaps properly look at him for the first time - and recoil at his crapness. 2010 could seem like a dream result in comparison....

Labour also had the deeply cynical, but rather effective "The Tories will take all the freebies we've given you away!" line.

There was a PPB which (purely from memory) had some hard-faced inspector type going around people's homes (including the sick) and taking their tax credits. Cue lots of shots of people's bottom lips wobbling as they protested that they needed that money to live.

At the time a lot of us decried it as rather offensive scare tactics, but these things hit home. Bigotgate aside, in retrospect Labour played a rather smart game in 2010.

In 2915, there'll still be the "Dispicable Tories" narrative, but a lot of the cuts have fallen. The second time around this won't have as much resonance.

Morris_Dancer

Cheers, Mr. Jessop.

rottenborough

OblitusSumMe said:

My thanks to SeanT for keeping us updated on the advance of Islamic State yesterday. I wonder whether today he would be able to keep us informed of the latest phase in the Eurozone crisis?

Grim economic news for Europe and us. This may well play into Tory hands in sense that bolsters the argument that 'the job is only half done'.

DecrepitJohnL

rottenborough said:

OblitusSumMe said:

My thanks to SeanT for keeping us updated on the advance of Islamic State yesterday. I wonder whether today he would be able to keep us informed of the latest phase in the Eurozone crisis?

Grim economic news for Europe and us. This may well play into Tory hands in sense that bolsters the argument that 'the job is only half done'.

And again shows the stupidity of Labour's timorous approach because it is too late to point out that austerity is not working in Europe.

NickPalmer

numbertwelve said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.

I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.

Certainly recent Scottish subsamples have been grim for Labour - it's noticeable that in today's Labour is doing better in Britain as a whole (33) than Scotland (29) (I wonder what that will do to the enthusiasm for EV4EL in some quarters), and in fact the 1.5 point post-conference drop in Labour's average rating is entirely attributable to the change in Scotland (though separately from that the Tories are up 2). We could do with a proper Scottish poll with detailed secondaries to see what's happening up there.

As I've said, I think that opinion is unusually solid this year with few people saying they're undecided, even though it's the classic excuse to stop canvassers bothering you. The reason is probably that UKIP has soaked off a lot of the "oh they're all crap" voters (a lot of whom were vaguely LibDem), leaving a pretty hard core for each party.

It'd be silly to deny that the Tories had the best of the conference coverage (possibly the current not-so-bad coverage of the LibDem will give them a little bounce too?). We still need to move past the by-elections to see how it all settles down, though Thursday's are starting to look broadly predictable (UKIP in Clacton, Labour in H&M).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Palmer, it doesn't diminish my desire for proper English devolution* one jot. What matters isn't the choice England makes but that England gets to make a choice, and the fact you seem to be viewing equality for England (with Scotland) as some sort of partisan measure is depressing.

*Shitty little regional assemblies, carving England up into pieces and city-regions are bullshit, and those who propose such measures shall be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.

rottenborough

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

OblitusSumMe said:

My thanks to SeanT for keeping us updated on the advance of Islamic State yesterday. I wonder whether today he would be able to keep us informed of the latest phase in the Eurozone crisis?

Grim economic news for Europe and us. This may well play into Tory hands in sense that bolsters the argument that 'the job is only half done'.

And again shows the stupidity of Labour's timorous approach because it is too late to point out that austerity is not working in Europe.

To be fair, Ed Balls did at least try, back in 2010-11. At some point he was either muzzled or accepted himself that the politics of Keynes economics just woudn't work out.

Socrates

rottenborough said:

OblitusSumMe said:

My thanks to SeanT for keeping us updated on the advance of Islamic State yesterday. I wonder whether today he would be able to keep us informed of the latest phase in the Eurozone crisis?

Grim economic news for Europe and us. This may well play into Tory hands in sense that bolsters the argument that 'the job is only half done'.

It mostly validates UKIP's argument that the single market isn't the be all and end all as the Europhile parties claim. How long must we have trade barriers to the US and the BRICs in order to get better full access to the single market? It's a trade-off that doesn't make sense any more.

BannedInParis

numbertwelve said:

MarqueeMark said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score.

Gordon was a wretched Prime Minister, but at least he had a line to offer on the economy: he had saved us all from certain and imminent doom. And some Labour voters bought that.

