Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Cameron's car crash interview with Humphreys revealed his phoney character in such an effective way. Cameron's trick of repeating his hackneyed mantra about job creation and Labour's failings just didn't work. What a joker!
I missed it, so it's good to hear it went so well.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
It does feel that way. What I thought was interesting was no real rebuttal re the Labour Uncut / Staggers articles - you would have expected a party spokesperson to at least brief off the record that the articles were pap.
Still think were heading either for a Tory-LD (DUP) coalition Mk2 or an outright tory majority. Sneaking feeling its gonna be the second of those. Seems none else agrees!
Snip
Not true. Tories can still win an outright majority if they lose 15 marginals to Labour. Think their gonna do much better than that though. Net Con-Lab marginals +- 5 seats.
For tory majority this elections also about Con-LD marginals
Scotlands totally irrelevant.
How? They sit on 303 currently - assuming that Con outs Reckless but another Kipper replaces him that's still 303. Then if they pick up ~25 (v.high) Lib Dem seats they are at 328 - the gains in Scotland (if there are any) then have to balance out an more than 3 losses in E&W for them to stay at that level.
Scotland represents the Tories only chance of gains due to the radical realignment that has taken place.
The way the Conservatives can gain a majority is if they start picking off Lab-Con marginals. The way they would do this is not by straight Lab-Con switchers but by Lab 2010 voters either deciding not to turn up this time because they are not inspired by Ed or switching to other parties. Since the Conservative vote seems the most solid / motivated, they can pick up seats just by standing still if Labour cannot get the numbers out it did last time. I think there are a few constituencies this could happen, even if Lab can get the benefit of some Red LDs
I do think that the Labour vote not getting out or not being motivated to vote because of Eddy boy is a real possibility. However one of the ways I think it may manifest itself is in the north where the Labour vote can't be bothered but 'Kippers are ready to vote for change. However in the top 10 Lab targets their GOTV will win the seats for them but when we get to Con targets 10-30 we may see differential turnout hurting Lab.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
I'd imagine that the aggregated canvasing data goes in front of a very small number of eyeballs; it's basic OpSec process.
Are you claiming to have seen it and being sharing it on here? Big claim to make without serious bona fides. Nothing in your previous posting suggests you'd be in a position to see this information. Those that have don't talk
I've not seen it, I've just been listening to Labour-ites who I have to work with. I hate every second I spend with the miserable toads. However, they do blurt, and they do have emotions. I do accept that they maybe lying or might have mis-read the situation. However, they have certainly told me about postal votes and I got it from 2 sources, not 1. But, 2 sources might lie, although less likely.
I do agree with you that this is all shadow boxing and a third of electorate have yet to make up their mind.
Labour are all over this seat in full force; spoken to the campaign, who've said the feedback and support is "very strong". Julian Brazier has a majority of 6,000 - came close to losing the seat during the landslide of '97. But, I've never seen the Labour party so active in Canterbury - more so the Tories.
Tories are toxic here, especially due to the actions of the council.
Of course, I'm suggesting Labour will take the seat but it will be interesting to see what happens.
@patrickwintour: Lynton Crosby apparently projecting 300 seats for Tories - more than touching distance with LDs and DUP.
Didn't he also massively over predict in 2005 and 2010 too?
Listening to DC on Today this morning was a typically frustrating experience. Same old lines. Heart definitely in it, but not smart enough to get the message across.
I'll miss him after 10 years in the job, but he has been a massive massive letdown.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Where do you get the information from about Labour not making headway in the marginals?
I've merged what Labour are telling me and what Tories are telling me. Of course, mixing apples with oranges is dangerous, famous last words.
There's no point me even voting tactically tomorrow. My vote counts for virtually nothing.
It wouldn't matter in my constituency (Caerphilly) if everyone in my village didn't bother voting. Labour would still win.
We haven't seen one candidate from any party. I have received just two leaflets - one Plaid and one Tory and there are hardly any signs up from the main parties. There are a few Labour signs dotted around Bargoed (harder core, mining town up there...) but other than it is just UKIP. Newly eager Kippers appear more willing to display their allegiance than the other part supporters.
