Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.
Just no good at it. I think that's what Lab proved both under Kinnock and then 1997-2010. All the best will in the world, hearts in the right place, caring pseudo-democro-capitalo-socialism with NuLab characteristics but when it came down to it...useless.
That is what will be going through voters' minds come May 2015.
It led, ultimately, to a Blair landslide and 13 years of Labour. Disaster in the Middle East, economy a smouldering ruin, long-term cracks riven into a hitherto strong union for petty partisan advantage. Would Kinnock have been worse?
I'm too young (and not a student of recent events) to say.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Significantly reduced productivity.
Spain's productivity has gone through the roof since 2008; ours has stagnated.
....
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.
It's the usual UK situation - company managements think short term and prefer to spend money on cheap labour rather than on investing in training, R&D, plant and machinery. It's ever been thus.
Miss Plato, I make some horrendous typos. In my WIP, I had something like "that sort of western" where 'western' clearly was a mistake and was meant to be an insult (something like whore, harlot, etc) but I have no idea what it was meant to be.
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
Significantly reduced productivity.
Spain's productivity has gone through the roof since 2008; ours has stagnated.
....
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.
Everyone knows why productivity has fallen, it's not a surprise:
1. Finance and Oil & Gas, two of the most 'productive' sectors in the UK economy (in terms of units of output per worker) have declined since 2007. In the former case, it's because the banks have been in full scale retreat. While for Oil & Gas, it is the inevitable consequence of declining North Sea oil fields.
2. Our unemployment rate is falling. Because workers who are 'taken on' are the ones of who add the least incremental output (otherwise they would have been employed before), it is almost inevitable that when unemployment is falling rapidly, then measured productivity will stagnate at best. Spain's productivity went up for the same reason in reverse: if you fire the least productive workers, then productivity statistics goes up.
There's also the fact that a lot of existing employees work for companies for whom demand has fallen, but they expect it to pick up at some stage so haven't laid them off. That doesn't mean the individual workers aren't capable of being more productive - it's just they have less work per person at the moment.
The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job Centres
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
People can't take jobs that aren't offered. The effect of both (3) and (4) is mostly seen in deflation in the cost of Labour - which leads to businesses changing the balance of employment and investment.
Although I don't think there's any evidence for (3) - the private businesses seem to have been even more inept than the jobcentres in some cases.
You speak as if the jobs on offer is a fixed amount. In my experience there are often situations where you offer more jobs when you know there are willing candidates out there to take them.
I explicitly say otherwise, when I state that the lower cost of Labour is leading businesses to employ more people, rather than invest in improving productivity.
However, it's the lower cost of Labour that is driving this, which is probably at least partly a consequence of a greater willingness to work. This then suggests that Tory economic policy is unable to deliver both low unemployment and rising wages.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
Not very bright, these Kippers, are they?
The chance of people voting out would be precisely zero under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister, for the very good reason that they wouldn't be given the opportunity to vote on the matter by an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister. Or even a popular one, for that matter.
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
If the Inners thought they'd win a referendum, we'd have had one this parliament. But the Europhile parties only ever promise referendums for periods when they know they won't be in power.
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
If the Inners thought they'd win a referendum, we'd have had one this parliament. But the Europhile parties only ever promise referendums for periods when they know they won't be in power.
To be fair, if we were out the EU, I doubt UKIP would be campaigning for us to have a referendum so the people could choose whether to be in or not.
People who want changes to the status quo want referendums. People who want the status quo to continue don't.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
Do you expect Labour to be in power until 2025?
If Labour win a majority on 32% of the vote in 2015, which is very unlikely, I'd expect both UKIP and the Greens to grow substantially in support during the 2015-2020 parliament. Labour could be polling in the low 20s within a couple of years (behind UKIP in the mid-high 20s) and the Greens on ~10%. They would lose that majority in 2020.
The Conservatives may also do a volte-face in opposition under a new leader, recognise the political landscape has permanently changed, and that the best chance the Right has in taking power in the future is in coalition with UKIP, or with orange-book Lib Dems.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position. So during the 2020-2025 parliament (assuming it's hung, which I think it almost certainly would be) a bill for PR could be advanced either on a free-vote, or through a coalition of all the non-Labour opposition parties.
"In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings."
You say this as if it's unusual in the private sector.
I was thinking it's somewhat surprising that it's clearly new enough that they mention it!
Councillor allowances have clearly got out of control, as have MPs wages. There's a clear conflict of having politicians vote for their own packages, but I'm not sure how you change that.
