That, Casino, is because you like most don't realise that in 120 Tory formerly 'safe 'seats there are active anti-fracking groups looking for a new political home. Most anti-frackers in these seats are former Conservatives, despite your prejudicial viewpoint. ... UKIP would clean up and win 100 seats by going anti-fracking in time. It's an open goal which Farage is about to miss.
Tapestry has a point about the open goal. 120 seats is over-stating it, but across the safe Tory seats of East and West Sussex there are significant, very well-motivated, and well-organised anti-fracking groups, and they are getting support from conventional Conservative voters, not just EcoWarrior/Caroline Lucas types. It is driven entirely by local environmental concerns, which in these very beautiful areas of the countryside are not surprising.
Anyway, I don't seem to be able to find a breakdown of London Ethnicity for 1985 when EastEnders was first shown.. but here are the comparisons of the cast between then and now
Jewish could easily be White British really (Dr Legg)
Probably more realistic then, strange that they haven't reflected the changing demographic
1985 (2014) White British 75.5% (78.8%) Black 8.2% (7.7%) Asian 4.1% (7.7%) Turkish 10.2% - Jewish 2% - Mixed Race - (3.8%) Eastern European (1.9%)
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 15m15 minutes ago PM congratulates @NicolaSturgeon but says 'almost every country' at #G20 'made point of saying how pleased they were UK stayed together'
The best way for UKIP to shake off the negative shading being heaped onto the party is to go green. Grab your opposition's favourite clothes and wear them unashamedly. Ban fracking and GMOs, and every Green vote in the country that needs representing will flow to Farage. Helmer needs to recant. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition, and burn out his heresy on fracking being safe for the aquifer.
I can't see many Green voters voting UKIP.
That, Casino, is because you like most don't realise that in 120 Tory formerly 'safe 'seats there are active anti-fracking groups looking for a new political home. Most anti-frackers in these seats are former Conservatives, despite your prejudicial viewpoint. To vote Green Party would be nigh impossible with the pro-EU, communistic, pro-paedophile tendency of the Green party. UKIP would clean up and win 100 seats by going anti-fracking in time. It's an open goal which Farage is about to miss.
There is a populist bandwagon that UKIP could ride on anti-fracking, yes. But I'm afraid it's a very small one. I don't see where you get your evidence for a 3-figure gain of UKIP seats off the back of this other than the creativity of your own imagination, and your own personal enthusiasm for the antifracking cause. Sorry.
Right, I'm off to the rub-a-dub-dub. Laters.
As Kipper are funded by city spiv types who throw down their cigars in disgust at the thought of O'Flynn's WAG tax they are not going to take kindly to their pet being infested with save the whale type fleas.
Anyone got any thoughts on why Cameron does want to win next year, given the storm that may await him?
Several commentators have asked why he would want to bother, given how hard his party will be to manage, but he seems pretty hungry for it.
My view: he wants to win a three-referendum hat-trick, be the Prime Minister who both saved the Union, stabilised a new-UK settlement for the long-term, reformed the EU relationship and got the deficit under control. So I expect him to be thinking about leaving in 2018-2019.
Note: I make no comment on the achievability or realism of those ambitions, just trying to think what may be going through his mind re: his intended "legacy".
I don't think he's given the matter too much thought. Being Prime Minister is something that he just does, in the same way that he picks up his ipad to play fruit ninja.
'because I think I'd be rather good at it' - Dave.
When people trot out that line, I always wonder what else they think he could have got away with saying? "I'll be fair to middling as a Prime Minister....." "I'll be shit-hot at the politics an' that, me...." "I'll be shit, me...." "I'll be better than Gordon Brown."
Is there really a way to answer "Why do you want to be Prime Minister?" without sounding a complete knob?
"I believe my party can make the country a better place" ?
The aid business is messy & full of moral contradictions. The best aid agencies are the ones who acknowledge the ethical complexity of it all, like MSF. The worst, in my experience, are the religious affiliated ones, who have a moral agenda that blinds them to the harm they cause.
Not once you consider the reason that people are voting UKIP.
The Tories may have underwhelmed in terms of performance on immigration, but does anyone really doubt that they would prefer more control?
Labour on the other hand are fully cast as super-pro-immigration.
If you believe that a few "tough" words on immigration from Dave and Theresa will send the voters flocking back to the blue banner, fine, I wouldn't want to undermine your delusions.
The UKIP vote is about many things as today's internal spat has shown and some of those play very well for Labour - especially the ones about taxing the wealthy. It may be anathema for many on here but there are a lot of people out there who think the wealthy pay too little tax and should pay a lot more.
UKIP has spoken to them as well in terms of its economic policy.
Some interesting figures Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
This is absurd and characterises most of the Conservative "wishful thinking" which afflicts this site. Why should only the Tories benefit from a fall in the UKIP vote shatre when, self-evidently, that vote share is bolstered by ex-Labour, ex-Lib Dem and ex-NOTA voters ? Why shouldn't these groups benefit from the fragmentation of UKIP ?
If we're going to play the game, then why not have 50% of those preferring Labour also "coming back" to their preference so add 2.4% to the Labour number (call it 32%). On those numbers, Labour are the largest party (fractionally) - a very different outcome.
Err, I'm not saying they won't. Did you even read my post? I said "all things being equal" - i.e. no other net movements from UKIP to any other party. I took the 50% from those *preferring a Conservative majority government*. If you did the same with those preferring a Labour majority government, you'd arrive at just under 10% of UKIP voters returning to Labour, all things being equal. But you'd need to similarly caveat that too.
It was to illustrate a point: there is a sizeable well of potential support there for Cameron, and UKIP supporters (although very dissatisfied with him) overwhelmingly prefer him to Miliband.
I expect returning votes from UKIP to be in the Tories favour by at least 2:1. And it's not wishful thinking either, I have a four-figure sum on the election result.
If you believe that a few "tough" words on immigration from Dave and Theresa will send the voters flocking back to the blue banner, fine, I wouldn't want to undermine your delusions
I suspect that a lot of people will consider their wallet more than immigrants when the actual time comes.
Some interesting figures there on the positive/negative question:
1. UKIP voters don't seem as anti-Cameron or anti-Conservative as you might expect. On the face of it, the figures do seem to suggest there is more scope for UKIP->Con swingback than for UKIP->Labour swingback.
2. LD voters seem to sit on the fence on all questions, except they don't like UKIP and Farage. On the other hand, they don't seem terribly keen on the LibDems, and are no keener on Nick Clegg than Labour voters are on Ed.