I think the Kippers will increase their vote share in Wales, without actually winning anything. They'll take the protest votes which the Libs took last time.
But nobody will be waiting up anxiously for the Caerphilly count, sadly.
Didn’t the Plaid take Caerphilly BC some time ago, for a while?
Yeah, but they are miles off in the GE. Plaid seem to have a ceiling in Wales and struggle to get above it. South East Wales is not very Plaid at all, picking up votes mainly among the people who went to Welsh school (you won't get a cruder political analysis than that).
It'll be Labour all the way, although there are signs in these historic Labour communities (just as in Scotland) that people are realising that Labour take these seats for granted. There has been some vitriol towards Wayne David on social media over ignorance and reneged promises. But I guess all sitting MPs get that, whatever the party.
I have decided to vote tactically tomorrow as the party I would support has no chance, but I do wish to try to keep a disastrous party from winning.
Interesting to hear the comments early this morning on both ITV and BBC about the large number of undecided/DNK who could decide this GE - that is if they do turn out and vote, or in the end just cant be bothered.
Not sure if the SNP have peaked too early and may not steamroller all. Could be tactical voting in the non-Lab seats in Scotland. Also expect the LDs to do better than many predict.
The GE outcome could be sterile and requiring another GE soon. If that happens would it be under a form of PR and would the SNP retain their vote?
Will not be surprised if HSBC to move their HQ to Hong Kong and they could be followed in moving out of London by Standard Chartered and similar others whose major business is outside the UK. This would lose revenue to HMG and influence to the City of London. Our banks need sensible regulation and not penal taxation - but those espousing the politics of envy never learn.
Unfortunately the banks and the rich have not trickled down the benefit of recovery. Lending is still moribund and the recovery cash is still in their pockets. It's not politics of envy, it's the politics of anger. It's time to smash the corporations, basically, and they did it to themselves
So with a debt-laden country and many banks having to be propped up by HMG - what do you propose?
Ideally? National finances based on tax receipts - next years spending is equal to last years income with tax rates set to raise required revenue for the next year proportionately higher from wealth and corporations, the high earners, then middle earners and finally the lowest increase to low earners. The debt as it stands wiped out by a one off wealth and corporation raid alongside a one off tax on excessive wealth and energy and industry focused on technology that will set the individual free - battery technology combined with personal solar or wind could decimate the energy stronghold for example. Alongside that, freedom of movement and job creation via drastic improvement to the transport infrastructure, focused on rail, again harnessing a cheaper system than diesel. Destroy the supermarket mentality and monopoly and make essentials shopping local, fairer to producers etc. Realistically? We will screw it up and it will be dog eat dog.
Edit - as for banks. Let them fail. A culture of fear needs to control these curs
This story about postal votes is odd because they're supposed to remain secret until the count begins. I don't know how people are able to say which way they're "trending":
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
The idea that the parties had identical issues and thus required identical solutions is bizarre. Simplistic and that isn't a compliment.
50% tax rate undermining all in it together, fiddling whilst London burned as the riots spread, obsessing about gay marriage whilst people struggled to make ends meet, a continuation of Blair's dangerous interventionist foreign policy, the donors, and a failure to get a grip on immigration and thus boost real wages were all serious failings. Not getting the constituencies rebalanced was basic political manoeuvring gone wrong.
Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
No he wouldn't.
What makes you think that economically Conservative but socially liberal or as you put it Metrosexual voters would have still voted Conservative if Cameron had been small c conservative?
Let's not forget that Cameron followed a losing series of small c conservative leaders in Hague, IDS and Howard and was elected on a modernisation agenda specifically campaigning in 2005 to NOT be what you propose.
If you're right and Metropolitan Conservative voters won't vote for a socially conservative party, and socially conservative voters won't vote for a Cameron-type Conservative Party, then it's clear that the Conservative Party won't win an overall majority again. That's why both factions need to support electoral reform.
I disagree entirely. It's the economy, stupid.
Cameron was on course for a majority and I think would have achieved it until he had to start talking about austerity which was never going to be popular. Too many debt deniers in this country which explains the popularity of both Wonga and Labour. The sharing the proceeds of growth line was a good one that could win a majority in the right circumstances.
