Conservative hopes rest upon enough UKIP defectors panicking about the imminent prospect of a Miliband-led Labour government, and making a begrudging late switch in April/May.
It's perfectly possible that the Conservatives will remain becalmed in the 31-33% bracket until then before up ticking in the final 3-4 weeks by 2-4%.
Why do I feel that way? Well, that's how I feel for one, as a defector. Second, the forced choice on PMs for Ashcroft shows a large latent (albeit reluctant) preference for Cameron over Miliband. Particularly amongst floating voters. Also, a similar story on economic competence.
What the Conservatives need to do is selectively reassure floaters using the targetting software on the pieces of their manifesto that most concern them. Most important, electorally, is to neutralise the NHS as a campaign issue.
I'm not sure how they do that, because every time it's in the news it benefits Labour, but they need to close it down as an issue all the same.
Lose 50 constituencies and allocate 50 seats on a 1 per 2% of National vote share basis
I've no real view on the number of constituencies - the number of MPs - 300, 500, 1000 - I'm not sure what the optimum number is. Assume a population of 70 million - say 1 MP per 100,000 people and you get 700 which is probably a good place to start.
I'm simply not hung up on this "constituency" linkage whereby everyone has to have a personal local representative in the HoC even if they haven't voted for them. I have an excellent constituency MP in Stephen Timms even though I've never voted for him and I'm sure I could take any substantive problem to him but to what extent is Mr Timms any more than a "super-councillor" who is able to get things moving (sometimes) becuase he has the words MP after his name ?
Of course he's a member of a political Party - if you want to win an election in an area with 100,000 people, you need help. You can't do it on our own or with a couple of mates and a dog. It requires money, logictical aupport and a whole lot of things that only organisations can provide. In the Athenian city state when you knew everyone and everyone knew you, it was different but not in the 21st Century.
It wouldn't bother me to approach an appointed Party list person either - as long as they are competent and able to help, the fact they aren't my "local representative" shouldn't matter but this link does seem to matter to a lot of people even if the forced consequence of the maintenance of that link is that a Conservative vote in East Ham is as relevant as a Labour vote in Arundel because, as OGH always tells us, national vote shares don't matter either. It's simply the result of 650 constituency contests.
What the Conservatives need to do is selectively reassure floaters using the targetting software on the pieces of their manifesto that most concern them. Most important, electorally, is to neutralise the NHS as a campaign issue.
Jennifer's ear.
The Tories wont win on Health, so the next best thing is to make it sufficiently embarrassing or damaging to Labour that they wont bring it up either. A nice dossier on NHS Pilgrims what they cost, the number of patients that could be treated if they were replaced by practising staff etc might be a good start.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago UQ granted at 12.30 to @Keith_VazMP to ask FCO for statement on reported coup in Yemen + immediate danger to British citizens
What the Tories need to do is provide just enough for wavering UKIP defectors to go back. There are generally three types of these defectors:
(1) Irreligious cultural conservatives, primarily lower middle class people worried about immigration (2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government (3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage
The first group needs a clear agenda for how immigration is going to be reduced further: either a tough stand on it with the EU, or major proposals on how to reduce unskilled non-EU migration.
The second group needs to see clear proposals for rolling back the surveillance state, and winning back regulatory power from Brussels.
The third group is tougher, because they can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous and offending most of the electorate. I know this group less well, so can't describe so much what would win them back.
But anyway - getting even a third of the first two groups back would win them the election.
More excellent unemployment figures today. These will be remembered at halcyon days if Labour get in.
Get the impression that there are a lot of “small businesses” which haven’t a hope in hell of succeeding, but which are “run” by ex-JSA recipients.
And I get the impression that enough will succeed to make a greater contribution than the continued welfare for those who fail.
I genuinely hope that you are right; running own’s business successfully, especially if also managing a reasonable family relationship, is about as good as it gets.
However, it isn’t good enough to massage the figures in such a crude way.
It wouldn't bother me to approach an appointed Party list person either - as long as they are competent and able to help,
But if they are not competent to help, how do you get rid of them? If they turn out to be another duck ponder or cash for question type, how do you get rid of them ? In a party list system, the list is usually selected by the party executive, not the local people in an area, and the old boy network puts certain members near the top who might not actually be any good, but you cant chuck them out, the top 200+ on the list will always get elected no matter how bad the government is.
More excellent unemployment figures today. These will be remembered at halcyon days if Labour get in.
Get the impression that there are a lot of “small businesses” which haven’t a hope in hell of succeeding, but which are “run” by ex-JSA recipients.
And I get the impression that enough will succeed to make a greater contribution than the continued welfare for those who fail.
I genuinely hope that you are right; running own’s business successfully, especially if also managing a reasonable family relationship, is about as good as it gets.
However, it isn’t good enough to massage the figures in such a crude way.
Who is massaging the figures and where is your evidence?
@MarqueeMark Do you suppose that the fall in unemployment is a result of a better balanced economy?
Unlike the Left's endless sneering about the wrong type of jobs, I see someone in a job as part of a better balanced economy, rather than have them sat at home every day in their underpants writing comments on a blog - which seems to be Labour's preferred outcome.
(2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government (3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage
But anyway - getting even a third of the first two groups back would win them the election.
Agree. The second group tend to be also concerned with the general creeping of the nanny state and were pretty annoyed when the government quietly dropped the Grand Repeal Act idea. To get them interested you would probably need to look at restoring that idea in some shape or form as well.
I am not in the third group either although my wife is to some extent. Obviously you can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous, so what you need to do is throw them a bone of some sort. A good start would be a clamp down on the sort of Ofsted idiocy we had down thread which had my wife looking for something to throw (we have a 10 year old daughter). The Christian Right feel that the government takes Islam much more seriously than Christianity, even though we are nominally a Christian country, something needs to be done to redress that balance.
What the Tories need to do is provide just enough for wavering UKIP defectors to go back. There are generally three types of these defectors:
(1) Irreligious cultural conservatives, primarily lower middle class people worried about immigration (2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government (3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage
The first group needs a clear agenda for how immigration is going to be reduced further: either a tough stand on it with the EU, or major proposals on how to reduce unskilled non-EU migration.
The second group needs to see clear proposals for rolling back the surveillance state, and winning back regulatory power from Brussels.
The third group is tougher, because they can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous and offending most of the electorate. I know this group less well, so can't describe so much what would win them back.
But anyway - getting even a third of the first two groups back would win them the election.
The biggest electoral win would be to communicate a firm commitment to further strengthen non-EU immigration control, and the changes to EU immmigration rules jointly announced as agreed by both Cameron and Merkel. It would not go amiss to annouce the concessions achieved for the EU renegotition on top of that either.
Finally, a charm offensive is needed to make it clear that Cameron both respects and understands UKIP defectors, and really wants their vote.
What the Conservatives need to do is selectively reassure floaters using the targetting software on the pieces of their manifesto that most concern them. Most important, electorally, is to neutralise the NHS as a campaign issue.