I'd probably suggest a reworking of the overall structure (one bill, covering both councillors and MPs - with regional weighting naturally - but that councillors should be seen as pretty nominal rather than being a career - say £10 per hour or something: perhaps @JohnO an say how much time per week a councillor spends, but I'm assuming it's 10 hours max in official meetings).
Going forward it should be explicitly tied - for both MPs and councillors - to national wage rates to get away from the farce of annual votes.
There's plenty of subsidised catering in the private sector - I presume you and Socrates don't get invited to lunch at the right places or to meet the right people!
Get invited to a meeting at a bank in Docklands - Nomura's catering is first class and very cheap.
On the substantive - in many Councils there is a small core of effectively full-time politicians (Cabinet members) who are about and interact with senior officers on a daily basis. Then you have the vast majority of Councillors who sit on Committees but don't do much in truth apart from a) vote the right way and b) get involved in local issues.
I think it's apocryphal but I was told of a meeting at which a newly-elected Councillor stood up and started ranting about the poor quality of the Council's building maintenance service saying "at no time have they come to fix the roof of my library" at which one of the public gallery shouted out "well, why don't you get up the ladder and fix it yourself as it's your library?"
In my experience, there are two types of Councillor - those who recognise they are members of a larger body called the Council and those who see themselves as solely the representative of some of the electors of their own patch. Fortunately, the former are growing in number and the latter diminishing.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
Do you expect Labour to be in power until 2025?
If Labour win a majority on 32% of the vote in 2015, which is very unlikely, I'd expect both UKIP and the Greens to grow substantially in support during the 2015-2020 parliament. Labour could be polling in the low 20s within a couple of years (behind UKIP in the mid-high 20s) and the Greens on ~10%. They would lose that majority in 2020.
The Conservatives may also do a volte-face in opposition under a new leader, recognise the political landscape has permanently changed, and that the best chance the Right has in taking power in the future is in coalition with UKIP, or with orange-book Lib Dems.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position. So during the 2020-2025 parliament (assuming it's hung, which I think it almost certainly would be) a bill for PR could be advanced either on a free-vote, or through a coalition of all the non-Labour opposition parties.
If Labour scraped 326 seats on 32% of the vote, they'd likely face massive tactical voting against their candidates the next time. That would be another incentive to introduce PR.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
Shame the Tories didn't deal with their right wing in a similar way and instead egged them on.
When Mark Reckless defected I nearly headlined the piece
"Meet Dave's own militant tendency "
It's the opposite to the militant tendency. They wanted to take over the party so they could get unpopular views in the official platform. These guys want to leave the party so they can get popular views in an official platform. It is the Cameroons that have taken over a party so that their views are enacted against the views of the bulk of the party.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
Andrew Neil pointing out to the Hon Hunt that the top 10% of income tax payers are paying 60% of income tax while bottom 50% pay 10%......which as Neil points out may be a tricky proposition to go after the rich on....I also heard that the top 1% are paying 25% of income tax.....
"They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms."
You're far too sensible to believe that.
Firstly, I've not read those polls and I post on here. So I suspect that fewer than one in a thousand of the Kipper voters have done so.
Secondly, do you really think that Ukip are that desperate for a Conservative government? They see it in action now (albeit moderated by the LDs) and they're not cheering. So much of the same isn't going to excite them.
And the supposed vision of Ed kow-towing to European bigwigs isn't such a bogeyman if it produces an anti-European reaction in the UK.
Thirdly, Euro in or out is no longer the be-all and end-all, it's become a more general malaise.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
Not very bright, these Kippers, are they?
The chance of people voting out would be precisely zero under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister, for the very good reason that they wouldn't be given the opportunity to vote on the matter by an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister. Or even a popular one, for that matter.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
There was a truly astonishing statistic in an article by Ed Conway in the Times yesterday, which was so astonishing I wonder if anyone can confirm it? It is so remarkable because it shows just how dangerous - and self defeating - Ed Milband's attacks on the rich will be for a man who puts the NHS at the top of his agenda.
The figures that got my attention were these. In 1979 - after 5 years of Denis "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" Healey the top 1% of earners paid 11% of the total tax bill.
Today that figure is 27.5%.
Over a quarter of ALL taxes (not just Income Tax - ALL taxes) paid for by just one in a hundred.
What nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition is that the NHS has indeed already been privatised. But only in terms of the running costs of it being picked up by the richest in the land.
What state will the NHS be in if Miliband follows Hollande in his economic mis-management - and causes an exodus of the top earners? The NHS will be in deep trouble is what.
Flipped around, imagine how good the NHS could be if we enticed another tranche of high earner? What if that 27.5% could rise to say 35%?