The Conservatives have had five years to make a positive case for smaller government, and change public opinion. They haven't even attempted it.
I hate to have to agree with you there. Cameron seems to have kept the Blairite status quo and not rolled back big government, my only hope is that the next leader has a strong Thatcherite belief.
SNP have fought by far the best campaign and will reap the rewards accordingly. They might hit the big FIVE O.
The Tory rhetoric in this election is probably the finish of the union if they win. If they lose the Cameron goes and the union is finished with bonkers Boris.
If he gets half a chance Milliband will deal with the SNP or if that gets to embarrassing someone else will. Milliband has received credit in this campaign for basically just tripping but not falling over on loiuve television. Strategically his campaign has been totally inept. His blurting nonsense in the TV debate has taken him from heavy odds on to be Prime Minister to no better than evens.
The Fib Dems are unlikely to be a factor if they lose a substantial number of seats because the rest will just want to survive. Clegg will likely hold on but then be removed while Danny Alexander is toast and will supply the moment of the evening which most reasonable people will celebrate. He will then join the Tories where he belongs and next time stand for a south of England seat.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Where do you get the information from about Labour not making headway in the marginals?
I've merged what Labour are telling me and what Tories are telling me. Of course, mixing apples with oranges is dangerous, famous last words.
Whilst I think Dave has actually been a really good PM, I think as a politician he has basically failed. Imagine where we'd be if the UKIP phenomenon had simply never happened. If Dave had been more Maggielike and championed the conservative (small c) core vote. The Tories would be 15 points ahead in the polls and heading for a huge majority. Metrosexual Dave split the right. That he's nonetheless ahead in the polls is frankly amazing. Not sure it'll save him though.
No he wouldn't.
What makes you think that economically Conservative but socially liberal or as you put it Metrosexual voters would have still voted Conservative if Cameron had been small c conservative?
Let's not forget that Cameron followed a losing series of small c conservative leaders in Hague, IDS and Howard and was elected on a modernisation agenda specifically campaigning in 2005 to NOT be what you propose.
If you're right and Metropolitan Conservative voters won't vote for a socially conservative party, and socially conservative voters won't vote for a Cameron-type Conservative Party, then it's clear that the Conservative Party won't win an overall majority again. That's why both factions need to support electoral reform.
I disagree entirely. It's the economy, stupid.
Cameron was on course for a majority and I think would have achieved it until he had to start talking about austerity which was never going to be popular. Too many debt deniers in this country which explains the popularity of both Wonga and Labour. The sharing the proceeds of growth line was a good one that could win a majority in the right circumstances.
The Conservatives have had five years to make a positive case for smaller government, and change public opinion. They haven't even attempted it.
Yes they have. You're saying something that is categorically false.
"It is difficult today to construct a convincing scenario for a Labour victory at the next election under the present electoral system. At the next election a redistribution of boundaries will be worth between 10 and 15 seats to the Conservatives. Labour will need a swing greater than it achieved in 1992."
Labour are all over this seat in full force; spoken to the campaign, who've said the feedback and support is "very strong". Julian Brazier has a majority of 6,000 - came close to losing the seat during the landslide of '97. But, I've never seen the Labour party so active in Canterbury - more so the Tories.
Tories are toxic here, especially due to the actions of the council.
Of course, I'm suggesting Labour will take the seat but it will be interesting to see what happens.
2010 result:
Con 44.8% LD 32.5% Lab 16.1% UKIP 3.9% Green 2.3% Oth 0.4%
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Not really bothered to stress it before, but FWIW the Uncut article was simply wrong, at last as far as the East Midlands go (I was concerned enough to look into it at regional level). It's not that we have samples showing us doing wonderfully; the position is that the electoral authorities have tightened up to the point that it's not possible to get meaningful samples at all. We simply have no useful data from the PVs either way. (It would be illegal to tell you if we did, but it's not illegal to tell you that we don't!)
It's also incorrect that the Labour data shows no significant swing since 2010. The data is very much in line with the average of all the polls, neither better nor worse. i think the Tory hope at this point comes down to people in the ballot box having a last-second change of heart.