Ed is a wretched Prime Minister wannabe. But with no line to offer on the economy. Or rather, he has one, but it is provided by his opponents: that he will lead us all to certain and imminent doom. And some former Labour voters will buy that.

Thinking he could do worse than Gordon is by no means crazy talk. Imagine if during the campaign he had an economy-related "bacon sandwich" moment. Where people look at him - perhaps properly look at him for the first time - and recoil at his crapness. 2010 could seem like a dream result in comparison....

Labour also had the deeply cynical, but rather effective "The Tories will take all the freebies we've given you away!" line.

There was a PPB which (purely from memory) had some hard-faced inspector type going around people's homes (including the sick) and taking their tax credits. Cue lots of shots of people's bottom lips wobbling as they protested that they needed that money to live.

At the time a lot of us decried it as rather offensive scare tactics, but these things hit home. Bigotgate aside, in retrospect Labour played a rather smart game in 2010.

In 2915, there'll still be the "Dispicable Tories" narrative, but a lot of the cuts have fallen. The second time around this won't have as much resonance.

In 2915, I fully expect Labour to be still banging on about Fatcha.

Gadfly

numbertwelve said:

MarqueeMark said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score.

Gordon was a wretched Prime Minister, but at least he had a line to offer on the economy: he had saved us all from certain and imminent doom. And some Labour voters bought that.

Ed is a wretched Prime Minister wannabe. But with no line to offer on the economy. Or rather, he has one, but it is provided by his opponents: that he will lead us all to certain and imminent doom. And some former Labour voters will buy that.

Thinking he could do worse than Gordon is by no means crazy talk. Imagine if during the campaign he had an economy-related "bacon sandwich" moment. Where people look at him - perhaps properly look at him for the first time - and recoil at his crapness. 2010 could seem like a dream result in comparison....

In 2915, there'll still be the "Dispicable Tories" narrative, but a lot of the cuts have fallen.

After nine centuries of cuts they will deserve to be called despicable :-)

OblitusSumMe

NickPalmer said:

We still need to move past the by-elections to see how it all settles down, though Thursday's are starting to look broadly predictable (UKIP in Clacton, Labour in H&M).

At this stage one would certainly be surprised if either majority was below 10%, and I wouldn't be that surprised if both majorities were over 20%.

It will be interesting to see what impact the Carswell/UKIP victory in Clacton has on the political landscape - remember, we expect the monthly ICM Guardian poll on the Monday following, and so we'll have a wealth of polling data to look at in the aftermath.

chestnut

NickPalmer said:

Labour is doing better in Britain as a whole (33) than Scotland (29) (I wonder what that will do to the enthusiasm for EV4EL in some quarters)

Ashcroft had the Tories winning 35-29 in England.

People keep forgetting that Labour Wales will also be excluded from voting on many issues.

OblitusSumMe

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Palmer, it doesn't diminish my desire for proper English devolution* one jot. What matters isn't the choice England makes but that England gets to make a choice, and the fact you seem to be viewing equality for England (with Scotland) as some sort of partisan measure is depressing.

*Shitty little regional assemblies, carving England up into pieces and city-regions are bullshit, and those who propose such measures shall be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.

England gets to make a choice as long as it is one that you approve of? How very Stalinist of you.

Also, I don't see English Votes for English Laws as equality for England with Scotland. It has entirely different constitutional implications to creating an English Parliament, or a set of Regional Parliaments.

Socrates

chestnut said:

NickPalmer said:

Labour is doing better in Britain as a whole (33) than Scotland (29) (I wonder what that will do to the enthusiasm for EV4EL in some quarters)

Ashcroft had the Tories winning 35-29 in England.

People keep forgetting that Labour Wales will also be excluded from voting on many issues.

What issues are devolved to Scotland but not Wales?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

Socrates

This seems like a very valid criticism of one part of the universal credit:

How can I spend 35 hours a week looking for work?

http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2igjah/anyone_got_any_ideas_how_i_can_spend_35_hours_a/

JosiasJessop

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Palmer, it doesn't diminish my desire for proper English devolution* one jot. What matters isn't the choice England makes but that England gets to make a choice, and the fact you seem to be viewing equality for England (with Scotland) as some sort of partisan measure is depressing.

*Shitty little regional assemblies, carving England up into pieces and city-regions are bullshit, and those who propose such measures shall be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.