3. Labour voters more positive (or, rather, less negative) on UKIP & Farage than LD voters.
Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
As I noted on the last thread, Ashcroft, asking more directly shows little difference in preference by UKIP voters between a Labour or Tory government - 32% prefer Lab, 40% prefer Con.
I recall that you predicted that polls would start to become significant in November...
I have also pointed out (repeatedly) over the last 6 weeks, that a large number of voters remain undecided (in this poll 45% of all voters) and the underlying fundamentals look bad for Miliband/Labour. When they finally come around to focussing upon the election, and determining their vote, that will have a decisive effect IMHO.
"This Ashcroft polls shows a preference of UKIP voters to have the Tories in government, over Labour, by the order of 45% to 33%"
It is still a bit much to take 20% of UKIP support and give it to Conservatives without allocating some (15%) to Labour though. Immense wishful thinking
I don't do wishful thinking. I bet on politics to make money.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
Dear, oh dear! He hasn't even won a majority yet and, wishful thinking aside, seems less likely than not to win one next year. His party has shed voters and members and barely scrapes 30% in opinion polls.
Sure: the economy is doing better than predicted and Labour are a shambles. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
But one of our greatest? Lol.
In any case, your criteria are absolutely bizarre. What has getting a majority, or the state of a particular political party, got to do with the question of how good a PM he is? I didn't say he was the most successful party leader (Tony Blair wins that one hands-down), or the best snake-oil salesman (historians will have a hard time adjudicating between Farage and Salmond on that point, amongst our recent party leaders). The question of best PM is about the country, not the Conservative Party .
The reason I raised the lack of a majority is that without it he has been limited in what he can do. I am quite prepared to grant you that he has been very skilful in managing the coalition. But our Prime Ministers can only achieve on the basis of the parties they lead - in the HoC - and ultimately as a result of those parties speaking for and to the voters. On that I think he is a failure. It is very hard to know for whom the Tories are speaking. Being economically competent - or at least - not as bad as the other lot is not enough.
He's not a bad PM. Just not as good as you seem to think.
As your challenge - in the last half-century the PMs have been Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown. Too early to say what history will say about Cameron. Let's see what happens next year.
Wilson has disappeared from view and now seems insubstantial. Keeping us out of Vietnam and the OU are his biggest achievements. He failed to sort out the unions and did not confront the rifts between Left and Right in Labour. Callaghan: left with a hospital pass. Did not make it any better. Heath: dreadful on the domestic front. His only achievement was taking us into the EU and how you view that will determine how you view him. My feeling is that, regardless of my views on the EU, there was a dishonesty about how he brought us in which has tainted the European debate ever since. Thatcher: changed the political weather. Major: probably better in retrospect than it seemed at the time. Could do little with an ungovernable party but did OK with the economy in the end. Blair: gifted but dishonest and wasted his talents and the majorities he won. Cowardly when it came to Brown. His behaviour over Iraq has poisoned the well of British politics for a very long time. Brown: ghastly, over-promoted and a disaster for the British economy and for Labour.
The best way for UKIP to shake off the negative shading being heaped onto the party is to go green. Grab your opposition's favourite clothes and wear them unashamedly. Ban fracking and GMOs, and every Green vote in the country that needs representing will flow to Farage. Helmer needs to recant. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition, and burn out his heresy on fracking being safe for the aquifer.
I can't see many Green voters voting UKIP.
That, Casino, is because you like most don't realise that in 120 Tory formerly 'safe 'seats there are active anti-fracking groups looking for a new political home. Most anti-frackers in these seats are former Conservatives, despite your prejudicial viewpoint. To vote Green Party would be nigh impossible with the pro-EU, communistic, pro-paedophile tendency of the Green party. UKIP would clean up and win 100 seats by going anti-fracking in time. It's an open goal which Farage is about to miss.
There is a populist bandwagon that UKIP could ride on anti-fracking, yes. But I'm afraid it's a very small one. I don't see where you get your evidence for a 3-figure gain of UKIP seats off the back of this other than the creativity of your own imagination, and your own personal enthusiasm for the antifracking cause. Sorry.
Right, I'm off to the rub-a-dub-dub. Laters.
The Guardian are not known for inventing information, even if you believe that I am. Have a couple of pints, relax a bit, then take a fresh look. You might find a very different picture emerging.
Some interesting figures there on the positive/negative question:
.
Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
As I noted on the last thread, Ashcroft, asking more directly shows little difference in preference by UKIP voters between a Labour or Tory government - 32% prefer Lab, 40% prefer Con.
I recall that you predicted that polls would start to become significant in November...
I have also pointed out (repeatedly) over the last 6 weeks, that a large number of voters remain undecided (in this poll 45% of all voters) and the underlying fundamentals look bad for Miliband/Labour. When they finally come around to focussing upon the election, and determining their vote, that will have a decisive effect IMHO.
"This Ashcroft polls shows a preference of UKIP voters to have the Tories in government, over Labour, by the order of 45% to 33%"
It is still a bit much to take 20% of UKIP support and give it to Conservatives without allocating some (15%) to Labour though. Immense wishful thinking
I don't do wishful thinking. I bet on politics to make money.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
Me too, that's why you have to allocate to the side you don't want to win as well
Seems to me like you've added numbers to the Conservative score and none to the Labour score, despite the data used to add to the Conservative score also applying to the Labour score..
Some interesting figures Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
This is absurd and characterises most of the Conservative "wishful thinking" which afflicts this site. Why should only the Tories benefit from a fall in the UKIP vote shatre when, self-evidently, that vote share is bolstered by ex-Labour, ex-Lib Dem and ex-NOTA voters ? Why shouldn't these groups benefit from the fragmentation of UKIP ?
If we're going to play the game, then why not have 50% of those preferring Labour also "coming back" to their preference so add 2.4% to the Labour number (call it 32%). On those numbers, Labour are the largest party (fractionally) - a very different outcome.
Err, I'm not saying they won't. Did you even read my post? I said "all things being equal" - i.e. no other net movements from UKIP to any other party. I took the 50% from those *preferring a Conservative majority government*. If you did the same with those preferring a Labour majority government, you'd arrive at just under 10% of UKIP voters returning to Labour, all things being equal. But you'd need to similarly caveat that too.
It was to illustrate a point: there is a sizeable well of potential support there for Cameron, and UKIP supporters (although very dissatisfied with him) overwhelmingly prefer him to Miliband.