As usual, Ed is 100% wrong in what he is proposing to deliver for the voters.
I don't know why you're surprised. Logic suggests those with more wealth and earning more wealth will pay more tax than those on lower incomes. This is the false argument used by the wealthy when arguing for tax cuts (primarily for themselves). The argument shouldn't be "look how much tax we're paying" but "look how much we're earning in order to pay that tax".
The biggest issue is tax avoidance - to be fair to Danny Alexander, he's done well to close some loopholes but it's an on going battle.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
Yes, he was a good opposition leader and Labour party reformer. He was not a good candidate for Prime Minister. He was too emotional, and occasionally lost his self-control; he was easily provoked, leading to outbursts.
He missed several open goals, such as the Westland affair, the Poll Tax, and totally failed to score points over the downfall of Maggie in November 1990. Several of the reforms Blair enacted post-1994 should have been enacted in 1988-1990.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
I've noticed quite the increase in the volume of anti-Green party posts on pb.com recently. Green party policy is broadly speaking the same now as it was ten years ago, so it's hard not to take the increased attention as a compliment.
LDs "...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
I don't think they'd be embarrassed either. But, I do think tactical voting would finish off a Labour party polling under 30% in the next election.
I've noticed quite the increase in the volume of anti-Green party posts on pb.com recently. Green party policy is broadly speaking the same now as it was ten years ago, so it's hard not to take the increased attention as a compliment.
The policies may be similar to what they were ten years ago, but it is fair to say that the emphasis has changed under Natalie Bennet - much less emphasis on the green and more on the red bits of their platform.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
I don't think they'd be embarrassed either. But, I do think tactical voting would finish off a Labour party polling under 30% in the next election.
Well yes I think that as well, so expect them to stitch up the voting system in their favour again when they get back in.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
In a lot of working-class seats where Labour poll under 50% of the vote, then voting for UKIP is the sensible option.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Dear dear poor show
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth... I know you have convinced yourself that your logic is infallible and everyone else is crazy but the truth is that people who leave a party because they dislike what a leader does when he is in charge aren't going to vote for him again... Else they wouldn't have left
You need a new strategy
Bit disappointed in you forecasting a Tory win by 13% in Rochester but not backing it up by taking evens on them with a 5 point lead... I don't think you can be as confident in Cameron as you make out
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Yes. We already have some evidence for that. Several Labour MPs were uncomfortable at the prospect of entering coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010GE, and said so. There is still a substantial minority of Labour MPs who support AV, and would presumably be sympathetic to some reform of the status quo, including our very own Ed Miliband: http://labourlist.org/2011/01/labour-mps-are-they-yes-or-no-to-av-yes-92-no-132/
Given that he himself supported AV, it might become very difficult for Ed to sustain the arguments for FPTP under coordinated pressure from all other parties. He would be forced to respond by the opinion polls, and wider public opinion.
Nah, I don't think my scenario is wrong. You're letting your partisan dislike of Labour get the better of you. As Sean Fear says, under such a result there would be massive tactical voting against Labour in 2020, leading to them losing their majority. I expect a Labour movement for PR would grow, similarly arguing that the best chance the Left have of taking power in future is through Labour-Green-SDP type Lib Dem coalitions, as the Tories would argue with UKIP/orange book Lib Dems. And, incidentally, that'd probably offer Labour most of what they want policy-wise anyway.
The genie is out of the bottle now. The political landscape has changed massively since 2011, for good. There is no going back.
The only question is: what kind of political reform will we get going forwards?
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.
At the same time, Ukip’s popularity has climbed to a record 16 per cent in the monthly Ipsos MORI survey published in tonight’s Evening Standard. It is up one point since September, following a two-point rise the previous month.
The poll shows the two biggest parties are languishing at historically low levels of public support. David Cameron’s Conservatives are down four points to 30 per cent, while Ed Miliband’s Labour are unchanged at 33. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up a point to eight.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Haha yes. Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.
Oh, and the reason they've risen across Western Europe is because centre-right parties across Western Europe have done the same selling out to the power of Brussels as David Cameron has done.
Snap Verdict: Miliband had unearthed a good anti-Tory story, but Cameron rebutted it effectively by disowning Freud without equivocation and, generally, he smothered Miliband with a shower of statistics and slogans. An easy Cameron win.
At the same time, Ukip’s popularity has climbed to a record 16 per cent in the monthly Ipsos MORI survey published in tonight’s Evening Standard. It is up one point since September, following a two-point rise the previous month.
The poll shows the two biggest parties are languishing at historically low levels of public support. David Cameron’s Conservatives are down four points to 30 per cent, while Ed Miliband’s Labour are unchanged at 33. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up a point to eight.