England gets to make a choice as long as it is one that you approve of? How very Stalinist of you.

Also, I don't see English Votes for English Laws as equality for England with Scotland. It has entirely different constitutional implications to creating an English Parliament, or a set of Regional Parliaments.

Regional assembles are a stupid idea. Labour chose the northeast as their trial ground in 2004 as they thought they would most likely win there; instead the proposal got thrashed 700K to 200K.

It's a cynical and partisan attempt to break up England into petty little fiefdoms. It's pathetic.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

I keep thinking about the PCCs. No one cared, great idea as it might have been. Same about AV. Generally people don't care too much about electoral reform. If you start throwing around English parliaments and some complicated formula for voting or not voting then you will alienate people and perhaps rightly.

Even the WLQ, which seems to be iniquitous I can live with. I vote for a party with a set of policies plus I live in the United Kingdom. I can't find it within me to care too much whether one of the MPs who opposes me is from Cornwall or Caithness.

The UK is a curious beast but it is one I am happy with.

Socrates

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

I keep thinking about the PCCs. No one cared, great idea as it might have been. Same about AV. Generally people don't care too much about electoral reform. If you start throwing around English parliaments and some complicated formula for voting or not voting then you will alienate people and perhaps rightly.

Even the WLQ, which seems to be iniquitous I can live with. I vote for a party with a set of policies plus I live in the United Kingdom. I can't find it within me to care too much whether one of the MPs who opposes me is from Cornwall or Caithness.

The UK is a curious beast but it is one I am happy with.

Well, good for you, but the rest of us don't want to live as second class citizens in our own country. If Scotland deserves devolved government, so does England.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, even with devomax? Brown wants it to include income tax. Happy having Scottish MPs set English tax rates? Clegg also wants devolution to increase, including to the extent of borrowing. I'm sure that'll work well.

Innocent_Abroad

JosiasJessop said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Palmer, it doesn't diminish my desire for proper English devolution* one jot. What matters isn't the choice England makes but that England gets to make a choice, and the fact you seem to be viewing equality for England (with Scotland) as some sort of partisan measure is depressing.

*Shitty little regional assemblies, carving England up into pieces and city-regions are bullshit, and those who propose such measures shall be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.

England gets to make a choice as long as it is one that you approve of? How very Stalinist of you.

Also, I don't see English Votes for English Laws as equality for England with Scotland. It has entirely different constitutional implications to creating an English Parliament, or a set of Regional Parliaments.

Regional assembles are a stupid idea. Labour chose the northeast as their trial ground in 2004 as they thought they would most likely win there; instead the proposal got thrashed 700K to 200K.

It's a cynical and partisan attempt to break up England into petty little fiefdoms. It's pathetic.

Well, that's true but it only takes us so far. I suspect most people would, in principle, be in favour of their local council having more discretionary powers, if only they knew what powers lay where as things stand.

Personally, I'd like the cost of public services to be met by other people. I know this is a wholly reasonable position as it is shared by your typical billionaire.

Jonathan

Interesting to see that Ed is in increasing trouble this morning. Hard to remember the last time Ed had a good day.

Roger

Big John.

Extraordinary how small the movements are over three months. The Labour numbers have only varied from 325-334 Tories from 259-268 Lib Dem 29-34 UKIP 0-0 and others haven't moved at all off 24.

Perhaps we;re getting poll blindness. If opinions change at such a snails pace I'd say Labour must still be hot favourites.

OT I used to use a 'grip' called 'Big John'. Muscular but only average height. I asked him once why they called him 'Big John'?

"Hung like a horse guv"

TOPPING

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

I keep thinking about the PCCs. No one cared, great idea as it might have been. Same about AV. Generally people don't care too much about electoral reform. If you start throwing around English parliaments and some complicated formula for voting or not voting then you will alienate people and perhaps rightly.

Even the WLQ, which seems to be iniquitous I can live with. I vote for a party with a set of policies plus I live in the United Kingdom. I can't find it within me to care too much whether one of the MPs who opposes me is from Cornwall or Caithness.

The UK is a curious beast but it is one I am happy with.

Well, good for you, but the rest of us don't want to live as second class citizens in our own country. If Scotland deserves devolved government, so does England.

You, sir, are a political geek. Plus I sincerely, absolutely doubt that you speak, in your political geekocity, for more than 0.000000016% of the people. ie it's just you.