This story about postal votes is odd because they're supposed to remain secret until the count begins. I don't know how people are able to say which way they're "trending":
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Where do you get the information from about Labour not making headway in the marginals?
I've merged what Labour are telling me and what Tories are telling me. Of course, mixing apples with oranges is dangerous, famous last words.
What is so special about you that Labour and/or Tory insiders would tell you anything about how their campaigns are going ? I smell bullsh1t .
- Cons to edge seats. Lab end up leading a minority coalition in power with the LD as formal coalition partners, with the other lefties (SNP, PC, Green, SDLP) supporting on a nod-and-a-wink basis.
Labour are all over this seat in full force; spoken to the campaign, who've said the feedback and support is "very strong". Julian Brazier has a majority of 6,000 - came close to losing the seat during the landslide of '97. But, I've never seen the Labour party so active in Canterbury - more so the Tories.
Tories are toxic here, especially due to the actions of the council.
Of course, I'm suggesting Labour will take the seat but it will be interesting to see what happens.
Only way Tories can lose to Labour in Canterbury as with Sittingbourne and Sheppey where I am is if UKIP poll really strongly and Labour somehow sneak through. I expect all Tories in Kent to hang on with reduced majorities - the further east you go, the more it will be due to UKIP influence.
Poster watch - Don't think Henderson has done himself any favours round here with the white billboard colouring. You can barely make out the lettering. That said, the Tories have most of the out of town landowning spots tied up, but there are just as many UKIP posters I'd say, with Labour signs clutching tight to the two main town centres in Sittingbourne and Sheerness (but probably not as numerous).
If you're right and Metropolitan Conservative voters won't vote for a socially conservative party, and socially conservative voters won't vote for a Cameron-type Conservative Party, then it's clear that the Conservative Party won't win an overall majority again. That's why both factions need to support electoral reform.
I disagree entirely. It's the economy, stupid.
Cameron was on course for a majority and I think would have achieved it until he had to start talking about austerity which was never going to be popular. Too many debt deniers in this country which explains the popularity of both Wonga and Labour. The sharing the proceeds of growth line was a good one that could win a majority in the right circumstances.
Regarding certain small c conservative issues some once dealt with will never be relevant again. Immigration is a permanent issue that's a nightmare to tackle effectively and has complicated knock on effects that immigration opponents tend to ignore. But some issues like gay rights once resolved aren't coming back into the political debates. That matter is over and nobody is even going to try to reverse it so it won't be swinging any future votes.
There'll always be flashpoint issues. Immigration is ongoing, as you say. There's the EU, defence, overseas aid, freedom of speech, the enforcement of equality and diversity, the environment etc. which are likely to be contentious.
There are many on-going issues as you say but I think they vary over time and I'm not sure its as easy as saying small-c Conservative or Metrosexual. You and I may disagree on some issues that have been contentious in recent years, but agree on some issues like freedom of speech in your list.
I don't think its a good idea to look at what's happened in the last five years and ever draw a line as to saying this is what we're going to be divided over in 5, 10 or 15 years time.
Oddly enough I think if the Tories lose (narrowly) this time then I'd fully expect a 2020 election to result in a Tory majority. If its eg Tory+LD+DUP this time then no I wouldn't Mainly just because governments don't score gains in the same way as oppositions are supposed to do (but EIC).
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
SNP have fought by far the best campaign and will reap the rewards accordingly. They might hit the big FIVE O.
The Tory rhetoric in this election is probably the finish of the union if they win. If they lose the Cameron goes and the union is finished with bonkers Boris.
If he gets half a chance Milliband will deal with the SNP or if that gets to embarrassing someone else will. Milliband has received credit in this campaign for basically just tripping but not falling over on loiuve television. Strategically his campaign has been totally inept. His blurting nonsense in the TV debate has taken him from heavy odds on to be Prime Minister to no better than evens.
The Fib Dems are unlikely to be a factor if they lose a substantial number of seats because the rest will just want to survive. Clegg will likely hold on but then be removed while Danny Alexander is toast and will supply the moment of the evening which most reasonable people will celebrate. He will then join the Tories where he belongs and next time stand for a south of England seat.