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Haha yes. Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.
Different time, different era. The world has changed since then.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
To be fair, the attraction of UKIP runs beyond the EU question. How Boris and the Tories more generally respond to today's idiotic proposals to try to make smoking marginally more socially unacceptable than paedophilia may be a good litmus test of they extent to which the Conservatives and their prospective next leader get the cultural divide between electorate and elected that is currently driving voters towards UKIP.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.
Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in Rochester
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
UKIP have a real chance of being able to get a referendum from whoever is PM next May if things continue to develop as they are. We wont throw in the towel and curtsy to a man who slags us all off, and whose aim is the complete opposite of ours, no matter how much it disappoints his cronies
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.
True, although formulae that use some mix of proportional and uniform swing probably still have utility as predictors. IIRC correctly, Scotland's 2011 election was a useful test of that, with large percentage changes and a four-party system.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If they hit the low 20s nationally, then it will be a lot more than a handful of seats they could win outright. Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.
There's a niche for the Green Party's policies, but no more than a niche. You could never build a mass movement on their policies.
I don't think any of the parties can claim to be a mass movement at the moment. Their membership figures are horrendous compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Far more people are in the larger charities and environmental campaigns. Incidentally, Scottish Labour are worried Scottish Greens will have more members soon.
LDs "...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.
This is really they key point. I think it's almost always impossible to justify voting for a third party without taking this into account. But the effect that UKIP has been having on British politics shows how much power groups of voters can weild even without directly putting their party into government.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
I'd be happy with any EC-ratified referendum. I just don't think it's on the cards in the next parliament in any of the plausible results.
I'd also prefer a referendum where UKIP are in a position of power and can draw attention to how the renegotiation will be a sham.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?
That's a big if.
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.
People on here doing forecasts using models from 2010 and before might as well be using the old "2 points for a win" scoring system in football to work out League tables
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
True.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
LDs "...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in Rochester
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
I haven't side-stepped it, I'm still considering how it fits into my existing bets. To be clear, are you saying you are offering Evens on a 10-point UKIP lead (I think you originally said UKIP -5 Tory +5) or a 5-point UKIP lead?
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
Say, it's a seat which Labour won on 40-45% last time, with mostly white working class voters in the electorate. Places like Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Dudley North, Plymouth Moor View. If the Conservative vote collapses to UKIP, at the same time as UKIP pulling some votes away from Labour and the Lib Dems, that makes a Labour loss more, not less, likely.
Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.
Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in Rochester
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
I haven't side-stepped it, I'm still considering how it fits into my existing bets. To be clear, are you saying you are offering Evens on a 10-point UKIP lead (I think you originally said UKIP -5 Tory +5) or a 5-point UKIP lead?
I never offered UKIP -10!!!
You get Tories with a 5 point start ( I take the other side which is UKIP giving up 5 points)
How's this for meteorological innuendo? I assume he'll be mentioning his own AGW for her next.
Bill Turnbull, BBC Breakfast presenter, started innuendo-laden exchange with weather presenter dressed in figure hugging dress as he asked about her 'tightly packed isobars'
Comments
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
Also they'll bring in new powers for cities whilst not giving the same to rural areas to try and hang onto as much power as possible.
However, it's the lower cost of Labour that is driving this, which is probably at least partly a consequence of a greater willingness to work. This then suggests that Tory economic policy is unable to deliver both low unemployment and rising wages.
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
The chance of people voting out would be precisely zero under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister, for the very good reason that they wouldn't be given the opportunity to vote on the matter by an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister. Or even a popular one, for that matter.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
People who want changes to the status quo want referendums. People who want the status quo to continue don't.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
If Labour win a majority on 32% of the vote in 2015, which is very unlikely, I'd expect both UKIP and the Greens to grow substantially in support during the 2015-2020 parliament. Labour could be polling in the low 20s within a couple of years (behind UKIP in the mid-high 20s) and the Greens on ~10%. They would lose that majority in 2020.
The Conservatives may also do a volte-face in opposition under a new leader, recognise the political landscape has permanently changed, and that the best chance the Right has in taking power in the future is in coalition with UKIP, or with orange-book Lib Dems.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position. So during the 2020-2025 parliament (assuming it's hung, which I think it almost certainly would be) a bill for PR could be advanced either on a free-vote, or through a coalition of all the non-Labour opposition parties.
Actually, why am I asking? I know the answer - Priti Patel.
Get invited to a meeting at a bank in Docklands - Nomura's catering is first class and very cheap.
