Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why UKIP is set to damage Tories a lot more than LAB at GE2
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why UKIP is set to damage Tories a lot more than LAB at GE2015
Today I’m off to London for a big event in Westminster to promote the GE2015 British Election Study – a huge academic imitative involving the universities of Manchester, Oxford and Nottingham that in the coming months will become an essential resource to all who follow politics closely.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A conference in London on Tuesday will feature an analysis from Dr Steve Fisher of Oxford University, which concludes that Nick Clegg’s party appears to be losing votes more heavily in seats it currently holds than it is nationally.
Isam - The idea that poor people cant afford to eat healthily is utter nonsense.
No more needs to be said
Indeed, but very rich prople like the Archbishop of Canterbury will never understand such a concept.
The precedent indicates that the Lib Dems will lose most votes where it matters most.
Mr Bird told the BBC: "We were in a relationship briefly, but that relationship developed well after she had been admitted to the approved candidates list, so her selection was not connected to that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30390554
Well, that certainly interesting counter claim.
It's true to say that I didn't expect a Smithsonesque Techniclor bar chart on the back of last night's poll showing the Tories moving into the lead on 34% (miracles take a little longer), but nevertheless this morning's thread header appears a little incongruous in such a context, at just the time when the Blues appear ready to mount a meaningful challenge against Labour in the lead up to the GE, now less than 5 months away.
Damaging headline in today's Times about UKIP.
Meanwhile the Conservatives appear to be edging away from Labour. 34% is going the right way for them (us). Looking good for the 38-39% in May that I think will see them win outright.
Chuckling to myself at the 'English Conservative vote collapse' nonsense which now feels a lifetime ago.
Traditional Labour were driven away by the Blairite "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" nonsense, and have been sitting on their hands for the last ten or so years. The Tories have been driven away by constant insults from their front bench and are turned off by the whole Guardanista huskies and hoodies nonsense, but only in the last few years. UKIP appear to be appealing to those disaffected groups, but this just means they are converting Tories directly, and pulling traditional Labourites off the sofa, but they are still voters that should be Labours voters.
On this hypothesis, you'd have to conclude that if UKIP's share of the vote exceeds that of the LibDems by >7% (eg 17% vs 10%) then Labour are destined to win the GE. If on the other hand UKIP's share of the vote exceeds that of the LibDems by <5% (eg 16% vs 11%) then the Tories appear likely to prevail. Of course other factors will play their part, including whether the SNP wins say 15 or 30 seats at Westminster, but the principal determining factor will be the UKIP vs LibDem share of the vote.
Simples really.
Which of the following pose a serious threat to the UK
1. Terror Attacks from Former UK Citizens - 69%
2. Terror Attacks from Foreign Citizens - 68%
3. Immigration - 55%
We cant do anything like as much as we would like about any of those because of the Freedom of Movement. EU and three main parties appear to be out of step with the public again.
Some degree of care is required in terms demographic and geographic selection, taking account also of the UKIP factor. If our in-house expert antifrank has time on his hands then his assistance would be very welcome in picking out the "best buys".The bookies may be relied upon to close down such opportunities very quickly were the Tories to demonstrate any sort of sustained lead in the polls.
The words "might", "fly" and "pigs" spring to mind!
An everyday story of UKIP folk.
Like you, I expect then to match their NEV share of the last couple of locals and end up at 12-13%, which probably means the the 29-31 of the spreads is exactly right. That being said, I think it is quite a lot more likely that they underperform.
@robindbrant: BBC understands @ukip first aware of the claims in early November, bird was suspended after an initial inquiry by external consultants
Frankly, he should not be let back into such a role again.
BTW, so far UKIP appear to have dealt with this (potentially much more serious) situation far better than the Lib Dems did.
Even white van man with three flags draped over his semi must have had a chuckle at that one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865580/Irish-gipsies-sue-Wetherspoons-pub-100-000-race-discrimination-turned-away.html If a landlord becomes unable to turn away a group of people because they caused trouble at the venue the previous year, then its going to get very messy when groups of football supporters, or Hell's Angels, or possibly even the Bullingdon Club want to make a repeat booking. The Equalities Act is a typical bit of Harpersonism, mostly has its heart in the right place, but the implementation is a disaster.
“a huge academic imitative” - a typo? or is the academic initiative just hackneyed and banal?
@Sun_Politics: Labour urge business chiefs to do their 'patriotic duty' and campaign to stay in the EU: http://t.co/IkbzC3M7cT
audreyanne - you've certainly locked onto the few short words recently expressed above, as indeed have a number of other posters. Doubtless they will be quoted and re-quoted ad nauseam should the implied collapse not in fact materialise.
The LibDems are presently polling <10% with most pollsters including Lord A but his constituency polling clearly indicates the yellow peril securing >25 seats.
PBers need to remember that the LibDem share of the vote is not a direct crossover to seats. Previous general elections refer.
Ukip are in the reverse position - likely to poll around the LibDem number but failing to pick up many wins.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2717242/Night-Lib-Dem-s-groping-Lord-left-Susan-weeping-rage-humiliation-Speaking-fully-time-life-long-party-supporter-Clegg-lost-moral-compass.html
I'm much more cautious about by-election polling where the national spotlight, large shifts of opinion and tactical voting tend to blur the picture and make an accurate snapshot from a poll to the count more difficult.
* Don't forget that an Ashcroft opinion poll is just a snapshot, in much the same way that a rail timetable is an aspiration.
It bl**dy hell is a party ethics issue. Hopefully the next person put into that position will be able to keep their privates private, at least around candidates. Not doing so just risks bringing the organisation into disrepute (as the Lib Dems discovered to their cost). As I say, so far UKIP have responded well, although I have grave doubts about Bird being reinstated into the same position.