I expect returning votes from UKIP to be in the Tories favour by at least 2:1. And it's not wishful thinking either, I have a four-figure sum on the election result.
It's just not the one you want.
I also said in my original post it was "one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day" and "clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that".
In hindsight, I should have made this even clearer for posters like Stodge, who seems to get a bit upset when anyone predicts a Tory win, and prefers to fight a straw man.
It's also the case that a lot of people will be looking at their house price and will be feeling considerably richer than they did a while back, no matter what average pay and inflation says.
Some interesting figures there on the positive/negative question:
.
Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
As I noted on the last thread, Ashcroft, asking more directly shows little difference in preference by UKIP voters between a Labour or Tory government - 32% prefer Lab, 40% prefer Con.
I recall that you predicted that polls would start to become significant in November...
I have also pointed out (repeatedly) over the last 6 weeks, that a large number of voters remain undecided (in this poll 45% of all voters) and the underlying fundamentals look bad for Miliband/Labour. When they finally come around to focussing upon the election, and determining their vote, that will have a decisive effect IMHO.
"This Ashcroft polls shows a preference of UKIP voters to have the Tories in government, over Labour, by the order of 45% to 33%"
It is still a bit much to take 20% of UKIP support and give it to Conservatives without allocating some (15%) to Labour though. Immense wishful thinking
I don't do wishful thinking. I bet on politics to make money.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
Me too, that's why you have to allocate to the side you don't want to win as well
Seems to me like you've added numbers to the Conservative score and none to the Labour score, despite the data used to add to the Conservative score also applying to the Labour score..
Give me some credit: I'm not that naive. If you're asking why I haven't "upped" the net Labour number further as well, that's because I expect further slippage from Ed's base polling between now and May next year. Not that I expect precisely zero UKIP returners to Labour.
@Cyclefree - I agree with your little pen-portraits of our half-century's PMs, except possibly in respect of Wilson, who I don't think was insubstantial. His greatest achievements (or, to be more precise, those of his government, since Roy Jenkins takes much of the credit) were in social legislation. However, in my assessment it was his 100% failure to deal with the single biggest problem the country faced which puts him out of contention as a great, or even half-way good, PM. If he hadn't bottled In Place of Strife, we could have avoided a decade of decline.
Still, just writing out the list puts Cameron in context: pretty damned good, you only get one as good as that a few times in a century.
The best way for UKIP to shake off the negative shading being heaped onto the party is to go green. Grab your opposition's favourite clothes and wear them unashamedly. Ban fracking and GMOs, and every Green vote in the country that needs representing will flow to Farage. Helmer needs to recant. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition, and burn out his heresy on fracking being safe for the aquifer.
I can't see many Green voters voting UKIP.
That, Casino, is because you like most don't realise that in 120 Tory formerly 'safe 'seats there are active anti-fracking groups looking for a new political home. Most anti-frackers in these seats are former Conservatives, despite your prejudicial viewpoint. To vote Green Party would be nigh impossible with the pro-EU, communistic, pro-paedophile tendency of the Green party. UKIP would clean up and win 100 seats by going anti-fracking in time. It's an open goal which Farage is about to miss.
There is a populist bandwagon that UKIP could ride on anti-fracking, yes. But I'm afraid it's a very small one. I don't see where you get your evidence for a 3-figure gain of UKIP seats off the back of this other than the creativity of your own imagination, and your own personal enthusiasm for the antifracking cause. Sorry.
Right, I'm off to the rub-a-dub-dub. Laters.
The Guardian are not known for inventing information, even if you believe that I am. Have a couple of pints, relax a bit, then take a fresh look. You might find a very different picture emerging.
That tells me there is a vocal minority who oppose it, who have some real concerns, but doesn't provide me with any evidence for 100 UKIP seat wins.
Fracking would have to result in houses being undermined, whole streets collapsing, random explosions, children dying from poisoning, and the countryside everywhere where fracking took place to look like a total moonscape (with the Conservatives obstinately supporting it anyway, and UKIP being the only real opposition to it) for something like that to even remotely have a chance of happening.
It's not surprising that Ukip has the highest negative ratings when it is revealed they have now been infiltrated by pinkos.Pinkos are never good news.
Some interesting figures there on the positive/negative question:
.
Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
As I noted on the last thread, Ashcroft, asking more directly shows little difference in preference by UKIP voters between a Labour or Tory government - 32% prefer Lab, 40% prefer Con.
I recall that you predicted that polls would start to become significant in November...
I have also pointed out (repeatedly) over the last 6 weeks, that a large number of voters remain undecided (in this poll 45% of all voters) and the underlying fundamentals look bad for Miliband/Labour. When they finally come around to focussing upon the election, and determining their vote, that will have a decisive effect IMHO.
I don't do wishful thinking. I bet on politics to make money.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
Me too, that's why you have to allocate to the side you don't want to win as well
Seems to me like you've added numbers to the Conservative score and none to the Labour score, despite the data used to add to the Conservative score also applying to the Labour score..
Give me some credit: I'm not that naive. If you're asking why I haven't "upped" the net Labour number further as well, that's because I expect further slippage from Ed's base polling between now and May next year. Not that I expect precisely zero UKIP returners to Labour.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
I don't think Blair's problem with Brown was cowardice, but rather softness towards an old friend and ally. Blair was advised by numerous good judges - for example, Sir Alex Ferguson, to name but a few! - to sack him, but he never could.
His problem with Iraq arose directly from a subservient attitude towards the US and US policy. That was OK when Clinton was in the White House, but disastrous when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took over. Even then it could have worked out OK if they had followed his preferred policy of nationbuilding after the war, but for domestic ideological reasons they were opposed to that, and they were never going to listen to him.
Ms Cyclefree, I think you're rather undervaluing Wilson, but I think you're overvaluing Blair.
I did not intend to overvalue Blair. I think he had the potential to be good but his fundamental dishonesty has very severely damaged politics in this country. When it came to the challenge posed by 9/11 and after, he flunked it - and, most damagingly, in ways which have made it much harder for subsquent PMs to deal with the same and even harder issues. He betrayed trust and that is - and has been - very corrosive. For someone who claims to be religious why he did not - and does not - realise that a lack of integrity, of trustworthiness is the worst thing is puzzling.
My guess is that he is a narcissist who does not understand that it is not by your motives or your self-expressed stance that you are judged but by your actions.
I'm happy to stand corrected on Wilson. He just seems to have disappeared without trace which seems odd for someone who, before Blair, was Labour's most successful leader.
There appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking on this forum as I outline in my response to Casino on the last thread. This is rarely a wise wagering strategy, yet it endures.
Anyone got any thoughts on why Cameron does want to win next year, given the storm that may await him?
Several commentators have asked why he would want to bother, given how hard his party will be to manage, but he seems pretty hungry for it.
My view: he wants to win a three-referendum hat-trick, be the Prime Minister who both saved the Union, stabilised a new-UK settlement for the long-term, reformed the EU relationship and got the deficit under control. So I expect him to be thinking about leaving in 2018-2019.
Note: I make no comment on the achievability or realism of those ambitions, just trying to think what may be going through his mind re: his intended "legacy".
I don't think he's given the matter too much thought. Being Prime Minister is something that he just does, in the same way that he picks up his ipad to play fruit ninja.
'because I think I'd be rather good at it' - Dave.
When people trot out that line, I always wonder what else they think he could have got away with saying? "I'll be fair to middling as a Prime Minister....." "I'll be shit-hot at the politics an' that, me...." "I'll be shit, me...." "I'll be better than Gordon Brown."
Is there really a way to answer "Why do you want to be Prime Minister?" without sounding a complete knob?
"I believe my party can make the country a better place" ?
"While one does not seek the office, one has pledged oneself to the service of one's country, and if one's friends were to persuade one that was the best way one could serve, one might have to accept the responsibility whatever one's own private wishes might be."
Some interesting figures there on the positive/negative question:
.
Rough numbers: if 20% of current UKIP voters (say, 50% of those UKIP voters *preferring* a Conservative majority government as the GE2015 outcome) make a direct UKIP>Con switch then, all things being equal, that adds 3.2% to the Con score immediately.
That's one of the reasons why I think the Tories will pull at least 5 points clear of Labour by election day, and I expect slightly more. If you Baxter: Con - 35% , Lab - 29.5%, Lib Dem - 14% and UKIP - 12% then you get Con on 312 seats, 14 short of a majority.
Clearly, the cards wouldn't fall like that. But it does give a feel for where I think we'll end up.
As I noted on the last thread, Ashcroft, asking more directly shows little difference in preference by UKIP voters between a Labour or Tory government - 32% prefer Lab, 40% prefer Con.
I recall that you predicted that polls would start to become significant in November...
I have also pointed out (repeatedly) over the last 6 weeks, that a large number of voters remain undecided (in this poll 45% of all voters) and the underlying fundamentals look bad for Miliband/Labour. When they finally come around to focussing upon the election, and determining their vote, that will have a decisive effect IMHO.
I don't do wishful thinking. I bet on politics to make money.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
Me too, that's why you have to allocate to the side you don't want to win as well
Seems to me like you've added numbers to the Conservative score and none to the Labour score, despite the data used to add to the Conservative score also applying to the Labour score..
Give me some credit: I'm not that naive. If you're asking why I haven't "upped" the net Labour number further as well, that's because I expect further slippage from Ed's base polling between now and May next year. Not that I expect precisely zero UKIP returners to Labour.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
Sorry, I thought my caveats were clear. In future, I'll be sure to be clearer.
There appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking on this forum as I outline in my response to Casino on the last thread. This is rarely a wise wagering strategy, yet it endures.
Just seen you post. Don't have time to respond now, but you're assuming the Con pollshare doesn't improve before polling day. The underlying fundamentals are very poor for Labour, as the subsidiary ashcroft pollin questions show. I think there will be further swingback, even during the campaign itself. Cameron can be a big boost to his party when he's in the spotlight, as we saw at party conference. The opposite is true of Miliband. But this will be in despair of the alternatives rather than hope.
There appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking on this forum as I outline in my response to Casino on the last thread. This is rarely a wise wagering strategy, yet it endures.
Just seen you post. Don't have time to respond now, but you're assuming the Con pollshare doesn't improve before polling day. The underlying fundamentals are very poor for Labour, as the subsidiary ashcroft pollin questions show. I think there will be further swingback, even during the campaign itself. Cameron can be a big boost to his party when he's in the spotlight, as we saw at party conference. The opposite is true of Miliband. But this will be in despair of the alternatives rather than hope.
We'll see who looks wisest on 8th May.
I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
In the same spirit, let's look at Opposition leaders i.e. those who have not become PM.
Foot: a good, learned man but hopelessly out of his depth and unsuited for the role. Elected in a spasm of sentimentality. Kinnock: brave in challenging Militant Tendency and the unrealistic left of his party. His conference speech attacking Hatton is one of the few conference speeches worth remembering. Ultimately a failure but did much to bring Labour back to its senses so deserves credit for that. Smith: OK but think that he would not have won an election and too much a Scottish Labour politician to understand much of England. Blair was probably a better leader of the Opposition than he was a PM. Hague: too young and lacking in courage to take the Tories where they needed to be. Suffered from trying to govern an ungovernable party that, even if it had handed out gold bars to every voter, would not have been listened to. IDS: unsuited to the role. Deserves a pat on the back for going off and reinventing himself. Showed that his ego was not bigger than his desire to do something about poverty, even if one might disagree with what he is now doing and how. Howard: did the job he needed to. Cameron: OK but not sure that he did enough hard thinking about what was needed. Too willing to allow the terms of the debate to be set by his opponents.
The great "what ifs" are what if Healey had become Labour leader or Ken Clarke Tory leader.
"Tory strategists believe they could be spared a humiliating landslide at the hands of Ukip on Thursday's Rochester and Strood by-election, as homeowners fear a Ukip MP would indelibly tarnish the area's reputation as a hotbed of anger at immigration."
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
"Tory strategists believe they could be spared a humiliating landslide at the hands of Ukip on Thursday's Rochester and Strood by-election, as homeowners fear a Ukip MP would indelibly tarnish the area's reputation as a hotbed of anger at immigration."
The Mail must be hopping mad it didnt come up with that headline first!
Back in the 1970s wasn't the headlin - "Vote Liberal or we'll shoot your dog"?
(Hardly surprising that UKIP is so low since there are far more Tory and Labour voters who give the party a negative rating, than UKIP supporters - who give the party a positive rating.)
Well, we had, in Glasgow during indyref, Labour MPs saying "Vote No or we'll make sure your shpyards are closed down".
"Tory strategists believe they could be spared a humiliating landslide at the hands of Ukip on Thursday's Rochester and Strood by-election, as homeowners fear a Ukip MP would indelibly tarnish the area's reputation as a hotbed of anger at immigration."