Jennifer's ear.
The Tories wont win on Health, so the next best thing is to make it sufficiently embarrassing or damaging to Labour that they wont bring it up either. A nice dossier on NHS Pilgrims what they cost, the number of patients that could be treated if they were replaced by practising staff etc might be a good start.
Labour does not have to bring up health because problems with hospitals, ambulances and GPs will mean that all those patients directly or indirectly affected will already have it as an issue. Just like the woman who has been made redundant knows she is unemployed even without some spotty spin doctor ramming it down her throat.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
It would not go amiss to annouce the concessions achieved for the EU renegotition on top of that either.
There is a whole new can of worms that politicians are keeping very quiet about here, a renegotiation isn't going to be a one way street, what are the other countries going to want from us in return for our shopping list. I have read that France would want us to drop our rebate to even consider it, Spain is likely to want co-ownership of Gibraltar, other countries seem to have their eye on our permanent seat on the security council and want to turn it into an EU seat (which would require an EU standing army as well).
Even if Cameron gets what he wants from the EU, he might not be able to sell the price to the voters.
Good thread. Key thing to look out for are the LibDem Conservative targets. If they're to gain power they (we) are looking to hoover up 20+ yellow seats.
"I'd define it roughly as "accepting that people have an absolute right to have a different viewpoint without thereby becoming wicked or suitable subjects for persecution"."
Would you extend this view to, say, neo-Nazi believers in white supremacy?
There seemed to be no tolerance of a child who had a negative viewpoint on lesbians. It's not as if that viewpoint wouldn't have been changed by the onset of puberty and access to xhamster.com.
BTW that's very very very NSFW.
It's not even having negative views about lesbians. It's about not knowing much about them - and how many ten year olds would?
Curious that in the latest YouGov the Green strength lies not where I would have expected it - in the south (ave. 8) but up North (ave 13) - until you get to Hadrians Wall - the Scots have economic fantasists of their own......
These numbers bounce around a bit - in one poll last week the Greens were on 1514% in London with YouGov.
The averages in the six YouGov polls for last week were: London 8.5% Rest of South 8.3% Midlands/Wales 5.3% North 7.3% Scotland 3%
That's more like what I'd expect, especially given Wales has PC - perhaps the leap in the North is just 'noise'......If its easily accessible, who has lost out to the Greens in their surge?
Well, I have a couple of hunches, let's see (averages of one week of YouGov polls).
Switchers | End of Nov | Last week ------------------------------------------- Lib->Lab | 31% | 26% Lib->Grn | 13% | 15% Lib->UKIP | 14% | 14% Con->Lab | 4% | 5% Lab->Con | 6% | 6%
So we see the continuing switch of the 2010 Lib Dems from Labour to the Greens (and also by implication of the figures to the Coalition parties) as frequently discussed on here.
However, obscured by Labour's drop in support from the 2010 Lib Dems, we see that the much derided Ed Miliband has marginally increased the number of 2010 Tory voters who now say they will vote for his party. Note that 5% of 2010 Con voters is more than 6% of 2010 Labour voters.
I now live in Eastbourne as a seat and canvassed a couple of months ago. I've had 6 requests by CCHQ to canvas for them against Kippers and for Eastbourne and Lewes. No mucking about. Will keep an eye out for other news.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
Gaaaaaaaaza!!!
(And, no, Socrates if you're around that's not about the Gaza strip, before you launch on some anti Palestinian rant.)
O/T but there's an interesting gender gap in Yougov concerning reactions to Pope Francis' comments about not insulting religious faith. Men overwhelmingly disagree; women are evenly divided. Probably because far more women than men are religious.
"far more women than men are religious" is that true ?
Very much so. Women are far more likely than men to believe in God, and make up two thirds of Church attenders.
Is this true in other countries? Even non-Christian ones?
I don't have any statistics immediately to hand, but I've read that that holds good for a lot of Western countries.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
Gaaaaaaaaza!!!
(And, no, Socrates if you're around that's not about the Gaza strip, before you launch on some anti Palestinian rant.)
What the hell are you talking about? When was the last time I posted anything anti-Palestinian? My most common criticisms about that conflict are against the Israelis.
Oh yeah, jobs, youth unemployment, jobs, youth unemployment - that is all you will hear from Labour in the election campaign.
The economy has been added to immigration as something not to be talked about by Labour canvassers. What a shame eh? If only they were armed with your charts, Labour majority nailed on....
"I'd define it roughly as "accepting that people have an absolute right to have a different viewpoint without thereby becoming wicked or suitable subjects for persecution"."
Would you extend this view to, say, neo-Nazi believers in white supremacy?
There seemed to be no tolerance of a child who had a negative viewpoint on lesbians. It's not as if that viewpoint wouldn't have been changed by the onset of puberty and access to xhamster.com.
BTW that's very very very NSFW.
It's not even having negative views about lesbians. It's about not knowing much about them - and how many ten year olds would?
Other than the generalities "women who like women" I'd say not very many. I certainly haven't fallen over myself to explain it to my 8 year old, who's knowledge pretty much stops at his awareness of the existence of homosexuality. He'll (hopefully) spend a long, long time as a grown-up having to deal with grown-up things, so I'm cherishing his fleeting innocence while it lasts.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
His ghosted auto biography is compelling stuff. Hunter Davies did a great job. Met him a while back and a jolly nice chap. He's a journey man writer made flesh.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
Gaaaaaaaaza!!!
(And, no, Socrates if you're around that's not about the Gaza strip, before you launch on some anti Palestinian rant.)
What the Tories need to do is provide just enough for wavering UKIP defectors to go back. There are generally three types of these defectors:
(1) Irreligious cultural conservatives, primarily lower middle class people worried about immigration (2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government (3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage
The first group needs a clear agenda for how immigration is going to be reduced further: either a tough stand on it with the EU, or major proposals on how to reduce unskilled non-EU migration.
The second group needs to see clear proposals for rolling back the surveillance state, and winning back regulatory power from Brussels.
The third group is tougher, because they can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous and offending most of the electorate. I know this group less well, so can't describe so much what would win them back.
But anyway - getting even a third of the first two groups back would win them the election.
I agree that that the government can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous (and I think a lot group 3 would accept that). I think what worries group 3 is that sooner or later they're going to have to end up endorsing gay marriage, either directly by means of anti-discrimination legislation, or indirectly by way of charitable status being denied to organisations that oppose gay marriage, or in schools. IMHO, reinstating Catholic adoption agencies would go a long way to reassuring group 3.
Labour does not have to bring up health because problems with hospitals, ambulances and GPs will mean that all those patients directly or indirectly affected will already have it as an issue. Just like the woman who has been made redundant knows she is unemployed even without some spotty spin doctor ramming it down her throat.