Complete piffle about Danny Alexander, he is not a Conservative but he comes across as a very decent guy, when your Scottish heads are above the parapet working with Eddie you will become unpopular very quickly just like the Liberals.
I'm encouraged by this little ray of justice shining in Afghanistan. I note with resignation that the Mullah who initiated the murder has got off scott-free, though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32604037
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Votes at 16 is a stupid idea - we have no real life experience of paying taxes or even uses public services.
It's a stupid idea with large potential for the corruption of results. If you can't be bothered to walk to the polling station then you shouldn't be able to vote.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
But if it wasn't for the rejection of sound policies and defence of the national interest, we wouldn't have or need UKIP.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
Unfortunately it is though if the tirade of heavily liked left wing anti Tory posts clogging up my Facebook feed is anything to go by. Not one of them from an under 16.
This story about postal votes is odd because they're supposed to remain secret until the count begins. I don't know how people are able to say which way they're "trending":
The whole premise is a bit mad; Nobody thinks Labour is heading for a comfortable majority, and obviously they'd like more votes rather than less, so the fact that they did the Brand thing which got them an endorsement and got their message out to a bunch of potential voters who are otherwise hard to reach doesn't tell you anything about whether they currently think they're heading for a 0% swing, a 2.5% swing or a 5% swing.
"It is difficult today to construct a convincing scenario for a Labour victory at the next election under the present electoral system. At the next election a redistribution of boundaries will be worth between 10 and 15 seats to the Conservatives. Labour will need a swing greater than it achieved in 1992."
Just how wrong they were...
The silly thing about 1992 was the way so many commentators said the fact the Tories had won 4 times in a row showed Labour wouldn't be able to win ever again, when in fact the opposite was more likely to be true since the UK isn't a one-party state and people would want a change eventually.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
That's not remotely certain. My grandfather is a lifelong Labour voter disgusted by Blair who's voting UKIP. Its hubristic to assign one view to all.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Not really bothered to stress it before, but FWIW the Uncut article was simply wrong, at last as far as the East Midlands go (I was concerned enough to look into it at regional level). It's not that we have samples showing us doing wonderfully; the position is that the electoral authorities have tightened up to the point that it's not possible to get meaningful samples at all. We simply have no useful data from the PVs either way. (It would be illegal to tell you if we did, but it's not illegal to tell you that we don't!)
It's also incorrect that the Labour data shows no significant swing since 2010. The data is very much in line with the average of all the polls, neither better nor worse. i think the Tory hope at this point comes down to people in the ballot box having a last-second change of heart.
This story about postal votes is odd because they're supposed to remain secret until the count begins. I don't know how people are able to say which way they're "trending":
This has been around for a few days and needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
However the various parties do have a pretty good idea as to how the postal votes in each constituency are panning out. Nothing untoward as long as no one starts broadcasting their knowledge.
Basically as the postal votes arrive they need to be verified to check that the signature of the person to whom the ballot paper has been issued matches the one on the returned form. The outer envelope is open and the signature checked and then the second envelope is opened and the ballot paper is placed face down on the pile.
Each candidate is allowed to have an observer at each of these sessions (there will be a number over the two weeks prior to election day). Even though the front of the ballot cant be seen it is perfectly possible to make an accurate guess as to the vote on many of the ballots (felt tip or pen shows through). Even though tally sheets or similar are not allowed at verification counts it is perfectly possible to make useful sample counts. You simply count the number of papers where you can identify a mark and out of those which you can identify as yours.
This way you can get a reasonably accurate indication of your vote lets say out of the 100 papers you could identify with a vote 35 had your party on, this would indicate about 35% support for your party.
These details should not be divulged to anyone outside of the verification room although in practice the info is sent to party HQ.
However quite what this info means is another matter. As was pointed out here when this first came up a few days ago, in the last London assembly elections the tories "won" the postal votes in most constituencies (in these elections a breakdown of ward and postal votes is published afterwards) however in most cases the tories lost the overall vote, so the amount of real info gleaned from this sort of thing is pretty minimal.