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
I don't think there is anything he could do to get my vote. If he did what I wanted I would think he had no conviction and was saying anything to get power, so I wouldn't vote for him!
But I wouldn't be one of the Kippers who would prefer a Labour government to a Tory one.
32-33% do so they obviously are the market for being tempted back
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
And, more pertinently to how you replied, what could he offer to Labour kippers that would entice them to return? Him over Dave? Are Labour going to try and sell "vote Nige get posh Dave"? Or is Miliband going to go all hardcore on immigration to prevent losing voters to UKIP?
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
And, more pertinently to how you replied, what could he offer to Labour kippers that would entice them to return? Him over Dave? Are Labour going to try and sell "vote Nige get posh Dave"? Or is Miliband going to go all hardcore on immigration to prevent losing voters to UKIP?
There seem to be some ex Labour supporters that would never vote Tory because of some dogmatic hatred of them, but would vote UKIP.
I guess an EU referendum offer from Ed would get some of them back. Plenty of top Labour people are in favour of that anyway.
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
@Cyclefree - I agree with your little pen-portraits of our half-century's PMs, except possibly in respect of Wilson, who I don't think was insubstantial. His greatest achievements (or, to be more precise, those of his government, since Roy Jenkins takes much of the credit) were in social legislation. However, in my assessment it was his 100% failure to deal with the single biggest problem the country faced which puts him out of contention as a great, or even half-way good, PM. If he hadn't bottled In Place of Strife, we could have avoided a decade of decline.
Still, just writing out the list puts Cameron in context: pretty damned good, you only get one as good as that a few times in a century.
Had the radio on during dinner. Daughter remarked that she felt sorry for the Prime Minister. Upon questioning her empathy turned out to be for Prime Ministers in general, rather than the current incumbent in particular. She said that, "they have to make all these decisions and it doesn't matter what they do, there will always be someone who disagrees with them".
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
And, more pertinently to how you replied, what could he offer to Labour kippers that would entice them to return? Him over Dave? Are Labour going to try and sell "vote Nige get posh Dave"? Or is Miliband going to go all hardcore on immigration to prevent losing voters to UKIP?
There seem to be some ex Labour supporters that would never vote Tory because of some dogmatic hatred of them, but would vote UKIP.
I guess an EU referendum offer from Ed would get some of them back. Plenty of top Labour people are in favour of that anyway.
How could he offer that given his constant and visceral opposition to the idea of a referendum?
Had the radio on during dinner. Daughter remarked that she felt sorry for the Prime Minister. Upon questioning her empathy turned out to be for Prime Ministers in general, rather than the current incumbent in particular. She said that, "they have to make all these decisions and it doesn't matter what they do, there will always be someone who disagrees with them".
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I made on the previous thread was that Casino's stuff about the economy story boosting the Conservative vote was being made two years ago, and it didn't work.
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I made on the previous thread was that Casino's stuff about the economy story boosting the Conservative vote was being made two years ago, and it didn't work.
Because people have been responding to mid-term opinion polls, and not really considering the idea of electing a patently unfit oddball to lead the government.
Once they are thinking that way, things like who'll run the economy better will only reinforce their disdain for the Eds (and I'm talking swing voters and possible kipper returners here, not Lab core vote)
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
The voters leaving Labour at the moment don't seem to be turning to the Conservatives.
The election campaign may well be a national debate about which parties will be the junior coalition partners in the next government. SNP, LD, UKIP, Green, DUP, Plaid.
Your conclusion appears to be (at least potentially): Lib Dems +, Labour +, UKIP +
That rather implies: Conservatives --, Green -
I've no quibble with the latter - I suspect that potential Green voters are most open to being persuaded to vote tactically. I've no great feeling on the former, but it would seem a fairly big call to make given current Conservative polling levels. Or perhaps I've misunderstood a bit, and you see the potential improvements for the Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP as being mutually exclusive - such that the net effect on the Conservatives would be minimal?
"We have decided to include UKIP as a prompted option in both our telephone and online polling, alongside the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
The rise in support for UKIP means that it has outpolled the (prompted) Liberal Democrats in every ComRes poll since February 2013."
Hague is hinting that he would refuse to call by-elections in case of resignations, also Nutall is saying that there won't be a need for a by-election in case of further defections.
"Paul Nuttall, Ukip’s deputy leader, said it was “getting to the situation now where we get towards Christmas and beyond Christmas where it would be pretty ridiculous to be fighting byelections and you would just let that seat roll on into May, and let people have their say five months on.”"
It's relatively safe to say that if any other Tory MP's defect to UKIP there won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
And, more pertinently to how you replied, what could he offer to Labour kippers that would entice them to return? Him over Dave? Are Labour going to try and sell "vote Nige get posh Dave"? Or is Miliband going to go all hardcore on immigration to prevent losing voters to UKIP?
There seem to be some ex Labour supporters that would never vote Tory because of some dogmatic hatred of them, but would vote UKIP.
I guess an EU referendum offer from Ed would get some of them back. Plenty of top Labour people are in favour of that anyway.
How could he offer that given his constant and visceral opposition to the idea of a referendum?
Am I the only one thinking that the latest Tory line in Rochester smacks of the notorious headline "Will rise in house prices cause a rise in house prices?" by the Daily Mail (or was it the Express?).
I think it settles the argument that the Tories had a really bad campaign and they should kick those American advisors all the way pack to New York and Washington.
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I made on the previous thread was that Casino's stuff about the economy story boosting the Conservative vote was being made two years ago, and it didn't work.
Because people have been responding to mid-term opinion polls, and not really considering the idea of electing a patently unfit oddball to lead the government.
Once they are thinking that way, things like who'll run the economy better will only reinforce their disdain for the Eds (and I'm talking swing voters and possible kipper returners here, not Lab core vote)
Yet two years ago exactly the same arguments were advanced, the mid-term explanation has been applied retrospectively. Vehemently and passionately many Conservative colleagues assured us that the economic miracle, and being being unmasked as weird would soon lead to a surge. It did not.
Vote Liberal or We'll Shoot Your Dog - Thorpe Trial inspired quite a few jokes.
Tom Sharpe worked this into Ancestral Vices:
"The Inspector, if and when he calls, will read that warning out to you. If he fails to do so he will be in breach of the law himself. ‘In short you are telling me to thorpe,’ said Emmelia. The Judge was scandalized. ‘I would remind you that Mr Thorpe was an innocent man,’ he said stcrnly. ‘Whereas I am not an innocent woman. I am a foolish and—’ ‘That is not for you to say,’ interrupted the Judge hurriedly. ‘It is for the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury.’