The few hundred people who have had a memorably bad experience of the NHS over the last couple of year wont be enough to make any difference. Most people wont have been to hospital at all. Of those that have, most will have shrugged and noted it was about as bad as it always was, the few extra minutes that push various services over the thresholds and make headline statistics wont be noticed by most people. The vast majority of people in ambulances heading for hospitals wont have noticed it took 25 minutes rather than 20, they will be stable, comfortable and are being taken care of and the time will pass. Its only the politicians, activists and journalists looking for a headline that will notice, and a few unlucky people where that time made a difference. Without spin doctors jumping up and down about it, most people wont notice.
I thought last night I might pop my views here about David Cameron since some of you think I'm a true blue pom pom shaker.
It's true I'm a Conservative voter but haven't always been. Decades back I once voted Labour, and in the more recent past have voted Green and even LibDem. Not often, but occasionally. I'd never vote UKIP or their ilk as I detest everything they represent. I'm a blue with a bit of pink around the edges ya'see.
So, Cameron. I think he is in one respect one of the greatest Prime Ministers since WWII. What respect? This: I can think of only two other leaders who would have even come close to what he has done in holding together a coalition of two disparate parties without undue rancour, steering the country out of economic oblivion, for a full 5 year term. Politicians are egotistical people by definition. They are also cheerleaders and see little or any merit in those of a different colour, even though it should be patently obvious that 'truth' is not the sole preserve of any one ideology. This is also why the banner wavers really dislike him. He has had to compromise, to build bridges, to find common ground.
Holding together the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition is bloody impressive. That he he has remained statesmanlike is an added bonus.
In the last 50 years I can only think of two other main party leaders who could have done what he has in this regard: William Hague and John Smith and neither of them would have done it with such a generally calm measured manner.
For me it is because of this that he will go down as one of Britain's greatest ever Prime Ministers.
It wouldn't bother me to approach an appointed Party list person either - as long as they are competent and able to help,
But if they are not competent to help, how do you get rid of them? If they turn out to be another duck ponder or cash for question type, how do you get rid of them ? In a party list system, the list is usually selected by the party executive, not the local people in an area, and the old boy network puts certain members near the top who might not actually be any good, but you cant chuck them out, the top 200+ on the list will always get elected no matter how bad the government is.
Yes, in terms of "safe" seats a party list system is even worse than FPTP in single-member constituencies, because the electorate loses the option to vote for an independent alternative to rid themselves of an unwanted candidate who happens to wear the right colour rosette.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
It would not go amiss to annouce the concessions achieved for the EU renegotition on top of that either.
There is a whole new can of worms that politicians are keeping very quiet about here, a renegotiation isn't going to be a one way street, what are the other countries going to want from us in return for our shopping list. I have read that France would want us to drop our rebate to even consider it, Spain is likely to want co-ownership of Gibraltar, other countries seem to have their eye on our permanent seat on the security council and want to turn it into an EU seat (which would require an EU standing army as well).
Even if Cameron gets what he wants from the EU, he might not be able to sell the price to the voters.
Then we leave. This isn't difficult. The EU is not worth staying in at any price.
Incidentally, Open Europe has wargamed a series of EU renegotion scenarios and found plenty of scope. It's on their website.
I don't agree with their innate pro-EU stance, but the thrust of it was that if the changes can be proposed as EU-wide reforms, they have a much better chance of going through. British specific concessions can then be traded for specific eurozone reform through treaty.
Oh yeah, jobs, youth unemployment, jobs, youth unemployment - that is all you will hear from Labour in the election campaign.
The economy has been added to immigration as something not to be talked about by Labour canvassers. What a shame eh? If only they were armed with your charts, Labour majority nailed on....
That's an unbelievably weak article. "Profits grow faster than wages" is apparently a sign of an unbalanced recovery?! So if my company doubled profit from £10 to £20 I should double all salaries? Ludicrous. The majority of the other analysis is similarly flawed. Still, he is the Indy's economics editor, so he must be an expert. Right?
EDIT: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/benchu His output isn't really living up to the Independent being, well, independent, is it. Surprised there's anything left of his axe after than much grinding.
After saying that nothing was going on in my constituency today we got a very glossy four page A4 flyer from Labour. Two main themes: the LDs supported a Tory government; and the NHS. Maybe the most notable thing, though, is how much coverage it gave to UKIP being a Tory party mark 2.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
Not if the party only expects or hopes to win one seat and therefore only puts one candidate forward. Also in Ireland it has led to a tendency for voters to favour the parish pump candidates over someone with something to contribute to Parliament (the quality of debating in the Dáil is abysmal, only Stormont is worse). All voting systems have down sides when we look into them.
Oh yeah, jobs, youth unemployment, jobs, youth unemployment - that is all you will hear from Labour in the election campaign.
The economy has been added to immigration as something not to be talked about by Labour canvassers. What a shame eh? If only they were armed with your charts, Labour majority nailed on....
That's an unbelievably weak article. "Profits grow faster than wages" is apparently a sign of an unbalanced recovery?! So if my company doubled profit from £10 to £20 I should double all salaries? Ludicrous. The majority of the other analysis is similarly flawed. Still, he is the Indy's economics editor, so he must be an expert. Right?
EDIT: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/benchu His output isn't really living up to the Independent being, well, independent, is it. Surprised there's anything left of his axe after than much grinding.
Nope, recently appointed economics editor, before that leader writer, before that general hack, studied history.
"Ben Chu has been a leader writer at The Independent since 2004. Before that he worked at the paper on the comment desk, letters department and the personal finance pages. He studied history at Jesus College, Oxford between 1997 and 2000."
Oh yeah, jobs, youth unemployment, jobs, youth unemployment - that is all you will hear from Labour in the election campaign.
The economy has been added to immigration as something not to be talked about by Labour canvassers. What a shame eh? If only they were armed with your charts, Labour majority nailed on....
That's an unbelievably weak article. "Profits grow faster than wages" is apparently a sign of an unbalanced recovery?! So if my company doubled profit from £10 to £20 I should double all salaries? Ludicrous. The majority of the other analysis is similarly flawed. Still, he is the Indy's economics editor, so he must be an expert. Right?
EDIT: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/benchu His output isn't really living up to the Independent being, well, independent, is it. Surprised there's anything left of his axe after than much grinding.
Nope
"Ben Chu has been a leader writer at The Independent since 2004. Before that he worked at the paper on the comment desk, letters department and the personal finance pages. He studied history at Jesus College, Oxford between 1997 and 2000."
But, but, but, he has a whole series of blogs, called Chunomics. Surely that wouldn't be allowed if he had no more knowledge of economics than a traffic cone. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.
What the Tories need to do is provide just enough for wavering UKIP defectors to go back. There are generally three types of these defectors:
(1) Irreligious cultural conservatives, primarily lower middle class people worried about immigration (2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government (3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage.
Worth looking at the YouGov issues index. On "issues facing you and your family" the UKIP scores (compared to overall) are:
Immigration 58% (22%) The economy 38% (46%) Health 34% (41%) Pensions 31% (27%) Europe 22% (9%)
The figures suggest that the Conservative Party strategy of eulogising their economic record, and warning of the danger to it posed by Labour, just isn't going to reach UKIP voters.