I have decided to vote tactically tomorrow as the party I would support has no chance, but I do wish to try to keep a disastrous party from winning.
snip
Will not be surprised if HSBC to move their HQ to Hong Kong and they could be followed in moving out of London by Standard Chartered and similar others whose major business is outside the UK. This would lose revenue to HMG and influence to the City of London. Our banks need sensible regulation and not penal taxation - but those espousing the politics of envy never learn.
Unfortunately the banks and the rich have not trickled down the benefit of recovery. Lending is still moribund and the recovery cash is still in their pockets. It's not politics of envy, it's the politics of anger. It's time to smash the corporations, basically, and they did it to themselves
So with a debt-laden country and many banks having to be propped up by HMG - what do you propose?
Ideally? National finances based on tax receipts - next years spending is equal to last years income with tax rates set to raise required revenue for the next year proportionately higher from wealth and corporations, the high earners, then middle earners and finally the lowest increase to low earners. The debt as it stands wiped out by a one off wealth and corporation raid alongside a one off tax on excessive wealth and energy and industry focused on technology that will set the individual free - battery technology combined with personal solar or wind could decimate the energy stronghold for example. Alongside that, freedom of movement and job creation via drastic improvement to the transport infrastructure, focused on rail, again harnessing a cheaper system than diesel. Destroy the supermarket mentality and monopoly and make essentials shopping local, fairer to producers etc. Realistically? We will screw it up and it will be dog eat dog.
Edit - as for banks. Let them fail. A culture of fear needs to control these curs
Interesting idealism - but not that realistic in a global context for a capitalist society but quite practical for a totalitarian (fascist or communist) society and am not sure if you really want one of those.
There is no good reason for any of the wealth and corporations to base themselves in the UK or even western Europe - so presuming that lot go - what will the rest of the UK live on - self sufficiency? and who will you then be taxing - or are you suggesting getting rid of the big state?
SNP have fought by far the best campaign and will reap the rewards accordingly. They might hit the big FIVE O.
The Tory rhetoric in this election is probably the finish of the union if they win. If they lose the Cameron goes and the union is finished with bonkers Boris.
If he gets half a chance Milliband will deal with the SNP or if that gets to embarrassing someone else will. Milliband has received credit in this campaign for basically just tripping but not falling over on loiuve television. Strategically his campaign has been totally inept. His blurting nonsense in the TV debate has taken him from heavy odds on to be Prime Minister to no better than evens.
The Fib Dems are unlikely to be a factor if they lose a substantial number of seats because the rest will just want to survive. Clegg will likely hold on but then be removed while Danny Alexander is toast and will supply the moment of the evening which most reasonable people will celebrate. He will then join the Tories where he belongs and next time stand for a south of England seat.
Complete piffle about Danny Alexander, he is not a Conservative but he comes across as a very decent guy, when your Scottish heads are above the parapet working with Eddie you will become unpopular very quickly just like the Liberals.
There's no point me even voting tactically tomorrow. My vote counts for virtually nothing.
It wouldn't matter in my constituency (Caerphilly) if everyone in my village didn't bother voting. Labour would still win.
We haven't seen one candidate from any party. I have received just two leaflets - one Plaid and one Tory and there are hardly any signs up from the main parties. There are a few Labour signs dotted around Bargoed (harder core, mining town up there...) but other than it is just UKIP. Newly eager Kippers appear more willing to display their allegiance than the other part supporters.
I think the Kippers will increase their vote share in Wales, without actually winning anything. They'll take the protest votes which the Libs took last time.
But nobody will be waiting up anxiously for the Caerphilly count, sadly.
There's a certain liberation about living in a safe seat. You can use your vote more creatively.
I'm still humming and hawing between voting for the Lib Dems as an expression of enthusiasm for the idea of coalitions (and reflecting the fact that I think the Lib Dems have made a surprisingly good job of a thankless role) and voting for the Greens as I have been wont to do recently to encourage the larger parties to consider the single most important topic facing humanity at present.
The antifrank vote is on a knife-edge. Islington South & Finsbury is not.
When you get to the polling booth I suspect that you won't be able to resist voting for Charlie Kiss [of the Greens]. You have to admit that's a more appealing name than the Liberal Democrat candidate Terry Stacy!
- Cons to edge seats. Lab end up leading a minority coalition in power with the LD as formal coalition partners, with the other lefties (SNP, PC, Green, SDLP) supporting on a nod-and-a-wink basis.
Dumb or plausible?
Plausible. If Lab/LD out-seat Tories and Tory/LD can't get to 326 then I think that is the way forward. SNP will not side with Conservatives in opposition.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
That's not remotely certain. My grandfather is a lifelong Labour voter disgusted by Blair who's voting UKIP. Its hubristic to assign one view to all.
Small sample but of the 6 people I know voting Ukip in Hornchurch and Upminster, 5 are ex labour and only 1 was a Tory
This story about postal votes is odd because they're supposed to remain secret until the count begins. I don't know how people are able to say which way they're "trending":
This has been around for a few days and needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
However the various parties do have a pretty good idea as to how the postal votes in each constituency are panning out. Nothing untoward as long as no one starts broadcasting their knowledge.
Basically as the postal votes arrive they need to be verified to check that the signature of the person to whom the ballot paper has been issued matches the one on the returned form. The outer envelope is open and the signature checked and then the second envelope is opened and the ballot paper is placed face down on the pile.
Each candidate is allowed to have an observer at each of these sessions (there will be a number over the two weeks prior to election day). Even though the front of the ballot cant be seen it is perfectly possible to make an accurate guess as to the vote on many of the ballots (felt tip or pen shows through). Even though tally sheets or similar are not allowed at verification counts it is perfectly possible to make useful sample counts. You simply count the number of papers where you can identify a mark and out of those which you can identify as yours.
This way you can get a reasonably accurate indication of your vote lets say out of the 100 papers you could identify with a vote 35 had your party on, this would indicate about 35% support for your party.
These details should not be divulged to anyone outside of the verification room although in practice the info is sent to party HQ.
However quite what this info means is another matter. As was pointed out here when this first came up a few days ago, in the last London assembly elections the tories "won" the postal votes in most constituencies (in these elections a breakdown of ward and postal votes is published afterwards) however in most cases the tories lost the overall vote, so the amount of real info gleaned from this sort of thing is pretty minimal.
There's no point me even voting tactically tomorrow. My vote counts for virtually nothing.
It wouldn't matter in my constituency (Caerphilly) if everyone in my village didn't bother voting. Labour would still win.
We haven't seen one candidate from any party. I have received just two leaflets - one Plaid and one Tory and there are hardly any signs up from the main parties. There are a few Labour signs dotted around Bargoed (harder core, mining town up there...) but other than it is just UKIP. Newly eager Kippers appear more willing to display their allegiance than the other part supporters.
I think the Kippers will increase their vote share in Wales, without actually winning anything. They'll take the protest votes which the Libs took last time.
But nobody will be waiting up anxiously for the Caerphilly count, sadly.
Didn’t the Plaid take Caerphilly BC some time ago, for a while?
Yeah, but they are miles off in the GE. Plaid seem to have a ceiling in Wales and struggle to get above it. South East Wales is not very Plaid at all, picking up votes mainly among the people who went to Welsh school (you won't get a cruder political analysis than that).
It'll be Labour all the way, although there are signs in these historic Labour communities (just as in Scotland) that people are realising that Labour take these seats for granted. There has been some vitriol towards Wayne David on social media over ignorance and reneged promises. But I guess all sitting MPs get that, whatever the party.
Amomng my Family Histtory artefacts I’ve a certficate showing that my father studied (inter alia) Welsh at Caerphilly Secondary School 1923-8!
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
Unfortunately it is though if the tirade of heavily liked left wing anti Tory posts clogging up my Facebook feed is anything to go by. Not one of them from an under 16.
"i think the Tory hope at this point comes down to people in the ballot box having a last-second change of heart".