Best of luck with this strategy.
Vile muck - like pouring milk onto the contents of a hamster cage floor and likely less appetizing .... but each to their own.
"Groping is wrong, but to my mind is not as serious as something involving sexual activity."
They should employ you to write the next UKIP manifesto
you can have a red green, or you can have a misanthropic aristo green. I think I fall somewhere inbetween...
OGH quotes, "many of Labour’s core supporters had already deserted their party between 2001 and 2010 as a reaction to Tony Blair and New Labour and have since moved to UKIP."
So where did they go between 2001 and 2010? Did they switch to the LDs and have now partly gone back home, did they support BNP or English Democrats, or did they become part of the DNV constituency? Or did they just vote Labour out of habit and misplaced loyalty?
It would be interesting if Mike could get this information from his meeting today.
My rule of thumb: 5 in 100 people will be thieves to varying degrees, whilst 1 in 100 will be rapists (*). Therefore an organisation of 10,000 people will have 100 rapists in, and 500 thieves.
An organisation cannot be expected to know if someone will commit a crime when they hire if there has been no previous offending history. There therefore has to be good procedures in place so that when any activity takes place, it is detected and dealt with fairly to all parties.
Even that can be hard: look at how long Myles Bradbury got away with his crimes, and he was caught, not because of complaints against him by patients, but because of his computer activity.
(*) This means the activity has occurred, or will occur, at least once, sometime in their life.
At the last election the Tory vote of nearly 37% was incredibly inefficient because they built up huge, pointless majorities in most of southern England. If their majority in, say, Kent seats is now halved or more by the UKIP effect but they still manage to win a similar share of the vote nationally then logic indicates that they are winning more votes somewhere else such as the south west, the midlands or even London on recent polling. That effect might well give them seats which were out of reach in 2010, particularly Lib Dem ones.
34% was something of an outlier but if that became a regular thing over this month with UKIP still in the higher teens I would suggest my hypothesis is likely to be tested.
For example, it isn't good to have a lot of our energy supply in the hands of unfriendly foreign powers. It is a good idea to insulate houses, so less money is wasted, fewer power stations are needed and less CO2 is created.
Is this really the case? If many UKIP supporters (today) left Labour from 2001-2010 then why did UKIP's ratings languish so low for that period?
Plus, over the last year or two the Conservatives have flatlined, Labour have declined and UKIP increased. Of course, it may be more complex than Conservatives staying where they are and Labour supporters turning purple, but that's the net result.
Cameron (and his team, to be fair) actually came very close to pissing his chances of becoming PM up the wall. Imagine Labour on 265 seats, the Lib Dems on 61 and the Tories on 290. Enough for a Lib-Lab coalition under David Miliband with a slim overall majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Basics_(campaign)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major#.22Sleaze.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mellor#Resignation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Perjury_conviction_and_imprisonment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major#Revelation_of_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Archer#Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Keays#Parkinson.27s_resignation
etc
Dan Hodges retweeted
Red Box@timesredbox·13 hrs13 hours ago
.@PCollinsTimes "Labour will poll lower than it is already polling and that won't be enough. They will poll 30 per cent on election day"
Guido Fawkes ✔@GuidoFawkes
Where to start with @PollyToynbee's column today? Bemoans "puniess" of Labour's attack on private schools - to which she sent her children .
On topic: I'm looking forward to the detail of Ed Fieldhouse's discussion that Greens and UKIP have fewer people to discuss their views with. Obviously I've not seen any detail but seems to me on the face of it unlikely. Just looking at the surge in Green support - it seems to be coming from young, urban professionals, deserting LibDems and students (they've had a big pick-up in their Young Greens section). I find it odd that is possible that such supporters do not have friends with similar views. In addition, what about social media?
9.12.14 LAB 319 (320) CON 267(267) LD 31(31) UKIP 1(1) Others 32(31) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 149 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Many would have had bad memories of the 77-79 Lib/Lab pact where a weak government was at the mercy of the grim reaper and the machinations of Ulster politics.
The post 2010 government required a workable majority and the only viable option was the Con/LibDem coalition.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
There was an article some time ago that said many of Labour's heartland seats had more ex-Labour voters than current-Labour voters.
Getting those people to vote UKIP is something else though. I was astonished Labour won the South Yorkshire Police Crime Commissioner election.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/bes-on-the-westminster-hour/
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/what-the-bes-suggests-about-constituency-variation-in-party-performance-by-stephen-fisher-university-of-oxford/
http://www.capx.co/how-norway-beats-the-eu/
I don't believe that. UKIP got ~20 in the 2013, and 2014 local elections. That's a big chunk of the electorate.
Coupled together with UKIP doing better among men than women, and 30-35% of all voters prepared to consider voting UKIP, and there's a lot of like people to chat about the election with.
----
The BES people on the Westminster Hour mentioned that the two parties who's vote was most strongly correlated was the LDs and the Greens, because there's so much crossover. So whenever there are LD minded people in a group, there are Green-minded people in a group.
We need to recall that the Lord A polls are a nowcast and it's a given that a two stage question, particularly in LibDem seats, will alter the numbers but of course this is hardly news as they have been outperforming national polling in individual seats for decades.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-labour-loathes-white-van-man/16227
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/all-roads-lead-to-ukip-by-geoff-evans-and-jon-mellon-university-of-oxford/
The 2005 Labour voters switched to not-Labour parties in the 2010 election, and then to current-UKIP.
Each to their own ....
The reason they have to adopt EU legislation is that they are in EFTA and it is a condition of that organisation's free access to the Single Market that they adopt the relevant legislation, legislation they have not even had a vote on.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Something doesn't compute.