‘Unless I plead guilty,’ said Emmelia."
There was Peter Cook with the Judge Sketch, and Doc Cox alias Rex Barker and The Riccohets - with this awful song. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MSka2l51A
"The Lib Dems are likely to rise with most pollsters at least towards the levels currently recorded by ICM because of their strength at local level."
The decline of the LDs is an established trend. Their local election vote share has declined year on year throughout this parliament. I'm not expecting that to change.
Fair enough, it just seems a bit dodge when you take some numbers from a poll to support a theory, but ignore those from the opposition based on a feeling you've got.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
How about if he were to reinforce his argument by saying why he believes the Tory strategy, as it seems so far, will work.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Not really because that again is ignoring the chances of Labour successfully appealing to Labour kippers
Even I would pick Nige over weird Ed.
What could Ed do to win you back?
And, more pertinently to how you replied, what could he offer to Labour kippers that would entice them to return? Him over Dave? Are Labour going to try and sell "vote Nige get posh Dave"? Or is Miliband going to go all hardcore on immigration to prevent losing voters to UKIP?
There seem to be some ex Labour supporters that would never vote Tory because of some dogmatic hatred of them, but would vote UKIP.
I guess an EU referendum offer from Ed would get some of them back. Plenty of top Labour people are in favour of that anyway.
How could he offer that given his constant and visceral opposition to the idea of a referendum?
Desperation to save his job?
Pandering to UKIP would be the quickest way to lose his job.
"If you vote UKIP the following will happen. Verily.:
1) Water will turn into Blood (Labour Red Blood at that, not blue Tory blood) 2) There will be a plague of Frogs [shurely shome mishtake they are anti immigration. Ed] 3) Plague of Lice (Faragensis lousis) 4) Plague of Flies [or is that drones. Ed?] 5) Terrible plague on all your livestock (we told you this would happen in 2001 if Labour won but you didn't listen- and it did) 6) Plague of Boils (because UKIP will abolish the NHS and charge you to treat them. Oh Yes.) 7) Thunderstorms, hail and fire (according to Mr Fish) 8) Plague of Locusts [see 2. Ed] 9) Darkness will be on the land [What do you expect in the middle of November. Ed] 10) Death of all firstborn in Rochester [Your'e fired. Ed] "
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I made on the previous thread was that Casino's stuff about the economy story boosting the Conservative vote was being made two years ago, and it didn't work.
Because people have been responding to mid-term opinion polls, and not really considering the idea of electing a patently unfit oddball to lead the government.
Once they are thinking that way, things like who'll run the economy better will only reinforce their disdain for the Eds (and I'm talking swing voters and possible kipper returners here, not Lab core vote)
Yet two years ago exactly the same arguments were advanced, the mid-term explanation has been applied retrospectively. Vehemently and passionately many Conservative colleagues assured us that the economic miracle, and being being unmasked as weird would soon lead to a surge. It did not.
Surge ? The conservatives are closing the gap like a marathon runner catching up a tired opponent.
The tories are struggling to seal the deal. They are not really picking up support, only Labour's decline is reducing the lead. But every time the tories get a small lead it swings back to Labour.
After numerous attempts one has to ask why. And the answer is surely that the majority of people don't like this government very much. They don't like the choice either. But every time they start to look like they have made that choice they have second thoughts.
At the last election the tories had a lead of 8%. Less than that and they will probably start to lose marginal seats. I say probably because UKIP do have the prospect of making them more efficient in terms of seat wins. At the moment a lead of considerably less than that looks very likely. It just does not seem to matter how crap Ed gets. They can't break away.
Good. I don't intend to move and if I did it would be to a bigger place so a house price crash will lower the differential. Also I have several children, a house price crash is the best news I could hope for for them.
The only people who benefit from high house prices are spoilt brats getting inheritances and the government who hoover up inheritance tax and pay out less in care home fees as the higher the price the longer before the victims money runs out.
Latest Tory Campaign leaflet in Full "If you vote UKIP the following will happen. Verily.:
1) Water will turn into Blood (Labour Red Blood at that, not blue Tory blood) 2) There will be a plague of Frogs [shurely shome mishtake they are anti immigration. Ed] 3) Plague of Lice (Faragensis lousis) 4) Plague of Flies [or is that drones. Ed?] 5) Terrible plague on all your livestock (we told you this would happen in 2001 if Labour won but you didn't listen- and it did) 6) Plague of Boils (because UKIP will abolish the NHS and charge you to treat them. Oh Yes.) 7) Thunderstorms, hail and fire (according to Mr Fish) 8) Plague of Locusts [see 2. Ed] 9) Darkness will be on the land [What do you expect in the middle of November. Ed] 10) Death of all firstborn in Rochester [Your'e fired. Ed] "
This is what always happens when we end up with a Labour Govt
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
I refer you to my post on the previous thread, as I referred Casino. The Tory score has been unchanged by these sentiments, however passionately and repeatedly expressed.
I'd argue that, six months from the election, the actual choice between Cameron and weird Ed Miliband for PM hasn't yet crystallised in the minds of those responding to opinion polls.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I made on the previous thread was that Casino's stuff about the economy story boosting the Conservative vote was being made two years ago, and it didn't work.
Because people have been responding to mid-term opinion polls, and not really considering the idea of electing a patently unfit oddball to lead the government.
Once they are thinking that way, things like who'll run the economy better will only reinforce their disdain for the Eds (and I'm talking swing voters and possible kipper returners here, not Lab core vote)
Yet two years ago exactly the same arguments were advanced, the mid-term explanation has been applied retrospectively. Vehemently and passionately many Conservative colleagues assured us that the economic miracle, and being being unmasked as weird would soon lead to a surge. It did not.
Straw-man. It's not two years ago we're debating. The arguments being advanced, today, are for the general election result.
Almost half of all voters haven't made their minds up and most people aren't thinking about it yet.
"his place in the history books as one of the greatest of our Prime Ministers would be secure."
Dear, oh dear! He hasn't even won a majority yet and, wishful thinking aside, seems less likely than not to win one next year. His party has shed voters and members and barely scrapes 30% in opinion polls.
Sure: the economy is doing better than predicted and Labour are a shambles. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
But one of our greatest? Lol.
As per usual you can be relied on to bring a bit of reality to the table.
