Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ed Miliband wasn’t polling so badly then what’ll happen
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ed Miliband wasn’t polling so badly then what’ll happen on May 7th would be a lot clearer
Confused? So is everyone it appears
Headline points from @LordAshcroft poll for Sun on Sunday
http://t.co/hSHlMNLqaH pic.twitter.com/5GlgwI3ogd
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Another thought: if there are far more localised campaigns, particularly in what used to be safe seats and in places where there is an incumbent Lib Dem, election expenses will be pored over more than usual. When was the last time an elected MP was disqualified for overspending on their campaign?
To add to Ed’s woes – “Now Ed Miliband has the 'women problem’ as a PM”
After last night’s mixed polling results, his 35% strategy is looking a bit shaky too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11156102/Now-Ed-Miliband-has-the-women-problem-as-a-PM.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It seems likely that EdM will underperform Brown and maybe even Foot. Labour will be closer to 25% than 35% in the GE unless they find a way of ridding themselves of the dud.
UK troops 'training' Kurdish forces in Iraq, says Ministry of Defence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29586437
That'll please the Turks.
I wonder if our troops will meet any Israeli instructors helping the Kurds?
O what a tangled web we weave.............
LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE
Turkeys attitude to ISIS is very dangerous, and could cause modern Turkey to disintegrate with a renewed Kurdish rebellion internally, a ISIS ruled hinterland, and a Europe leaning West all fighting it out over the bones.
I would think that to produce stats based on untruth is fraud.
Here is how the averaged YouGov charts look up to press.
Since 01 September 2013...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/3jehidcz4r4994k/YouGov since 01 Sept 2013(3).jpg#
Since the 2010 General Election...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/7l9jepa8rxiye1s/YouGov since 2010 GE.jpg#
I suspect that they have only a month or so to act in order to get things set up for the election. They risk missing the boat.
The Tories (and perhaps OGH himself) should remember to not take too seriously the immediate post conference polls.
I suppose that there's so much misinformation peddled during elections (and even here on PB) that enforcing anything could be a slippery slope that leads to much litigation.
I was thinking of a Turkish holiday next year, but now it is another one off the list.
"The Prime Minister likes to scare us by warning ‘Go to bed with Nigel Farage, wake up with Red Ed’. But, Mr Cameron, most of us have been through a worse nightmare than that.
To use your own rather tacky imagery, they went to bed in 2010 with an apparently conservative, pro-British Tory leader – and woke up in the morning to find it was all just thick make-up, and that you were a fervent Europhile, a politically correct sexual revolutionary and a Green fanatic."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2789604/peter-hitchens-one-thing-save-labour-tory-split.html
How much money would you care to invest in that little theory?
All those posts about Cameron's problem with the women. How could Ed have gone and thrown it all away?
A low poll for Labour is quite possible even if most are not going kipper. Foot got 27% in 83 as I recall, when the unions were a lot stronger.
Mr. Beds, didn't imperial Russia end a century or so ago?
I have heard Russia (as then) described as the Third Rome. Whilst there are substantial connections to Byzantium, Russia claiming to the Byzantium's successor is about as realistic as suggesting the British Empire was Rome's successor. However, that doesn't mean it might not have been seriously believed, and Putin has certainly shown himself willing to invade place and take territory. I doubt he'd be able/willing to do that to Turkey, unless (as you suggest) it was being pulled apart by infighting.
Labour could do a lot worse. Harman is not my favourite of the front bench, but was a part of the New Labour team of the mid nineties and Labour needs to reassemble that team quickly, at least of those who survived the Brownite purges.
But (and it is one heck of a 'but'): the Turkish government is not just paralysed wrt the conflict as it currently stands; it is internally conflicted. Once the government decides which side it is backing, and gets the rest of the civil service and military to stick with that decision, it will be able to do something worthwhile militarily. Erdogan has sole responsibility for Turkey's inaction, with his purge of the military being a major factor.
Erdogan's a survivor, and he will survive what is happening. I doubt Turkey will split, although there is a small chance that a Kurdish autonomous region will fall out the other end.
As for backing the Kurds: you may want to look into the history of the PKK before saying that so lightly ...
UKIP got 3% in 2010. Most of their current support are swing voters.
I'm mildly amused the next election may hinge on whether Ed Miliband is very crap, or so incredibly crap the nation will unite in revulsion at his crapness and vote for someone they aren't very fond of but who does at least appear to be less crap.
The clue was there for Labour 4 years or so ago. The slogan 'Ed speaks human' should've been a sign. When the best slogan that can be managed for a politician is affirming his capacity to communicate with his own species it's not a great omen.
It seems he quashed any and all efforts by anyone else to formulate policies in favour of
the squeezed middle, Cost of Living Crisis, One NationGarethLabour's problem is not their record its their toothless attack.
However that said the cost of living angle breached Osborne's bull and did - and still does - real damage to all the Tory propaganda.
It got voters to look at their own circumstances which are much worse than they'd be under another government in a recovery.
That's about a 10-15% hit rate, probably about the same as men. The ratio is obviously higher for PM's but with a sample of one, that's not really statistically meaningful. There've been plenty of duff female leaders of other countries.
"Voters are not the property of politicians. When they stop voting for one party, and start voting for another, why do we treat them as deserters who need to be dragged back?