The English have never been too fussed about what the barbarians are up to as the world revolves around England and the rest can amuse themselves with their right to raise taxes and paint their hospitals with non-climb paint or whatever.

Seriously, we just don't care that much so whatever solution it had better be easily digestible or we will just stay at home for the vote.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, that'll change when most people see England getting a very raw deal compared to Scotland (just as the idea of a currency union with an independent Scotland became very unpopular south of the border).

Plato

IMO, sympathy votes work for things that don't matter - like the useless X-Factor contestant a judge picks on. They don't apply when you're meant to be a leader AKA strong and competent.

We can forgive a tough leader, not a weak one. EdM may get a tiny number of sympathy votes - I doubt they'd outweigh the ones who look at him and think No Thanks.

Patrick said:

Related question: Does monstering useless leaders drive down their vote or drive a bit of sympathy? Ed Miliband is among the most useless and woeful of modern times and is going to get an absolute and well deserved beasting in the coming months. How will that play out I wonder? I suspect overall it will cause significant damage, especially if he has some sort of a 'moment' of laughable uselessness - but will also win some 'this is too much' headlines.

Dave won't care. If it damages Labour / Ed then it will happen.

Plato

First belly-laugh of the day!

Thanx Mr Volcano.

volcanopete said:

The extent of the hostility toward Ed Miliband can only mean one thing.Fear.

DecrepitJohnL

Socrates said:

This seems like a very valid criticism of one part of the universal credit:

How can I spend 35 hours a week looking for work?

http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2igjah/anyone_got_any_ideas_how_i_can_spend_35_hours_a/

It has long been a problem, because once you've passed a certain level, it takes a couple of minutes a day. Register with job web sites; set up queries for the jobs you are interested in; spend a couple of minutes each morning scanning the resultant emails. The rules seem to have been set up for 1970s job seekers.

stodge

Morning all

It's a curious one - the YouGov for September 30th 2009 had Con 37, Lab 30, LD 21 so pretty close to the actual result. Before I went to Las Vegas, the day before the Icelandic eruption, I saw a poll which had Con 39 Lab 31 LD 18 so I suppose all the debates did was to prevent a small Conservative majority and give the LDs a small boost - who can say ?

Nick P has consistently reported little movement between the two main blocs in his patch but I accept UKIP complicates matters and, in my view, makes previous election "pattern matching" of even less value.

Logic suggests that if, as some on here assert, the UKIP vote will collapse before the election and if, as some on here assert, UKIP is damaging Labour as much as the Conservatives, then the resulting voter fallout will be broadly neutral. YouGov shows the duopoly at around 70%, Ashcroft has 62% (a huge difference). Last time it was 65%.

The sense I get on here is that the majority of those who vote for a Party are less pro that party than violently anti another party. Given that many who post on here are political activists, it's interesting to see the antipathy toward one's opponents being often stronger than a sense of encouragement towards one's own side.

That may not be the case in the electorate as a large who lump all politicians together and have a strongly negative view of them all. "My Party's not quite as bad as his Party" may not be the catchiest slogan of all time but it has the benefit of honesty.

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.

TheScreamingEagles

Note I think the telegraph have fecked up and confused The Lord Ashscroft poll with the ICM non VI poll

So if you see anyone posting that the Tories have a 2% lead with ICM it be pish

A separate poll has placed the Liberal Democrats in joint fourth place with the Green party on just 7 per cent of the vote, far behind UK Independence on 17 per cent. The ICM/Guardian poll puts the Conservatives on 32 per cent, Labour on 30 per cent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/11145235/Cleggmania-is-over-and-voters-have-fallen-out-of-love-with-Nick-Clegg-Liberal-Democrat-minister-declares.html

Plato

Absolutely!

BannedInParis said:

numbertwelve said:

MarqueeMark said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score.

Gordon was a wretched Prime Minister, but at least he had a line to offer on the economy: he had saved us all from certain and imminent doom. And some Labour voters bought that.

Ed is a wretched Prime Minister wannabe. But with no line to offer on the economy. Or rather, he has one, but it is provided by his opponents: that he will lead us all to certain and imminent doom. And some former Labour voters will buy that.