"his place in the history books as one of the greatest of our Prime Ministers would be secure."
Dear, oh dear! He hasn't even won a majority yet and, wishful thinking aside, seems less likely than not to win one next year. His party has shed voters and members and barely scrapes 30% in opinion polls.
Sure: the economy is doing better than predicted and Labour are a shambles. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
But one of our greatest? Lol.
The Nabavi challenge remains unanswered to this day: name a better one, other than Maggie of course, in the last half-century. If he manages to sort out the EU mess (as I said, a big If), you can extend that to a century at least, amongst peacetime PMs.
In any case, your criteria are absolutely bizarre. What has getting a majority, or the state of a particular political party, got to do with the question of how good a PM he is? I didn't say he was the most successful party leader (Tony Blair wins that one hands-down), or the best snake-oil salesman (historians will have a hard time adjudicating between Farage and Salmond on that point, amongst our recent party leaders). The question of best PM is about the country, not the Conservative Party .
Gordon Brown
Absurd - please tell me you are just trying to wind Richard up.
Comments
The Tories may have underwhelmed in terms of performance on immigration, but does anyone really doubt that they would prefer more control?
Labour on the other hand are fully cast as super-pro-immigration.
Jewish could easily be White British really (Dr Legg)
Probably more realistic then, strange that they haven't reflected the changing demographic
1985 (2014)
White British 75.5% (78.8%)
Black 8.2% (7.7%)
Asian 4.1% (7.7%)
Turkish 10.2% -
Jewish 2% -
Mixed Race - (3.8%)
Eastern European (1.9%)
"How does this cretin (Flightpath) get away with his daily accusations of racism?"
I can't imagine. I'm sure we're all scratching our heads
The UKIP vote is about many things as today's internal spat has shown and some of those play very well for Labour - especially the ones about taxing the wealthy. It may be anathema for many on here but there are a lot of people out there who think the wealthy pay too little tax and should pay a lot more.
UKIP has spoken to them as well in terms of its economic policy.
It was to illustrate a point: there is a sizeable well of potential support there for Cameron, and UKIP supporters (although very dissatisfied with him) overwhelmingly prefer him to Miliband.
I expect returning votes from UKIP to be in the Tories favour by at least 2:1. And it's not wishful thinking either, I have a four-figure sum on the election result.
It's just not the one you want.
Besides which, I said 'all things being equal'. I never claimed there would be no returners to Labour, although i think they'll be at least in the ratio of 2:1 in the Tories favour, and possibly lower.
He's not a bad PM. Just not as good as you seem to think.
As your challenge - in the last half-century the PMs have been Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown. Too early to say what history will say about Cameron. Let's see what happens next year.
Wilson has disappeared from view and now seems insubstantial. Keeping us out of Vietnam and the OU are his biggest achievements. He failed to sort out the unions and did not confront the rifts between Left and Right in Labour.
Callaghan: left with a hospital pass. Did not make it any better.
Heath: dreadful on the domestic front. His only achievement was taking us into the EU and how you view that will determine how you view him. My feeling is that, regardless of my views on the EU, there was a dishonesty about how he brought us in which has tainted the European debate ever since.
Thatcher: changed the political weather.
Major: probably better in retrospect than it seemed at the time. Could do little with an ungovernable party but did OK with the economy in the end.
Blair: gifted but dishonest and wasted his talents and the majorities he won. Cowardly when it came to Brown. His behaviour over Iraq has poisoned the well of British politics for a very long time.
Brown: ghastly, over-promoted and a disaster for the British economy and for Labour.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/08/shale-gas-fracking-conservatives-grassroots
I think you're rather undervaluing Wilson, but I think you're overvaluing Blair.
Seems to me like you've added numbers to the Conservative score and none to the Labour score, despite the data used to add to the Conservative score also applying to the Labour score..
In hindsight, I should have made this even clearer for posters like Stodge, who seems to get a bit upset when anyone predicts a Tory win, and prefers to fight a straw man.
"Is there a difference between racism and being obsessed with race ?"
A man standing at a bar. After a few minutes he said to the man next to him
"excuse me but do you mind not staring at my wife's bosom"
"I beg your pardon! Nothing was further from my mind.
Barman... pint of bosom please".
Still, just writing out the list puts Cameron in context: pretty damned good, you only get one as good as that a few times in a century.
Fracking would have to result in houses being undermined, whole streets collapsing, random explosions, children dying from poisoning, and the countryside everywhere where fracking took place to look like a total moonscape (with the Conservatives obstinately supporting it anyway, and UKIP being the only real opposition to it) for something like that to even remotely have a chance of happening.
Really you might as well forget the stats and just say you fancy the Tories to win
That's a pretty fair assessment of PMs, Cycle.
I don't think Blair's problem with Brown was cowardice, but rather softness towards an old friend and ally. Blair was advised by numerous good judges - for example, Sir Alex Ferguson, to name but a few! - to sack him, but he never could.
His problem with Iraq arose directly from a subservient attitude towards the US and US policy. That was OK when Clinton was in the White House, but disastrous when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took over. Even then it could have worked out OK if they had followed his preferred policy of nationbuilding after the war, but for domestic ideological reasons they were opposed to that, and they were never going to listen to him.
Few quibbles with the rest of your synopsis.
My guess is that he is a narcissist who does not understand that it is not by your motives or your self-expressed stance that you are judged but by your actions.
I'm happy to stand corrected on Wilson. He just seems to have disappeared without trace which seems odd for someone who, before Blair, was Labour's most successful leader.
There appears to be a great deal of wishful thinking on this forum as I outline in my response to Casino on the last thread. This is rarely a wise wagering strategy, yet it endures.
"While one does not seek the office,
one has pledged oneself to the service of one's country,
and if one's friends were to persuade one that was the best way one could serve,
one might have to accept the responsibility whatever one's own private wishes might be."
We'll see who looks wisest on 8th May.
First off they're telling kippers repeatedly tell that they are in danger of gifting this election to weird Ed. That's bound to be far more effective with Tory Kippers than with Labour Kippers.
Second, the general Tory strategy of pushing their record of improving our economy (despite having to do it in coalition with the LDs), all of which progress would be destroyed if the people let weird Ed behind the economic controls, especially with more global problems on the horizon. Another line far more likely to appeal to Tory Kippers than Labour ones.
All kippers here may feel that neither of these strategies will move a single one of their number back to the Tories, or just a few of the weakest willed. I expect them to be quite effective. I don't know if Casino does, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Foot: a good, learned man but hopelessly out of his depth and unsuited for the role. Elected in a spasm of sentimentality.