On the substantive - in many Councils there is a small core of effectively full-time politicians (Cabinet members) who are about and interact with senior officers on a daily basis. Then you have the vast majority of Councillors who sit on Committees but don't do much in truth apart from a) vote the right way and b) get involved in local issues.
I think it's apocryphal but I was told of a meeting at which a newly-elected Councillor stood up and started ranting about the poor quality of the Council's building maintenance service saying "at no time have they come to fix the roof of my library" at which one of the public gallery shouted out "well, why don't you get up the ladder and fix it yourself as it's your library?"
In my experience, there are two types of Councillor - those who recognise they are members of a larger body called the Council and those who see themselves as solely the representative of some of the electors of their own patch. Fortunately, the former are growing in number and the latter diminishing.
"Meet Dave's own militant tendency "
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
"They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms."
You're far too sensible to believe that.
Firstly, I've not read those polls and I post on here. So I suspect that fewer than one in a thousand of the Kipper voters have done so.
Secondly, do you really think that Ukip are that desperate for a Conservative government? They see it in action now (albeit moderated by the LDs) and they're not cheering. So much of the same isn't going to excite them.
And the supposed vision of Ed kow-towing to European bigwigs isn't such a bogeyman if it produces an anti-European reaction in the UK.
Thirdly, Euro in or out is no longer the be-all and end-all, it's become a more general malaise.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
The biggest issue is tax avoidance - to be fair to Danny Alexander, he's done well to close some loopholes but it's an on going battle.
He missed several open goals, such as the Westland affair, the Poll Tax, and totally failed to score points over the downfall of Maggie in November 1990. Several of the reforms Blair enacted post-1994 should have been enacted in 1988-1990.
He should have won in 1992. He botched it.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
"...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
The rest of their policies are barking of course.
We'll never be rid of the parasites.
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth... I know you have convinced yourself that your logic is infallible and everyone else is crazy but the truth is that people who leave a party because they dislike what a leader does when he is in charge aren't going to vote for him again... Else they wouldn't have left
You need a new strategy
Bit disappointed in you forecasting a Tory win by 13% in Rochester but not backing it up by taking evens on them with a 5 point lead... I don't think you can be as confident in Cameron as you make out
Given that he himself supported AV, it might become very difficult for Ed to sustain the arguments for FPTP under coordinated pressure from all other parties. He would be forced to respond by the opinion polls, and wider public opinion.
Nah, I don't think my scenario is wrong. You're letting your partisan dislike of Labour get the better of you. As Sean Fear says, under such a result there would be massive tactical voting against Labour in 2020, leading to them losing their majority. I expect a Labour movement for PR would grow, similarly arguing that the best chance the Left have of taking power in future is through Labour-Green-SDP type Lib Dem coalitions, as the Tories would argue with UKIP/orange book Lib Dems. And, incidentally, that'd probably offer Labour most of what they want policy-wise anyway.
The genie is out of the bottle now. The political landscape has changed massively since 2011, for good. There is no going back.
The only question is: what kind of political reform will we get going forwards?
shouldn't be trying to shout when he is losing his voice.
Mid term unpopular PM Cameron calls referendum. Not sure a YES vote would be a shoe in.
At the same time, Ukip’s popularity has climbed to a record 16 per cent in the monthly Ipsos MORI survey published in tonight’s Evening Standard. It is up one point since September, following a two-point rise the previous month.
The poll shows the two biggest parties are languishing at historically low levels of public support. David Cameron’s Conservatives are down four points to 30 per cent, while Ed Miliband’s Labour are unchanged at 33. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up a point to eight.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/backing-farages-ukip-is-no-longer-a-wasted-vote-poll-shows-9795884.html
kick a man while he's down.
Sounds better with a sore throat!
Haha yes.
Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.
Snap Verdict: Miliband had unearthed a good anti-Tory story, but Cameron rebutted it effectively by disowning Freud without equivocation and, generally, he smothered Miliband with a shower of statistics and slogans. An easy Cameron win.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/15/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog#block-543e39f6e4b0cd82a095f726
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
UKIP have a real chance of being able to get a referendum from whoever is PM next May if things continue to develop as they are. We wont throw in the towel and curtsy to a man who slags us all off, and whose aim is the complete opposite of ours, no matter how much it disappoints his cronies
I'd also prefer a referendum where UKIP are in a position of power and can draw attention to how the renegotiation will be a sham.
#UKIP also first in aggregate vote for GB by-elections in 2013 - Eastleigh and South Shields: UKIP 26.5%, Lab 25.0%.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522346349850017792/photo/1
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/bradfordeast/
You get Tories with a 5 point start ( I take the other side which is UKIP giving up 5 points)