Thinking he could do worse than Gordon is by no means crazy talk. Imagine if during the campaign he had an economy-related "bacon sandwich" moment. Where people look at him - perhaps properly look at him for the first time - and recoil at his crapness. 2010 could seem like a dream result in comparison....

Labour also had the deeply cynical, but rather effective "The Tories will take all the freebies we've given you away!" line.

There was a PPB which (purely from memory) had some hard-faced inspector type going around people's homes (including the sick) and taking their tax credits. Cue lots of shots of people's bottom lips wobbling as they protested that they needed that money to live.

At the time a lot of us decried it as rather offensive scare tactics, but these things hit home. Bigotgate aside, in retrospect Labour played a rather smart game in 2010.

In 2915, there'll still be the "Dispicable Tories" narrative, but a lot of the cuts have fallen. The second time around this won't have as much resonance.

In 2915, I fully expect Labour to be still banging on about Fatcha.

Roger

Topping

"Seriously, we just don't care that much so whatever solution it had better be easily digestible or we will just stay at home for the vote."

Couldn't agree with you more

EVEL is one one of those depressing subjects that make you realize the shallowness of peoples lives. Who could possibly have the time to care?

The very drabness of the subject reminds me of watching 'A Taste of Honey'

anotherDave

DecrepitJohnL said:

Socrates said:

This seems like a very valid criticism of one part of the universal credit:

How can I spend 35 hours a week looking for work?

http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2igjah/anyone_got_any_ideas_how_i_can_spend_35_hours_a/

It has long been a problem, because once you've passed a certain level, it takes a couple of minutes a day. Register with job web sites; set up queries for the jobs you are interested in; spend a couple of minutes each morning scanning the resultant emails. The rules seem to have been set up for 1970s job seekers.

Megan McArdle touched on this in her 'Up side of down' book.

She said that looking for work is much like cold calling. Your best bet is to set goals for input, spending x hours a day looking for work. You're going to mostly get rejected, and if you don't have input goals that you can focus on, you're going to get dispirited and stop applying.

1. Set specific goals for input, not output.
2. Record you effort.
3. Use a script.
4. Surround yourself with other people who are going through the same thing.

I'm assuming there are studies on this, and that the DWP programme is attempting to follow best practice.

isam

"Apparently there is a route map to British electoral victory that doesn’t go through the Medway towns, Thurrock and Basildon, but through cloud cuckoo land"

Mark Ferguson (@Markfergusonuk)
07/10/2014 08:09
Why should Labour not try and win a marginal in Kent? Seems like a damn good question to me labli.st/1vJuqVC

MaxPB

UK industrial production is not looking good either. Looking through the detail now, but it looks like another oil and gas slowdown bringing the IP figure down. Manufacturing production is still growing pretty quickly YoY, though the MoM figure is a bit weak. What is good though is that manufacturing is still outgrowing GDP which means it is finally increasing as a proportion of our economy, probably at the expense of other industrial output rather than services though.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

numbertwelve said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.

I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.

Certainly recent Scottish subsamples have been grim for Labour - it's noticeable that in today's Labour is doing better in Britain as a whole (33) than Scotland (29) (I wonder what that will do to the enthusiasm for EV4EL in some quarters), and in fact the 1.5 point post-conference drop in Labour's average rating is entirely attributable to the change in Scotland (though separately from that the Tories are up 2). We could do with a proper Scottish poll with detailed secondaries to see what's happening up there.

As I've said, I think that opinion is unusually solid this year with few people saying they're undecided, even though it's the classic excuse to stop canvassers bothering you. The reason is probably that UKIP has soaked off a lot of the "oh they're all crap" voters (a lot of whom were vaguely LibDem), leaving a pretty hard core for each party.

It'd be silly to deny that the Tories had the best of the conference coverage (possibly the current not-so-bad coverage of the LibDem will give them a little bounce too?). We still need to move past the by-elections to see how it all settles down, though Thursday's are starting to look broadly predictable (UKIP in Clacton, Labour in H&M).

Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*

Let's think about absolutes.

Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, I want to keep England. I want the UK to remain, but if it's a forced choice between unaccountable MPs from Scotland and anti-democratic practices with the UK, or accountable politics without Scotland, I'd rather Scotland leave.

England is not second class and it should not be treated as such.