If Tesco fails to attract customers and they go somewhere else, do we browbeat and threaten those customers into returning, or do we recognise that Tesco just wasn’t good enough? If you listen to the BBC and read the grand commentators of the media, you would think that Friday’s election results were bad and disturbing news.
They remind me of the East German Communists of 1953, furious and resentful that the people – in whose name they ruled – had risen against them"
Selective statistics are of course commonplace and virtually everyone without exception uses them - people highlight what's helpful to them. I don't think one can realistically stop that.
On topic, there hasn't been a shortage of criticism of Miliband (or indeed the other leaders) and I don't think there's much doubt that people have priced it all in.
Does Ashcroft's poll give VI, by the way? Can't see it in the Sun coverage.
I'd think that places like Woolwich, Eltham might be UKIP susceptible.
Worth keeping an eye on. The people yet to move to Kent.
My point was that those who describe themselves as undecided/loosely affliliated are more often women. How these undecided women listen to the parties will be a major factor. They do not seem keen on kippers, as Farage himself has admitted at H and M.
If ever there was a 'least worst option' situation, this is it.
@JPonpolitics: On Pienaar's Politics from 10am this morning on @bbc5live I'll be joined by @MayorofLondon, @NicolaSturgeon and @ChukaUmunna. #Pienaar
I think the punchline was that women are more risk averse.
Until that is tackled, everything else is tinkering.
The party is merely a vehicle for good governance of our great nation. It has no right to exist in its own right.
Dopey Dave decided to expel a vital part of the Tory coalition on the basis that "they had nowhere else to go". It turned out they did.
The notion that any of these things could have happened without personal circumstances getting worse for a great many is just bizarre. Everyone knew in 2010 that BY NECESSITY we were going to have a hell of a rough few years rebalancing Labour's broken economy. All except you it seems.
If you really had an alternative way that could have recovered the economy without this pain, then Ed Balls would have loved to talk to you about four years ago. As would the Nobel prize for Economics committee.....
CON 31% =
LAB -31% -4
UKIP 25% +6
LD 8%=
Usual caveats etc etc! - but a stunning result for UKiP.
1. Of their own record - voters still (rightly) buy the argument as to why there's no money now i.e. Labour blew it all last time.
2. They can't say what they'd do differently.
3. Osborne is more trusted than Balls.
Cause death: suicide.
Good blog on the kipper phenomenon by Malik, though I am less convinced by his suggested counter strategy.
You've also forgotten that Cameron is leading a coalition government, and that he was chosen as his Party's leader precisely because he was the "heir to Blair". Your "apparently" says a lot: he only seemed that way to diehards who projected on to him qualities and beliefs he didn't have and didn't pretend to have.
I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expected. The way I, and most people I knew, saw it, gay marriage was so similar to civil partnerships as to be simply a tidying-up exercise needed for equality. However, clearly a lot of people object to that equality in the first place; far more than I'd have estimated before the event.
That was the prompt that shifted a lot of support and even if it's no longer the driver, the break has been made and there are other drivers reinforcing it.
The same fear of PM Ed will keep a a proportion of former Labour Kippers with UKIP come May.
As yet, we have no way of knowing those proportions. But I did say, many many months back, that UKIP 2.0 - the one aimed at Labour heartlands - was the one for an Ed-led Labour to truly worry about.
But I suspect they will still be around and very large they will just need to readjust future expectations away from simple majorities. Labour seem headed in the same direction just a bit slower.
UKIP are welcome to the elderly bigots who are against it.
2. Is key to me as there does not seem much wriggle room but people seem to want a superficial change even if they don't like what they are changing to much is what I'm getting from the polls. A 'probably won't work but worth a try' sort of thing, which if people think a recovery is taking hold they can risk.
The only deception was self deception by those who hoped he would be different in power.
The Labour Party also underwent similar changes, although there was a sudden step-change in the mid-1990s.
"Voters are not saying ‘I am voting for another party at this election to make you listen to me’. Increasingly many are saying, ‘You will never listen to me, so there is no point in voting for you at all’."
On topic though, if 90% of UKIP voters are not feeling recovery what can be done? Digging down, what percentage are economically inactive so realistically will not feel it one way or the other?
I think there'll be a propagation of genes-based explanation, but can't be bothered searching for it now.
Anyhow, in terms of the ballot box, this is why men are more likely than women to vote for parties that establish or maintain borders.
I mean could it be them?
No, its got to be the fault of those awful hard-working immigrants hasn't it?
If the coalition wants to hit UKIP's vote, why not just introduce a rule that all benefits, credits, etc. have to be renewed on the first Thursday of each month. That should reduce their vote to manageable proportions.
And if the Labour Party was remotely honest, it would acknowledge that it too would have lost members if it had introduced gay marriage. Which may explain why, for 13 years, it didn't have the balls...
However, a cautionary note: YG was sampled on Thursday and Friday, Survation only on Friday. So Survation may be closer in showing the immediate post-by-election bump.
Ironically, if Prime Minister Ed caused 10% interest rates, they at least might be quite happy for a while. Until the inflation hit....
"The Tory party is to politics what HMV is to music: "It's defunct," says UKIP's Douglas Carswell"
Hasn't HMV reported an improvement in performance recently?
If it was so defunct, why did Carswell join it? And how remarkable he suddenly realised, as his seat was under threat and UKIP's polling was at an all time high, that this was this case.
This is the flip side of the coin to the establishment parties claiming UKIP's just bad, and people backing it are 'doing voting wrong'.