@MarqueeMark Or indeed the Tories economic plans. The companies profits are increasing but investment is falling, and GDP is rising but mainly by houshold expenditure. Combine that with a weak "Euro", and it is not going to do our balance of trade much good. But hey ho, @Anorak has spoken,so you can remain complacent.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 20s20 seconds ago Foreign Affairs Select Cttee has published letter revealing it yday asked Sir John Chilcot to appear b4 it to explain delays
@MarqueeMark Or indeed the Tories economic plans. The companies profits are increasing but investment is falling, and GDP is rising but mainly by houshold expenditure. Combine that with a weak "Euro", and it is not going to do our balance of trade much good. But hey ho, @Anorak has spoken,so you can remain complacent.
Are you really telling me that's a sign of imminent doom? A teeny tiny falling off from an all-time high? That's in real terms too, so no inflation to worry about.
Yes, in terms of "safe" seats a party list system is even worse than FPTP in single-member constituencies, because the electorate loses the option to vote for an independent alternative to rid themselves of an unwanted candidate who happens to wear the right colour rosette.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
The Labour Party hierarchy would hate it.
You'll not be surprised to hear I'm in favour of STV over FPTP - the truth of FPTP is that in the 500 or so safe seats, the electorate has no power to "change" the MP. The MP is changed via the selection process within the Party.
The ludicrous anti-Labour jibe can be applied just as easily to the Tories. If, for example, you voted for Anne McIntosh and like her you may be surprised to find her Party has decided she's not suitable to be your MP next time. That seems bizarre and it's not even as democratic as the US Primary process (though that has substantial flaws).
Worth looking at the YouGov issues index. On "issues facing you and your family" the UKIP scores (compared to overall) are:
Immigration 58% (22%) The economy 38% (46%) Health 34% (41%) Pensions 31% (27%) Europe 22% (9%)
The figures suggest that the Conservative Party strategy of eulogising their economic record, and warning of the danger to it posed by Labour, just isn't going to reach UKIP voters.
That's not necessarily so. The Conservatives need to win over (or back) some Kippers, they can't hope to win over all of them. Indeed, inasmuch as some of them are ex-Labour voters who would prefer a Labour-led government to a Conservative-led government, they might be better left where they are, from the Conservatives' point of view.
So the question is whether the Conservative strategy can win back those Kippers who are potentially persuadable, more than Labour can do the same for their defectors. I'd have thought that should be possible, to an extent at least.
It would not go amiss to annouce the concessions achieved for the EU renegotition on top of that either.
There is a whole new can of worms that politicians are keeping very quiet about here, a renegotiation isn't going to be a one way street, what are the other countries going to want from us in return for our shopping list. I have read that France would want us to drop our rebate to even consider it, Spain is likely to want co-ownership of Gibraltar, other countries seem to have their eye on our permanent seat on the security council and want to turn it into an EU seat (which would require an EU standing army as well).
Even if Cameron gets what he wants from the EU, he might not be able to sell the price to the voters.
Then we leave. This isn't difficult. The EU is not worth staying in at any price.
Incidentally, Open Europe has wargamed a series of EU renegotion scenarios and found plenty of scope. It's on their website.
I don't agree with their innate pro-EU stance, but the thrust of it was that if the changes can be proposed as EU-wide reforms, they have a much better chance of going through. British specific concessions can then be traded for specific eurozone reform through treaty.
The suggestion was we could end up being worse off than we are now. Win a few bits of tinsel that Cameron is asking for, lose our rebate and our security council seat (for example) and the risk adverse voters opt for the "safe" option and accept the deal. There isn't the faintest chance Cameron is going to tell the voters is a bad deal or campaign for out, he has already told us he won't. He could end up recommending and trying to sell us a pig in a poke, rather than lose face.
The thing that strikes me in today's YG is that the Greens are taking votes not from 2010 Labour but from 2010 LibDems, weakening the Red Liberal bonus for Labour. That's pretty logical - if you voted LD in 2010 because you wanted a left-wing party that wasn't Labour, the Greens fit the bill. The question is whether that will survive a tactical squeeze in marginal seats. My experience is that the small number of 2010 Greens are absolutely immovable, but the new tranche are pretty open to tactical argument.
It does slightly amuse me that the Labour lead is "rock-solid" (9%), "hasn't moved for months" (5%) and is "frozen in ice" (1% last week). Because "everyone has made up their minds already". Now we learn that the Red Liberals are not an immoveable block, but very open to tactical arguments, and of course, it is logical that they don't really want to vote Labour. Nick: do you think that you may be presenting your hopes and desires rather than a more balanced view of the situation?
From just over a year ago NickMP has been advising that voters views are settled with very little movement. In that time the Labour vote has lost almost 1/4 of their support. Most would view that as a catastrophic decline.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
Not if the party only expects or hopes to win one seat and therefore only puts one candidate forward. Also in Ireland it has led to a tendency for voters to favour the parish pump candidates over someone with something to contribute to Parliament (the quality of debating in the Dáil is abysmal, only Stormont is worse). All voting systems have down sides when we look into them.
You are forgetting, Neil, that the vote is transferable. You vote for candidates in order of preference. If your first-choice candidate does not need your vote, it gets transferred to your next choice, assuming he is still in the running. So a part can put up as many candidates as it likes. Mr Me is absolutely right.
The ludicrous anti-Labour jibe can be applied just as easily to the Tories. If, for example, you voted for Anne McIntosh and like her you may be surprised to find her Party has decided she's not suitable to be your MP next time. That seems bizarre and it's not even as democratic as the US Primary process (though that has substantial flaws).
As I understand it, Anne McIntosh has been deselected by her local constituency party. However regrettable that may be, it is very different to the shenanigans performed by the Labour Party, who have often appeared to use AWS to block popular local male candidates.
Worth looking at the YouGov issues index. On "issues facing you and your family" the UKIP scores (compared to overall) are:
Immigration 58% (22%) The economy 38% (46%) Health 34% (41%) Pensions 31% (27%) Europe 22% (9%)
The figures suggest that the Conservative Party strategy of eulogising their economic record, and warning of the danger to it posed by Labour, just isn't going to reach UKIP voters.
That's not necessarily so. The Conservatives need to win over (or back) some Kippers, they can't hope to win over all of them. Indeed, inasmuch as some of them are ex-Labour voters who would prefer a Labour-led government to a Conservative-led government, they might be better left where they are, from the Conservatives' point of view.
So the question is whether the Conservative strategy can win back those Kippers who are potentially persuadable, more than Labour can do the same for their defectors. I'd have thought that should be possible, to an extent at least.
A genuine question. Out of...
- Myself - Sean Fear - Richard Tyndall - Casino Royale - isam - Luckyguy1983 - any other UKIP supporters on here
...which ones do you think the Conservatives are capable of winning back and what manifesto policies do you think it would take to win them back?
I have to go out, but for people who haven't see this, the level of vitriol in the comments is eye-opening.
Sue Marsh has been a campaigner re: workplace assessments and against ATOS. She has now taken a job with ATOS's replacement rather to continue on benefits. This is her justification. Shall we say that "Judas" is probably the nicest thing she gets called...
After saying that nothing was going on in my constituency today we got a very glossy four page A4 flyer from Labour. Two main themes: the LDs supported a Tory government; and the NHS. Maybe the most notable thing, though, is how much coverage it gave to UKIP being a Tory party mark 2.
Well you can always have a chat with the Local Activist when they come round. You might enjoy tweaking their tail.
Labour does not have to bring up health because problems with hospitals, ambulances and GPs will mean that all those patients directly or indirectly affected will already have it as an issue. Just like the woman who has been made redundant knows she is unemployed even without some spotty spin doctor ramming it down her throat.
The few hundred people who have had a memorably bad experience of the NHS over the last couple of year wont be enough to make any difference. Most people wont have been to hospital at all. Of those that have, most will have shrugged and noted it was about as bad as it always was, the few extra minutes that push various services over the thresholds and make headline statistics wont be noticed by most people. The vast majority of people in ambulances heading for hospitals wont have noticed it took 25 minutes rather than 20, they will be stable, comfortable and are being taken care of and the time will pass. Its only the politicians, activists and journalists looking for a headline that will notice, and a few unlucky people where that time made a difference. Without spin doctors jumping up and down about it, most people wont notice.
There is a multiplier effect -- one patient has four relatives, six friends, eight workmates and so on.
I'm still waiting for your basis that I would rant against Palestinians at the mention of the word "Gaza". Can you back it up in any way, shape or form?
More excellent unemployment figures today. These will be remembered at halcyon days if Labour get in.
Get the impression that there are a lot of “small businesses” which haven’t a hope in hell of succeeding, but which are “run” by ex-JSA recipients.
And I get the impression that enough will succeed to make a greater contribution than the continued welfare for those who fail.
I genuinely hope that you are right; running own’s business successfully, especially if also managing a reasonable family relationship, is about as good as it gets.
However, it isn’t good enough to massage the figures in such a crude way.
Who is massaging the figures and where is your evidence?
Channel 4 documentary on Monday for one. Guardian today (I know, I know, but people here the Mail & the Telegraph) for another. Used to see a lot of CAB stuff, but I.ve retired now.
Given what was going on off the field then I'd say that was just about the most important single victory in Tottenham's history. It's also the closest I ever came to divorce. But that's a whole different story ...
I was playing for Roma vs Runwell in the U-16s Essex Cup final that day at Layer Road Colchester.. we lost 3-0 and got back on the coach to heat Arsenal were 3-1 down to Spurs..
It was almost beyond belief as Arsenals entire season had been founded on defensive strength (think we conceded a ridiculously small number of goals in the league although did lose 6-2 to Man Utd at home in the League Cup)
Just one other thing to hear in mind. I live in a labour target seat and I have never known the activity being put in by labour. There is little sign of any of the other parties doing anything at all. As any activist will know, it is all about the groundwork and long days and evenings on the doorstep. If this sort of activity is being replicated in othe labour targets, then labour may just do better than any UNS.
You'll not be surprised to hear I'm in favour of STV over FPTP - the truth of FPTP is that in the 500 or so safe seats, the electorate has no power to "change" the MP. The MP is changed via the selection process within the Party.
Neil Hamilton.
Rock solid Tory majority of 16,000+, ditched by a disapproving public.
@Anorak No, but it doesn't look much like a "proper" after recesion recovery either? The BOE has just unanimously decided to hold interest rates at the current low levels. If the recovery was really that strong, you would think there would be a move to increasing them slightly?
- Myself - Sean Fear - Richard Tyndall - Casino Royale - isam - Luckyguy1983 - any other UKIP supporters on here
...which ones do you think the Conservatives are capable of winning back and what manifesto policies do you think it would take to win them back?
Sean is sort-of won back in that he has said he'd vote Conservative in a Con/Lab marginal if the candidate was right, and Casino is perhaps persuadable. The rest are lost causes, I'd have thought, (or are Labour->UKIP switchers) but are not typical of the Con->UKIP defectors/waverers whom I know.
What will win back those who are not lost causes? The economy, the economy and the economy, with a topping of Miliband.
Labour does not have to bring up health because problems with hospitals, ambulances and GPs will mean that all those patients directly or indirectly affected will already have it as an issue. Just like the woman who has been made redundant knows she is unemployed even without some spotty spin doctor ramming it down her throat.
The few hundred people who have had a memorably bad experience of the NHS over the last couple of year wont be enough to make any difference. Most people wont have been to hospital at all. Of those that have, most will have shrugged and noted it was about as bad as it always was, the few extra minutes that push various services over the thresholds and make headline statistics wont be noticed by most people. The vast majority of people in ambulances heading for hospitals wont have noticed it took 25 minutes rather than 20, they will be stable, comfortable and are being taken care of and the time will pass. Its only the politicians, activists and journalists looking for a headline that will notice, and a few unlucky people where that time made a difference. Without spin doctors jumping up and down about it, most people wont notice.
There is a multiplier effect -- one patient has four relatives, six friends, eight workmates and so on.
I don’t think it’s that people have memorably bad experiences; it’s just that, if my and my fiends experience is anything to go by, it’s not at the level it was three-four years ago.
I understand that cataract operations have been cut back, for example.
It would not go amiss to annouce the concessions achieved for the EU renegotition on top of that either.
There is a whole new can of worms that politicians are keeping very quiet about here, a renegotiation isn't going to be a one way street, what are the other countries going to want from us in return for our shopping list. I have read that France would want us to drop our rebate to even consider it, Spain is likely to want co-ownership of Gibraltar, other countries seem to have their eye on our permanent seat on the security council and want to turn it into an EU seat (which would require an EU standing army as well).
Even if Cameron gets what he wants from the EU, he might not be able to sell the price to the voters.
David Cameron isn't trying to negotiate back "what he wants" from the EU. He's trying to 'negotiate' back whatever scraps Angela Merkel has already signed off on. The Tory original negotiating position was already a slither of what pro-EU groups like Open Europe suggested to begin with. Since then we've dropped the points system, the emergency brake, the red card, and even a ban on migrants without employment. I can't see any countries demanding major concessions from us because they know full well that they're not giving any to us.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
Not if the party only expects or hopes to win one seat and therefore only puts one candidate forward. Also in Ireland it has led to a tendency for voters to favour the parish pump candidates over someone with something to contribute to Parliament (the quality of debating in the Dáil is abysmal, only Stormont is worse). All voting systems have down sides when we look into them.
You are forgetting, Neil, that the vote is transferable. You vote for candidates in order of preference. If your first-choice candidate does not need your vote, it gets transferred to your next choice, assuming he is still in the running. So a part can put up as many candidates as it likes. Mr Me is absolutely right.
I'm forgetting nothing of the sort. I said that voters dont get to choose between a party's candidates if the party only puts up one candidate which is what they will do 99% of the time if they only expect or hope to win one seat if they know how STV works in practice.
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
Not if the party only expects or hopes to win one seat and therefore only puts one candidate forward. Also in Ireland it has led to a tendency for voters to favour the parish pump candidates over someone with something to contribute to Parliament (the quality of debating in the Dáil is abysmal, only Stormont is worse). All voting systems have down sides when we look into them.
You are forgetting, Neil, that the vote is transferable. You vote for candidates in order of preference. If your first-choice candidate does not need your vote, it gets transferred to your next choice, assuming he is still in the running. So a part can put up as many candidates as it likes. Mr Me is absolutely right.
Well, Neil is right - I overlooked some aspects of the Irish experience.
Parties there often don't put up a full slate of candidates, which reduces the benefits to the voters and gives the party more control over who is elected.
As to the other point, there's not much you can do with electoral systems to change the voters. If they will vote for the local candidate purely because they're local then there's not much you can do about that (excepting appointing a colonial administration to run affairs, but I think the Troika have left Dublin now..?)
I can't see any countries demanding major concessions from us because they know full well that they're not giving any to us.
Its even thinner than that. Merkel has said there will be no treaty changes as a result of our renegotiations, which means at best we would get changes to laws, which can then be overturned in the ECJ at leisure actually leaving us with nothing. Its an exercise in futility from the point of view of getting anything.
Just one other thing to hear in mind. I live in a labour target seat and I have never known the activity being put in by labour. There is little sign of any of the other parties doing anything at all. As any activist will know, it is all about the groundwork and long days and evenings on the doorstep. If this sort of activity is being replicated in othe labour targets, then labour may just do better than any UNS.
Years of effort on the doorstep. Then Ed appears on the telly for three weeks. All undone....
"I'd define it roughly as "accepting that people have an absolute right to have a different viewpoint without thereby becoming wicked or suitable subjects for persecution"."
Would you extend this view to, say, neo-Nazi believers in white supremacy?
There seemed to be no tolerance of a child who had a negative viewpoint on lesbians. It's not as if that viewpoint wouldn't have been changed by the onset of puberty and access to xhamster.com.
BTW that's very very very NSFW.
It's not even having negative views about lesbians. It's about not knowing much about them - and how many ten year olds would?
Other than the generalities "women who like women" I'd say not very many. I certainly haven't fallen over myself to explain it to my 8 year old, who's knowledge pretty much stops at his awareness of the existence of homosexuality. He'll (hopefully) spend a long, long time as a grown-up having to deal with grown-up things, so I'm cherishing his fleeting innocence while it lasts.
When I was about 10 we had an American teenager stay with us for a couple of weeks and he said that some celebrity was a bisexual... I asked what that was and he said
O/T but I see Jo Swinson is reported in the Times as wanting a ban in the media on pictures of women in bikinis.
Maybe she should emigrate to Iran.
In the past she has called for women to ban "fat phrases" like "bingo wings" from everyday conversation. She's not much of a political thinker, but hopefully the talent dearth in the "Liberal" Democrats means she will still rise to leader one day and collapse the Lib Dems further.
IIRC for every poor incident, we tell 6 others of a poor customer service experience. This applies to our every sector and why organisations fear them from a reputation perspective.
Labour does not have to bring up health because problems with hospitals, ambulances and GPs will mean that all those patients directly or indirectly affected will already have it as an issue. Just like the woman who has been made redundant knows she is unemployed even without some spotty spin doctor ramming it down her throat.
The few hundred people who have had a memorably bad experience of the NHS over the last couple of year wont be enough to make any difference. Most people wont have been to hospital at all. Of those that have, most will have shrugged and noted it was about as bad as it always was, the few extra minutes that push various services over the thresholds and make headline statistics wont be noticed by most people. The vast majority of people in ambulances heading for hospitals wont have noticed it took 25 minutes rather than 20, they will be stable, comfortable and are being taken care of and the time will pass. Its only the politicians, activists and journalists looking for a headline that will notice, and a few unlucky people where that time made a difference. Without spin doctors jumping up and down about it, most people wont notice.
There is a multiplier effect -- one patient has four relatives, six friends, eight workmates and so on.
I don’t think it’s that people have memorably bad experiences; it’s just that, if my and my fiends experience is anything to go by, it’s not at the level it was three-four years ago.
I understand that cataract operations have been cut back, for example.
Just one other thing to hear in mind. I live in a labour target seat and I have never known the activity being put in by labour. There is little sign of any of the other parties doing anything at all. As any activist will know, it is all about the groundwork and long days and evenings on the doorstep. If this sort of activity is being replicated in othe labour targets, then labour may just do better than any UNS.
I do too. Only Lab and Lib Dem activity outside of election time. Glossy Labour A3 arrived yesterday. No Labour canvassers yet in our street but a team of about 5 were out about a mile away on Saturday morning, as I was out and about.
As to the other point, there's not much you can do with electoral systems to change the voters. If they will vote for the local candidate purely because their local then there's not much you can do about that
There are things you could do about it. I'm not necessarily advocating any of them just pointing out a very common complaint about STV from Ireland (probably the only country in the world to have twice voted to retain STV for general elections in referendums ).
Who is massaging the figures and where is your evidence?
Channel 4 documentary on Monday for one. Guardian today (I know, I know, but people here the Mail & the Telegraph) for another. Used to see a lot of CAB stuff, but I.ve retired now.
A Channel 4 documentary?
How about the real world, SMEs with record order books, turnover increasing, wages increasing, very little demand for vacant jobs, high streets bustling, restaurants full, very low inflation, excellent GDP, record employment. No lets ignore all that and go for a Channel 4 documentary.
"I'd define it roughly as "accepting that people have an absolute right to have a different viewpoint without thereby becoming wicked or suitable subjects for persecution"."
Would you extend this view to, say, neo-Nazi believers in white supremacy?
There seemed to be no tolerance of a child who had a negative viewpoint on lesbians. It's not as if that viewpoint wouldn't have been changed by the onset of puberty and access to xhamster.com.
BTW that's very very very NSFW.
It's not even having negative views about lesbians. It's about not knowing much about them - and how many ten year olds would?
Other than the generalities "women who like women" I'd say not very many. I certainly haven't fallen over myself to explain it to my 8 year old, who's knowledge pretty much stops at his awareness of the existence of homosexuality. He'll (hopefully) spend a long, long time as a grown-up having to deal with grown-up things, so I'm cherishing his fleeting innocence while it lasts.
When I was about 10 we had an American teenager stay with us for a couple of weeks and he said that some celebrity was a bisexual... I asked what that was and he said
"He takes whatever he can get his hands on"
Bisexuals are like governments. They screw everyone.
O/T but I see Jo Swinson is reported in the Times as wanting a ban in the media on pictures of women in bikinis.
Maybe she should emigrate to Iran.
In the past she has called for women to ban "fat phrases" like "bingo wings" from everyday conversation. She's not much of a political thinker, but hopefully the talent dearth in the "Liberal" Democrats means she will still rise to leader one day and collapse the Lib Dems further.
I think East Dunbartonshire is probably a Labour or SNP gain n May. She's forgotten the word "Liberal" in Liberal Democrat.
I like in a marginal (Enfield North) but will likely be abroad on the day of the GE.
I'm not sure Enfield North will be all that marginal when it comes to it. If Labour dont take this back comfortably they are in for a very bad night. You can get a postal vote or appoint a proxy if you cant vote on the day.
You'll not be surprised to hear I'm in favour of STV over FPTP - the truth of FPTP is that in the 500 or so safe seats, the electorate has no power to "change" the MP. The MP is changed via the selection process within the Party.
Neil Hamilton.
Rock solid Tory majority of 16,000+, ditched by a disapproving public.
No - dispatched by a single Independent candidate in the absence of a Labour or Lib Dem candidate and aided by thousands of former Conservatives deserting the Party in that election as they did right across the country.
Martin Bell won because the Labour and Lib Dems stood aside to give him every chance. That could happen anywhere and has happened in other places. A better example would be Wyre Forest in 2001.
Bell benefitted from a high and positive public profile and he received substantial financial and logistical help during his campaign which was extremely well run after a shaky start.
- Myself - Sean Fear - Richard Tyndall - Casino Royale - isam - Luckyguy1983 - any other UKIP supporters on here
...which ones do you think the Conservatives are capable of winning back and what manifesto policies do you think it would take to win them back?
Sean is sort-of won back in that he has said he'd vote Conservative in a Con/Lab marginal if the candidate was right, and Casino is perhaps persuadable. The rest are lost causes, I'd have thought, (or are Labour->UKIP switchers) but are not typical of the Con->UKIP defectors/waverers whom I know.
What will win back those who are not lost causes? The economy, the economy and the economy, with a topping of Miliband.
Will this be enough? Dunno.
So out of all the UKIP supporters on here, you're writing all but two off as lost causes? And your suggested strategy for winning them back is limited to "the economy's doing great!" and "he's worse!"
No wonder the Tories are where they are. If you want to win voters back, here's a novel idea: talk to those voters and find out what's repelling them from the party. Then try to reach out to them with policies that address the difficult issues, but don't excessively offend the left flank.
@Anorak No, but it doesn't look much like a "proper" after recesion recovery either? The BOE has just unanimously decided to hold interest rates at the current low levels. If the recovery was really that strong, you would think there would be a move to increasing them slightly?
Not with Europe bumping along the bottom, no. And not with inflation at it's current level.
Hey, I'm not trying to say it all sunshine and light. It is not. I'm fairly sure we'll see another economic crisis over the next couple of years (hopeufully minor compared to 2008/9). But I found that article to be - frankly - silly, naive and ill-informed, and said so.
Comments
It's perfectly possible that the Conservatives will remain becalmed in the 31-33% bracket until then before up ticking in the final 3-4 weeks by 2-4%.
Why do I feel that way? Well, that's how I feel for one, as a defector. Second, the forced choice on PMs for Ashcroft shows a large latent (albeit reluctant) preference for Cameron over Miliband. Particularly amongst floating voters. Also, a similar story on economic competence.
What the Conservatives need to do is selectively reassure floaters using the targetting software on the pieces of their manifesto that most concern them. Most important, electorally, is to neutralise the NHS as a campaign issue.
I'm not sure how they do that, because every time it's in the news it benefits Labour, but they need to close it down as an issue all the same.
Do you suppose that the fall in unemployment is a result of a better balanced economy?
I'm simply not hung up on this "constituency" linkage whereby everyone has to have a personal local representative in the HoC even if they haven't voted for them. I have an excellent constituency MP in Stephen Timms even though I've never voted for him and I'm sure I could take any substantive problem to him but to what extent is Mr Timms any more than a "super-councillor" who is able to get things moving (sometimes) becuase he has the words MP after his name ?
Of course he's a member of a political Party - if you want to win an election in an area with 100,000 people, you need help. You can't do it on our own or with a couple of mates and a dog. It requires money, logictical aupport and a whole lot of things that only organisations can provide. In the Athenian city state when you knew everyone and everyone knew you, it was different but not in the 21st Century.
It wouldn't bother me to approach an appointed Party list person either - as long as they are competent and able to help, the fact they aren't my "local representative" shouldn't matter but this link does seem to matter to a lot of people even if the forced consequence of the maintenance of that link is that a Conservative vote in East Ham is as relevant as a Labour vote in Arundel because, as OGH always tells us, national vote shares don't matter either. It's simply the result of 650 constituency contests.
The Tories wont win on Health, so the next best thing is to make it sufficiently embarrassing or damaging to Labour that they wont bring it up either. A nice dossier on NHS Pilgrims what they cost, the number of patients that could be treated if they were replaced by practising staff etc might be a good start.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 2m2 minutes ago
UQ granted at 12.30 to @Keith_VazMP to ask FCO for statement on reported coup in Yemen + immediate danger to British citizens
What about an UQ re Chilcott then?
What the Tories need to do is provide just enough for wavering UKIP defectors to go back. There are generally three types of these defectors:
(1) Irreligious cultural conservatives, primarily lower middle class people worried about immigration
(2) Libertarians who are fed up of Big Brother government
(3) Religious Christians upset about policies which offend their beliefs, especially gay marriage
The first group needs a clear agenda for how immigration is going to be reduced further: either a tough stand on it with the EU, or major proposals on how to reduce unskilled non-EU migration.
The second group needs to see clear proposals for rolling back the surveillance state, and winning back regulatory power from Brussels.
The third group is tougher, because they can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous and offending most of the electorate. I know this group less well, so can't describe so much what would win them back.
But anyway - getting even a third of the first two groups back would win them the election.
However, it isn’t good enough to massage the figures in such a crude way.
I am not in the third group either although my wife is to some extent. Obviously you can't repeal gay marriage without looking ridiculous, so what you need to do is throw them a bone of some sort. A good start would be a clamp down on the sort of Ofsted idiocy we had down thread which had my wife looking for something to throw (we have a 10 year old daughter). The Christian Right feel that the government takes Islam much more seriously than Christianity, even though we are nominally a Christian country, something needs to be done to redress that balance.
And Miliband has to go on it, doesn't he? Otherwise it'll look as though he is scared of the Greens being involved.
Politics is a strange and unpredictable business!?!
Finally, a charm offensive is needed to make it clear that Cameron both respects and understands UKIP defectors, and really wants their vote.
Where as you just like to sneer in a mindless fashion?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/11/26/an-unbalanced-and-unsustainable-recovery/
As the charts here show, there is much to be puzzled about, because the "march of the makers" appears to be more a crawl.
Even if Cameron gets what he wants from the EU, he might not be able to sell the price to the voters.
However, obscured by Labour's drop in support from the 2010 Lib Dems, we see that the much derided Ed Miliband has marginally increased the number of 2010 Tory voters who now say they will vote for his party. Note that 5% of 2010 Con voters is more than 6% of 2010 Labour voters.
(And, no, Socrates if you're around that's not about the Gaza strip, before you launch on some anti Palestinian rant.)
The economy has been added to immigration as something not to be talked about by Labour canvassers. What a shame eh? If only they were armed with your charts, Labour majority nailed on....
It's true I'm a Conservative voter but haven't always been. Decades back I once voted Labour, and in the more recent past have voted Green and even LibDem. Not often, but occasionally. I'd never vote UKIP or their ilk as I detest everything they represent. I'm a blue with a bit of pink around the edges ya'see.
So, Cameron. I think he is in one respect one of the greatest Prime Ministers since WWII. What respect? This: I can think of only two other leaders who would have even come close to what he has done in holding together a coalition of two disparate parties without undue rancour, steering the country out of economic oblivion, for a full 5 year term. Politicians are egotistical people by definition. They are also cheerleaders and see little or any merit in those of a different colour, even though it should be patently obvious that 'truth' is not the sole preserve of any one ideology. This is also why the banner wavers really dislike him. He has had to compromise, to build bridges, to find common ground.
Holding together the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition is bloody impressive. That he he has remained statesmanlike is an added bonus.
In the last 50 years I can only think of two other main party leaders who could have done what he has in this regard: William Hague and John Smith and neither of them would have done it with such a generally calm measured manner.
For me it is because of this that he will go down as one of Britain's greatest ever Prime Ministers.
Not my charts unfortunately.
But this one is particularly interesting?
blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/y.y.png
(contributions to GDP growth year on year)
This is why STV is so good - the electorate get to choose not just between parties, but between the candidates put forward by the parties to represent them. In that way the electorate can weed out party placemen that they disapprove of, without necessarily being forced by the electoral system to vote against the party they prefer.
The Labour Party hierarchy would hate it.
Incidentally, Open Europe has wargamed a series of EU renegotion scenarios and found plenty of scope. It's on their website.
I don't agree with their innate pro-EU stance, but the thrust of it was that if the changes can be proposed as EU-wide reforms, they have a much better chance of going through. British specific concessions can then be traded for specific eurozone reform through treaty.
EDIT: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/benchu His output isn't really living up to the Independent being, well, independent, is it. Surprised there's anything left of his axe after than much grinding.
Just like Labour.
"Ben Chu has been a leader writer at The Independent since 2004. Before that he worked at the paper on the comment desk, letters department and the personal finance pages. He studied history at Jesus College, Oxford between 1997 and 2000."
Immigration 58% (22%)
The economy 38% (46%)
Health 34% (41%)
Pensions 31% (27%)
Europe 22% (9%)
The figures suggest that the Conservative Party strategy of eulogising their economic record, and warning of the danger to it posed by Labour, just isn't going to reach UKIP voters.
Or indeed the Tories economic plans.
The companies profits are increasing but investment is falling, and GDP is rising but mainly by houshold expenditure.
Combine that with a weak "Euro", and it is not going to do our balance of trade much good.
But hey ho, @Anorak has spoken,so you can remain complacent.
Foreign Affairs Select Cttee has published letter revealing it yday asked Sir John Chilcot to appear b4 it to explain delays
Look at the chart: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/biz.png
Are you really telling me that's a sign of imminent doom? A teeny tiny falling off from an all-time high? That's in real terms too, so no inflation to worry about.
The ludicrous anti-Labour jibe can be applied just as easily to the Tories. If, for example, you voted for Anne McIntosh and like her you may be surprised to find her Party has decided she's not suitable to be your MP next time. That seems bizarre and it's not even as democratic as the US Primary process (though that has substantial flaws).
So the question is whether the Conservative strategy can win back those Kippers who are potentially persuadable, more than Labour can do the same for their defectors. I'd have thought that should be possible, to an extent at least.
- Myself
- Sean Fear
- Richard Tyndall
- Casino Royale
- isam
- Luckyguy1983
- any other UKIP supporters on here
...which ones do you think the Conservatives are capable of winning back and what manifesto policies do you think it would take to win them back?
Sue Marsh has been a campaigner re: workplace assessments and against ATOS. She has now taken a job with ATOS's replacement rather to continue on benefits. This is her justification. Shall we say that "Judas" is probably the nicest thing she gets called...
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/new-job.html#comment-form
Used to see a lot of CAB stuff, but I.ve retired now.
It was almost beyond belief as Arsenals entire season had been founded on defensive strength (think we conceded a ridiculously small number of goals in the league although did lose 6-2 to Man Utd at home in the League Cup)
A rare bad day at the office for Seaman
Rock solid Tory majority of 16,000+, ditched by a disapproving public.
No, but it doesn't look much like a "proper" after recesion recovery either?
The BOE has just unanimously decided to hold interest rates at the current low levels.
If the recovery was really that strong, you would think there would be a move to increasing them slightly?
What will win back those who are not lost causes? The economy, the economy and the economy, with a topping of Miliband.
Will this be enough? Dunno.
I understand that cataract operations have been cut back, for example.
Maybe she should emigrate to Iran.
Parties there often don't put up a full slate of candidates, which reduces the benefits to the voters and gives the party more control over who is elected.
As to the other point, there's not much you can do with electoral systems to change the voters. If they will vote for the local candidate purely because they're local then there's not much you can do about that (excepting appointing a colonial administration to run affairs, but I think the Troika have left Dublin now..?)
Does this mean you want a thread on electoral reform/electoral voting systems?
"He takes whatever he can get his hands on"
Who is massaging the figures and where is your evidence?
Channel 4 documentary on Monday for one. Guardian today (I know, I know, but people here the Mail & the Telegraph) for another.
Used to see a lot of CAB stuff, but I.ve retired now.
A Channel 4 documentary?
How about the real world, SMEs with record order books, turnover increasing, wages increasing, very little demand for vacant jobs, high streets bustling, restaurants full, very low inflation, excellent GDP, record employment. No lets ignore all that and go for a Channel 4 documentary.
Have these clowns got nothing better to do?
Martin Bell won because the Labour and Lib Dems stood aside to give him every chance. That could happen anywhere and has happened in other places. A better example would be Wyre Forest in 2001.
Bell benefitted from a high and positive public profile and he received substantial financial and logistical help during his campaign which was extremely well run after a shaky start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
No wonder the Tories are where they are. If you want to win voters back, here's a novel idea: talk to those voters and find out what's repelling them from the party. Then try to reach out to them with policies that address the difficult issues, but don't excessively offend the left flank.
Hey, I'm not trying to say it all sunshine and light. It is not. I'm fairly sure we'll see another economic crisis over the next couple of years (hopeufully minor compared to 2008/9). But I found that article to be - frankly - silly, naive and ill-informed, and said so.