With devomax there will be a wide array of areas that will be affected by the West Lothian Question. On the off-chance there isn't, we could see another referendum in Scotland in a few years.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, that'll change when most people see England getting a very raw deal compared to Scotland (just as the idea of a currency union with an independent Scotland became very unpopular south of the border).

I can't see how they will notice, to be honest.

They know that there is some shenanigans with Scotland but it doesn't change their daily life.

Can't see how it matters so much. I doubt I'm alone in this view.

Plato

"If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies"

WTF?

An anomaly? MPs not voted for by English voters get to vote on laws that only affect English residents?

Hey, let's ask the French to add their 2p too - in fact all of the EU. It makes as much sense since we're members of that too.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

It is not a question of "deserves". If you want to keep the UK, you have to accept there will be anomalies, most of which, most of the time, do not materially affect the price of fish, just like if you want to keep FPTP or universal postage rates.

Smarmeron

@anotherDave
"I'm assuming there are studies on this, and that the DWP programme is attempting to follow best practice. "

You assume wrongly, the staff at the DWP are trying to make sense of utter nonsense, and hold onto their own jobs.
Only the "rabid right", and returned to unit IDS, are delusional enough to think that it is a fair and workable system.

Alistair

NickPalmer said:

numbertwelve said:

Itajai said:

I am now coming to the slow realisation Ed might not improve on Gordon´s 2010 % score. What are the odds? 5/1? 3/1?

The interesting bit is Scotland. Labour did rather well there in 2010, perhaps owing to the fact that, as has recently been demonstrated, Gordon Brown has a much better reputation there.

I am not sure London intellectual Ed will have the same advantage. I think Labour will do worse in Scotland as a whole than in 2010.

Certainly recent Scottish subsamples have been grim for Labour

I am fairly confident in joining TSE in calling Scottish sub-samples pretty much bollocks. Scotland specific polling makes much happier reading for Labour.

I mean, not that happy but the swings that the SNP would have to pull off to change seats are so large even the big up tick in SNP vote/ down tick in Labour vote of Scottish specific polling doesn't result in many seats changing hands.

The real thing to look for in Scotland is how many and to whom the Lib Dem seats will fall.

Plato

Perhaps counter-intuitively - nor not, EV4EL gets the comments in The Times heaving. I think some may underestimate how much resentment there is about this, once the situation is known. It just magnifies the whole Barnett issue massively into one of feeling that we're being taken for a massive ride.

TOPPING said:

Socrates said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, if an English Parliament voted for Labour I wouldn't decry that as somehow illegitimate.

Explain to me how Scotland deserves one Parliament, and England doesn't.

I agree English votes for English laws isn't equality. It's a decent stopgap and a good step forward, though.

I keep thinking about the PCCs. No one cared, great idea as it might have been. Same about AV. Generally people don't care too much about electoral reform. If you start throwing around English parliaments and some complicated formula for voting or not voting then you will alienate people and perhaps rightly.

Even the WLQ, which seems to be iniquitous I can live with. I vote for a party with a set of policies plus I live in the United Kingdom. I can't find it within me to care too much whether one of the MPs who opposes me is from Cornwall or Caithness.

The UK is a curious beast but it is one I am happy with.

Well, good for you, but the rest of us don't want to live as second class citizens in our own country. If Scotland deserves devolved government, so does England.

You, sir, are a political geek. Plus I sincerely, absolutely doubt that you speak, in your political geekocity, for more than 0.000000016% of the people. ie it's just you.

The English have never been too fussed about what the barbarians are up to as the world revolves around England and the rest can amuse themselves with their right to raise taxes and paint their hospitals with non-climb paint or whatever.

Seriously, we just don't care that much so whatever solution it had better be easily digestible or we will just stay at home for the vote.

Richard_Nabavi

Hang on, what's this?

It was on his future plans for the economy, though, that [Danny] Alexander made news. He indicated that he would like to continue with the 80 percent spending cuts, 20 percent tax rises approach to deficit reduction that the coalition has taken in this parliament

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/danny-alexander-indicates-that-the-lib-dems-wants-5-billion-in-tax-rises/

So the LibDems want exactly the same mix as Osborne proposes.

Very sensible of them, of course, but doesn't that rather make a nonsense of their differentiation theme?

It is striking how much the LibDems seem to be positioning themselves for another Tory/LD coalition in their substantive announcements, whilst at the same time bashing their partners in the soundbites. It's a tricky strategy.