Kinnock: brave in challenging Militant Tendency and the unrealistic left of his party. His conference speech attacking Hatton is one of the few conference speeches worth remembering. Ultimately a failure but did much to bring Labour back to its senses so deserves credit for that.
Smith: OK but think that he would not have won an election and too much a Scottish Labour politician to understand much of England.
Blair was probably a better leader of the Opposition than he was a PM.
Hague: too young and lacking in courage to take the Tories where they needed to be. Suffered from trying to govern an ungovernable party that, even if it had handed out gold bars to every voter, would not have been listened to.
IDS: unsuited to the role. Deserves a pat on the back for going off and reinventing himself. Showed that his ego was not bigger than his desire to do something about poverty, even if one might disagree with what he is now doing and how.
Howard: did the job he needed to.
Cameron: OK but not sure that he did enough hard thinking about what was needed. Too willing to allow the terms of the debate to be set by his opponents.
The great "what ifs" are what if Healey had become Labour leader or Ken Clarke Tory leader.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/reading-entrails-few-polling.html
'I am assuming nothing, I merely point out that the arguments advanced as triggers for a Conservative revival were being advanced two years ago, and they were ineffectual then. '
Two years ago the Tories were 10 points behind Labour in the polls or had you forgotten that.
Many thanks
What could Ed do to win you back?
But I wouldn't be one of the Kippers who would prefer a Labour government to a Tory one.
32-33% do so they obviously are the market for being tempted back
I guess an EU referendum offer from Ed would get some of them back. Plenty of top Labour people are in favour of that anyway.
Put Miliband in front of the TV cameras, pictures of him being weird in all the papers, and his peculiar voice on the radio, and people will fancy him for the job less and less.
Why not go back to your grass huts and prepare for government?
Once they are thinking that way, things like who'll run the economy better will only reinforce their disdain for the Eds (and I'm talking swing voters and possible kipper returners here, not Lab core vote)
The election campaign may well be a national debate about which parties will be the junior coalition partners in the next government. SNP, LD, UKIP, Green, DUP, Plaid.
That rather implies: Conservatives --, Green -
I've no quibble with the latter - I suspect that potential Green voters are most open to being persuaded to vote tactically. I've no great feeling on the former, but it would seem a fairly big call to make given current Conservative polling levels. Or perhaps I've misunderstood a bit, and you see the potential improvements for the Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP as being mutually exclusive - such that the net effect on the Conservatives would be minimal?
"We have decided to include UKIP as a prompted option in both our telephone and online polling, alongside the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.
The rise in support for UKIP means that it has outpolled the (prompted) Liberal Democrats in every ComRes poll since February 2013."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/11/15/labour-holds-4-point-lead-over-conservatives/
I expect the other pollsters to do the same before the election.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/17/seats-could-be-left-vacant-if-more-tory-mps-defect-to-ukip-before-election?CMP=twt_gu
Hague is hinting that he would refuse to call by-elections in case of resignations, also Nutall is saying that there won't be a need for a by-election in case of further defections.
"Paul Nuttall, Ukip’s deputy leader, said it was “getting to the situation now where we get towards Christmas and beyond Christmas where it would be pretty ridiculous to be fighting byelections and you would just let that seat roll on into May, and let people have their say five months on.”"
It's relatively safe to say that if any other Tory MP's defect to UKIP there won't have to resign and fight a by-election.
I think it settles the argument that the Tories had a really bad campaign and they should kick those American advisors all the way pack to New York and Washington.
Tom Sharpe worked this into Ancestral Vices:
"The Inspector, if and when he calls, will read that warning out to you. If he fails to do so he will be in breach of the law himself.
‘In short you are telling me to thorpe,’ said Emmelia. The Judge was scandalized. ‘I would remind you that Mr Thorpe was an innocent man,’ he said stcrnly.
‘Whereas I am not an innocent woman. I am a foolish and—’
‘That is not for you to say,’ interrupted the Judge hurriedly. ‘It is for the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury.’
‘Unless I plead guilty,’ said Emmelia."
There was Peter Cook with the Judge Sketch, and Doc Cox alias Rex Barker and The Riccohets - with this awful song. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MSka2l51A
The decline of the LDs is an established trend. Their local election vote share has declined year on year throughout this parliament. I'm not expecting that to change.
2010: 24%
2011: 16%
2012: 15%
2013: 13%
2014: 11%
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014
As I understand it the key difference with ICM is their allocation of 'don't know' voters to the party they voted for in the previous election.
UK Polling Report's recent piece on voter churn showed a gradual reduction in 2010-LD "don't knows", but no increase in the LD support.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049
"If you vote UKIP the following will happen. Verily.:
1) Water will turn into Blood (Labour Red Blood at that, not blue Tory blood)
2) There will be a plague of Frogs [shurely shome mishtake they are anti immigration. Ed]
3) Plague of Lice (Faragensis lousis)
4) Plague of Flies [or is that drones. Ed?]
5) Terrible plague on all your livestock (we told you this would happen in 2001 if Labour won but you didn't listen- and it did)
6) Plague of Boils (because UKIP will abolish the NHS and charge you to treat them. Oh Yes.)
7) Thunderstorms, hail and fire (according to Mr Fish)
8) Plague of Locusts [see 2. Ed]
9) Darkness will be on the land [What do you expect in the middle of November. Ed]
10) Death of all firstborn in Rochester [Your'e fired. Ed] "
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/
Some more bad news coming for Ed Miliband and Labour later in the latest results from our Survation poll.
After numerous attempts one has to ask why. And the answer is surely that the majority of people don't like this government very much. They don't like the choice either. But every time they start to look like they have made that choice they have second thoughts.
At the last election the tories had a lead of 8%. Less than that and they will probably start to lose marginal seats. I say probably because UKIP do have the prospect of making them more efficient in terms of seat wins. At the moment a lead of considerably less than that looks very likely. It just does not seem to matter how crap Ed gets. They can't break away.
Good. I don't intend to move and if I did it would be to a bigger place so a house price crash will lower the differential. Also I have several children, a house price crash is the best news I could hope for for them.
The only people who benefit from high house prices are spoilt brats getting inheritances and the government who hoover up inheritance tax and pay out less in care home fees as the higher the price the longer before the victims money runs out.
Almost half of all voters haven't made their minds up and most people aren't thinking about it yet.
12 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds