Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Operation Save Dave is unlikely to succeed
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Operation Save Dave is unlikely to succeed
Front page of the Sunday Times on Osborne's plans to try & keep Dave as leader if it is Con most votes/Lab most seats pic.twitter.com/x0hA3Y7dFB
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
He will (in my view, rightly) carry the can for strategic and policy errors that caused the bulk of the parties core vote and especially it older more traditional members (who are mostly likely to vote, and comprise the backbone of the ground operation foot soldiers) to either peel off to UKIP or sit on their hands, whilst failing to pick up almost any votes, and certainly not many activists in the centre. He will certainly carry the can for whole host of preventable presentational cock-ups like the "no ifs, no buts" immigration pledge, the cast iron fiasco, and the "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" gem which lowered the boom on any chance of getting the right-wingers back from UKIP.
Oh and First!
That said, arithmetically the range of situations where a coalition agreement between the Tories and a shrunken LibDem parliamentary party is both necessary and sufficient for stable government isn't very big.
PS. I'd be a bit surprised if Clegg ruled out a coalition ahead of the election. The report seems a bit more nuanced: "There is no way he will sign up to the plans that will allow the Tories to set the terms of a renegotiation, carry it out and then hold a referendum that could see Britain leave the EU". Since we all know the renegotiation plan Cameron is touting wouldn't really happen as described, it would come as a relief to Cameron if the LibDems were prepared to take the blame for switching to a different plan; If it looks winnable, they may even prefer just a simple in vs out referendum without all the fake-concessions bollocks. Give the LibDems a referendum on PR in return and we should be all good for a new set of Cameron-Clegg commemorative plates. Assuming of course the numbers add up, which they probably won't.
Just did my second VI in 3 days. Only done 2 in my life. What happens is you tick your voting intention 2 stager then get a survey on a stack of other stuff. Both times same thing's happened. YG say they last 10 to 15 minutes. You don't just get a GE poll.
Bingo. So YG have 300k registered for surveys but how many'll really be arsed to do them when it involves load of q's some of which are a pain in the butt? Bugger all's the answer. Bet you the actual pool of respondents for their polls is less than 3k - the same 3000 people answering the same VI opinion poll day after day [well 5 in 7]. Also a very very narrow demographic as a result.
YG'll deny this til they're bright blue in the cheeks but bet you a tiny tiny fraction of registerereds are the ones answering the poll: same old people, same old result, minimal variation.
The latest couple of polls have had the Tories at 34/35, with a good chance they will continue to increase generally. This is only a couple of points behind what they achieved in 2010.
So does did "the bulk of the parties core vote" peel off/sit on their hands, plus Cameron fail to gain "almost any votes" while maintaining a broadly similar share?
The Tories really are as arrogant as they appear...the idea that
they could get less seats than 2010, their coalition partners could
be slaughtered and that they would ask the Queen to let them
run a clear Minority Govt that would be losing votes in the house
every week? Risible
Micheal Gove really is as stupid as he looks
How many of those "new" centrist voters are going to knock on doors, deliver leaflets, or tell at polling stations ? I would argue how many are going to turn out at all compared to the traditional vote they lost.
is in no way "booming" when most people have been worse off month
after month throughout the last five years...and that constantly
talking about a "booming economy" rather than making more
modest and realistic claims of your record is one of the reasons
the Tories will surely slump to yet another defeat to add to their
sorry tally from 97, 01 and 05?
of the great and the good will have the MPs to outvote any half
baked coalition of Anti EU loonies racists and fruitcakes with pro
EU turncoats and political whores both falling over themselves
to prop up a party whose leading members despise them both
2 days 2 hours 2 minutes 2 seconds
No further details presently.
This seat is one of the "JackW Dozen" seats that is presently rated as TCTC - Too Close To Call - Fewer than 500 separating the leading parties.
Sky News following where my ARSE leads the way.
The tories just don't get it, as poor as Ed is kippers loathe Cameron and won't support him in any shape or form. He is the single biggest reason for the growth of ukip.
Ultimately it will depend on the seat numbers. If the Tories still hold circa 300 then a minority government is viable, if it is below 280 then it is not. Pretty much the same is true of Labour.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/ashcroft-national-poll-con-30-lab-31-lib-dem-9-ukip-16-green-8/#more-7572//
There is something wrong with the results, from gut instinct and experiernce, they don't feel right and I suspect many of the commentators on PB of all sides are suspicious as well.
Nigel doesn't care, he is playing the 18-20% strategy. As an insurgent he needs a clear cut, hard edged campaign to gee up his new supporters and get his vote out. A wishy-washy all-things-to-all-men insurgent party would disappear under the waves, it wouldn't be distinctive enough to garner any votes from the main parties as it would not be seen as worth the risk of voting for them.
But if we're talking rights and wrongs, it's worth mentioning that if you're going to consult the people, Cameron's proposal, to the extent that we can make sense of it, is a really, really bad way to do it. He's promising things that would need a treaty, but the treaty won't have been signed or even agreed by then, so he'll be asking the voters to vote on something that he won't be able to deliver then, and he may never be able to deliver at all. If it's democracy you're interested in, it probably makes sense well for at least one of the options you offer to the voters to be something they'd actually get if they voted for it.
Con 34 .. Lab 34 ..
Apparently in the Sunday Times.
I don´t think Nick Clegg hates democracy at all. Just Mr Cameron who, as you say, "doesn´t know what he is doing".
Thar seems reasonable enough to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/25/nearly-third-of-voters-prepared-to-support-ukip
However if as expected they get a fair few solid second places in 2015, I would expect a rather more emollient approach after that as they seek to firm those up and turn them into firsts. In view of the above survey, UKIPs vote suffers quite a lot because people think it will be a wasted vote in their constituency, if they get a healthy set of second places and start to look like contenders, their vote in 2020 could be considerably higher without actually "converting" anyone.
their vote out now Cameron has lost so many activists so those
odds still look right even on that level pegging poll
"UKIP and Nigel Farage are loathed much more by the average member of the general public than David Cameron is "loathed" by kippers:"
Imagine someone who has a pathological hatred of Muslims. He/she always assumes the worst, won't accept anything good about them, and actively looks for bad things to say about them. A bigot, you'll probably agree, an Islamophobe.
Now substitute Kippers for Muslims. A Kipperphobe?
There's a lot of it about.
There are a bunch of reasons why you might refuse to give the voters an option to vote the status quo - Russia did exactly this in Crimea - but a deep respect for direct democracy isn't one of them. If the LibDems support the status quo, I can't see why anyone would expect them to go along with this.
There is very little chance of kippers returning while he's in charge, Cameron is UKIP's biggest asset.
The value from the poll will be with the Conservatives.
The Labour activists in the town centre were so active on the day of the report in this important marginal that they cunningly disguised themselves as advocates of a brand of cheese .... perhaps a throw back to the Blair years ??
1) IN and a commitment to closer union
2) IN on current terms and no further
3) IN with a major clawback of specific powers on immigration etc
4) OUT but join EEA or EFTA
5) OUT and totally out of EU, EEA, European court etc
Actually the polling suggests that David Cameron isn't hated by kipper voters (as opposed to activists) anywhere near as much as the green ink brigade would have you believe. Kipper supporters hate the Conservative party appreciably more.
"The ickle kippers have found themselves as victims of unfair discrimination."
I wouldn't pretend to know anything about the law and I'm sure the Kippers can look after themselves.
But you and quite a few other are hereby charged with a teensy weensy bit of hypocrisy.
There's a lot of it about.
lost his Deputy PM as well as his Chief Secretary and other ministers
and yet still tried to claim victory
If it dont gell it aint aspic and Cameron claiming victory in.such
circumstances would certainly not gell
"In the cold light of day"he would be voted out within weeks..and
if another GE was held the Tories would pay a very heavy price
for having the brass neck to try and stay on
Similarly I would have thought that they were far more likely only to have a mobile phone or, like me, to be ex directory so I'm not pestered by spammers.
The pollsters have got a big problem on their hands.
Personally, the only way I think you could do an accurate constituency poll in any consitutency with a high number of voters planning to vote Green or UKIP is to knock on 2000 doors of houses spread evenly over the constituency. Anything else is going to struggle to remove confirmation bias.
Anyone know what the kipper % was?
As a part of the East Coast and fairly working class it would be interesting to know.
Inexplicably, after 3 days of livefeeds, the BBC has decided the final day of testing doesn't need one. At least Sky's got theirs.
The story is very odd. Any musing on such a scenario helps Labour as it makes it seem the Conservatives are planning for defeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqovTGjYjM4
A torrid, pitiful PM.
It would also have the advantage, of providing a springboard for a Northern breakthrough by UKIP in Labours heartlands in the election after next.
I don't subscribe to the Sunday Times, perhaps some other PBer might fill in the other numbers.
We have to be cautious about a single constituency poll where presently we don't have the sample size. That said if Labour were on course for even biggest party a few weeks before polling day they really should be several points clear in what has in past elections often been something of an East Anglian bell weather seat.
What this tells us is that if there is not much change in Tory seat numbers then they would prefer a minority government to coalition mark 2. I think the LDs are feeling the same. Which is a pity as I regard the current Con/LD government as the best one of the last 50 years, though Blairs first term was not too bad either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/02/european-union-unite-miliband-labour-referendum_n_5550964.html
I hold no brief for the kippers, but my suspicion is that the big surprise of the election is that the kippers are going to be a significantly higher percentage of the vote than anyone expects.
Anecdotally I know several people who will be voting kipper, but who wouldn't say so to any but their closest friends because of the reaction it gets from the right-on segment of the public. There has been too many PC idiocies like the Rotherham foster parent nonsense, and the dismissed school governor, for people to feel safe about publicly associating themselves with UKIP, which in a democracy is a complete disgrace irrespective of what you think of the party and its policies.
"No, Antifrank just takes it a bit more seriously than the average voter."
I'm sure Antifrank knows I'm only teasing, but some on here do have a very sensitive spot where Ukip are concerned.
I might be described as Toryphobic - I've never voted for them even though I don't dislike all their policies. I'm sure they don't really eat babies, but why take the risk?
I blame my upbringing.
But I do loathe hypocritical champagne socialists such as you.
Clegg Milliband and (tragically) Farage's positions are the only honest ones.
Could it be that the most important issue for voters is immigration, and its impossible to do anything about immigration while in the EU ?
Farage will tell the voters that if they want to reduce immigration significantly they have to vote OUT, Dave has no standing after the recent figures to counter this, and no one is going to take the party of mass immigration seriously on the topic either. They will tut-tut, suck their teeth, tell pollsters how much this "loathe" UKIP, and then quietly in the polling booth, tick the out box.
Phone banks, for the comment above, are now irrelevant. Personally, I have a Truecall blocker on my home phone number which only allows calls from recognised numbers through or can access the code. I even have a version on my mobile.
Perhaps the government should have done more, sooner to deal with the problem of nuisance calls before finding out that they had bitten their own backsides.
"I don't dislike all their policies. I'm sure they don't really eat babies, but why take the risk?"
A man after my own heart! They have 'history'
That's democracy.
Not ruling out a UKIP vote is completely different to "voting UKIP if they could". The figure is damning, especially for a party whose policies are virtually unknown by the public.
The only way that figure can move for UKIP is down, and the polls are already showing that as their vote share slides inexorably downwards. Every new policy that becomes widely known to the public will drive that figure down further.
As things stand 12% would be a phenomenal result for UKIP but as every policy reduces their vote, it becomes less and less likely they can maintain that. Their only hope would be to minimise the focus on policy and continually deflect questions about what they stand for in every area of policy.
Not only do they lack the talent (quite markedly) to achieve this but it would also demonstrate to the public that UKIP are identical to the established parties in their unwillingness to answer questions.
In those circumstances an attempt at minority government would be a reasonable approach. 9/2 seems to be quite good odds.
I want to have a vote: and I want it to be a clear vote. The renegotiation approach - even if it may not achieve anything - is needed. Otherwise the pro-EU side will behave like a whining boyfriend "Don't break up with me. I promise I can change".
We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough.
Slamming the brakes on a car speeding towards a cliff-edge is disruptive.
The EU and eurozone are inherently unstable. The choice we face is whether it collapses into disorder or is dismantled in an orderly fashion.
Apart from the fact that politicians can't keep their traps shut, this story has been leaked between Monday evening and Friday morning. Who, of the small group of attendees, wants to undermine the Tory campaign?
Incidentally, there's a rumour Renault are looking to buy an F1 team, but aren't interested in Force India or Sauber (and probably not Marussia). They may try for Red Bull.
The situation is as follows:
1) The government is appointed by the Queen. Technically, the government remains until it is either (a) dismissed by the Queen or (b) can no longer get crucial votes through Parliament, at which point it cannot govern effectively. Under such circumstances, the outgoing Prime Minister advises the Queen on who can form a government.
2) However, there are precedents for the following situations:
(a) A government loses an election, conceding an outright majority to the opposition. In such circumstances, the government, by convention, immediately resigns.
(b) A governing party finishes second to the governing party in terms of both votes and seats, but without conceding an outright majority. The convention is that under such circumstances, the government immediately resigns. This most recently happened in 1929. Note that this was not followed in 2010 because O'Donnell was ignorant of the several precedents in question (which makes @coolargana 's comments all the more ironic) and wrongly advised Brown that in practice despite his heavy defeat he was entitled to try and stay on.
(c) A governing party finishes first in terms of votes, but second in terms of seats. The convention here is that the governing party is permitted to try and form a government. This most recently happened in 1974. HOWEVER - crucial caveat - in almost all previous elections where this has happened, the result was very close in terms of seats. That may not happen this time - even if the Tories are five points ahead, they may still be well behind on seats.
(continued)
(d) A governing party finishes first in terms of votes and seats, but without an outright majority. The convention under such circumstances is that the government has the right to meet Parliament (last used in 1923-24).
(e) A governing party loses its majority/plurality without an election but can retain the confidence of the House of Commons on crucial votes. Under such circumstances, it is allowed to stay on until the next election (most recently in 1997, but also in 1912-14). In theory, if it loses the confidence of the House of Commons and the opposition has the ability to command a majority, power can then be transferred without an election. In practice, this has not happened since 1905, but with the FTPA that may become significant again.
My instinct on this story is that unless the Tories finish well ahead in terms of votes, they are deluding themselves if they believe they can remain in a minority government. They simply would not be able to pass any legislation and would almost certainly be voted down on the Queen's Speech, which would force them out. On the other hand, it's difficult to see a Labour minority government or even a Labour-led coalition lasting long if it comes 5-7% behind in the popular vote and ahead on seats. It would certainly become very unpopular very fast.
I would like to join UKIP but consider it too dangerous professionally (not because there is anything wrong with them but because of the reaction from ingnoramuses if they found out) so won't until I pack up work in the thick end of a decades time.
Similarly I would like to put a UKIP sticker on my car or house window because I have kids and don't want a brick through the window or the kids getting abuse from other kids.
I certainly would'nt tell a stranger on the phone or knocking at the door that I'm voting UKIP. They might be a pollster but who is to say that the employee doing the poll isn't an SWP member or a member of some other nutty left wing group.
In such a climate it is fairly obvious that the opinion polls are going to underestimate UKIP support. One of the things that makes me cold bloodedly determined to vote for them, even if I had to be wheeled to the polling station in a stretcher, is the fact that I cannot openly say I'm supporting UKIP without fearing the consequences.
I think the reason that they are seen as predominately voted for by pensioners, is that pensioners have nothing to lose by being publically associated with them so can be open.
"We need to know what they are prepared to offer. And then the people can chose whether it is enough."
And who judges what they have offered Murdoch's SUN? Dacre's MAIL? The treaty is so long Kenneth Clark famously said he couldn't possibly work his way through it. It'll be a sham from the great shamster himself. He'll declare victory when nothing's changed and it'll rumble on for years
As it looks likely not to happen again is democracy at work. The phobes should stop whining and hitching their position to appalling bandwagons like UKIP which poisons their appeal.
I doubt that all kippers are racist, any more than all Green Party voters are communists, but its a useful, if disreputable, political fiction when you are worried about them stealing your votes. As usual the reality will be it has nothing to do with principles, and everything to do with low calculation and gutter politics.
Blair went at the right time in 2007 but it was hardly his call.
10 years is enough to lead any major party.
8 years is enough to be leader of the UK, as it is in the US.
Parliament should change the law to 4 year elections.
However on closer inspection a minority government really is a very narrow band given the most likely scenarios. With SF abstention a majority is +/- 1 seat at 323.
A Con minority is the narrower band with only the DUP and possibly Ukip providing supply and confidence with their 10-15 seats. The viable Con band would appear to be 310-325.
For Labour a wider band is possible given the stated SNP position and their higher projected total. Labour on 280-325 accordingly. That said some SLAB MP's are extremely hostile to any SNP arrangement.
I doubt the LibDems will opt for supply and confidence - All the blame and none of the power. It's Coalition or bust for them.
Without Nick Robinson to cheerlead the issue, it isn't likely to regain focus as the most important issue in play.
"Roger are you saying the electorate,when presented with the renegotiated position, is too stupid to work it all out....and it should be left to the grown ups. How very Soviet"
If Cameron negotiated himself out of the EU I'd get citizenship from an EU country-probably France or maybe Scotland who would surely leave the union under those circumstances. I imagine as someone who lives in Italy you'd do the same?
How this balances out is yet to be seen. I suspect that the kippers will come second in a lot of seats but win very few.
I have not met any kipper voters at work, but despite my interest in politics I could only guess at what my colleagues in medicine and nursing are planning to vote. Indeed what is astonishing is how little profile this election has. Far more people speak to me about the reconfiguration plans of our hospitals or Leicester City's prospects in the next game than anything relating to national politics. I have seen no gound politics anywhere, not even a poster in Keith Vaz's office window!
If you don't like it, either persuade more people that the issue is vote-changingly important or accept that most other people think a range of other things are more important.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11442593/Humourless-people-tend-to-vote-Labour.html
Po-faced people vote Labour, sticklers for the rules support the Tories and SNP voters are seeking a laugh.
Those caricatures might seem harsh but analysis suggests there could be some truth to political stereotypes.
It shows that those who value tolerance of others least are attracted to Ukip while the least anxious to be polite will look to the Green Party. And after five bruising years in coalition, those who support the Liberal Democrats think life is not fair.
And of course Drogba's Wembley record speaks for itself, but I think it will be Spurs 3-1.
True 2010 LDs are going much heavier to LAB than CON and true UKIP is taking more CON than LAB. But these effects are already reflected in the popular vote percentages. Certainly my own model suggests that conventional wisdom about CON needing a much higher popular vote than LAB to win more seats is unlikely to prove correct this time round.
"When asked to choose three policies they would like to see in manifestos, from a longer list, only one in four voters overall – and only a third of Tories – singled out an EU referendum as a top priority."