Precisely and I can see no reason why this will happen to any great degree and to the extent it does Lib Dems (vote marginally edging up in recent polls), Ukip and Greens are just as likely to be the beneficiaries. All bar a single handful of the 100 polls or so we've had in the six week campaign have pointed to a Lab minority government. Mike Smithson has been something of a lone voice out there in warning about this but I expect him to be vindicated.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Where do you get the information from about Labour not making headway in the marginals?
Someone said postals are always tory but thats not what this is suggesting.
I reckon its gonna be a bloodbath … for the pollsters. Bet they try and weasel it into last minute swings and all that but it won't be. Its cos the sampling on both phone and online is up the creak. Just my view & could me thats totally wrong but no sense at all the country is gonna vote out Cameron.
Labour-ites in my area are spilling beans on postal votes. They've said that the expectation they had has not been met. They said that Tory's exceeding expectations. And they said it was a national picture. Of course, this could all be b*llocks but I believe they are struggling. The number of voters per constituency will be down because of IVR, and I am sure that is gonna hurt Labour.
Additionally, the blues have told me where the marginals are today based on their stats and they are not where I expected. IE, Labour are not piling up he votes they thought they would in close seats...apparently. Of course, the real vote is the only one that counts but Labour's depression is a real one, not mock.
if what you say is true we could be looking at 1992 again
"It is difficult today to construct a convincing scenario for a Labour victory at the next election under the present electoral system. At the next election a redistribution of boundaries will be worth between 10 and 15 seats to the Conservatives. Labour will need a swing greater than it achieved in 1992."
Just how wrong they were...
The silly thing about 1992 was the way so many commentators said the fact the Tories had won 4 times in a row showed Labour wouldn't be able to win ever again, when in fact the opposite was more likely to be true since the UK isn't a one-party state and people would want a change eventually.
Labour changed to New Labour, accepted Tory policies and presented themselves as almost Tories.
There's no point me even voting tactically tomorrow. My vote counts for virtually nothing.
It wouldn't matter in my constituency (Caerphilly) if everyone in my village didn't bother voting. Labour would still win.
We haven't seen one candidate from any party. I have received just two leaflets - one Plaid and one Tory and there are hardly any signs up from the main parties. There are a few Labour signs dotted around Bargoed (harder core, mining town up there...) but other than it is just UKIP. Newly eager Kippers appear more willing to display their allegiance than the other part supporters.
I think the Kippers will increase their vote share in Wales, without actually winning anything. They'll take the protest votes which the Libs took last time.
But nobody will be waiting up anxiously for the Caerphilly count, sadly.
There's a certain liberation about living in a safe seat. You can use your vote more creatively.
I'm still humming and hawing between voting for the Lib Dems as an expression of enthusiasm for the idea of coalitions (and reflecting the fact that I think the Lib Dems have made a surprisingly good job of a thankless role) and voting for the Greens as I have been wont to do recently to encourage the larger parties to consider the single most important topic facing humanity at present.
The antifrank vote is on a knife-edge. Islington South & Finsbury is not.
The single most important topic being how we must absolutely rule out using nuclear power to deal with climate change?
"It is difficult today to construct a convincing scenario for a Labour victory at the next election under the present electoral system. At the next election a redistribution of boundaries will be worth between 10 and 15 seats to the Conservatives. Labour will need a swing greater than it achieved in 1992."
Just how wrong they were...
The silly thing about 1992 was the way so many commentators said the fact the Tories had won 4 times in a row showed Labour wouldn't be able to win ever again, when in fact the opposite was more likely to be true since the UK isn't a one-party state and people would want a change eventually.
Yes exactly. The 92 result left Labour with almost the perfect number of seats you'd want if you were in opposition (If such an amount exists).
On that topic Kinnock got 271 seats of 34 percent of the vote. I think Miliband is going to almost exactly mirror that.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Votes at 16 is a stupid idea - we have no real life experience of paying taxes or even uses public services.
It's a stupid idea with large potential for the corruption of results. If you can't be bothered to walk to the polling station then you shouldn't be able to vote.
Agree about online voting and walking to polling booth.
Disagree vehemently about voting at 16. Lowet the voting age, and we might actually start engaging with and respecting young people properly, earlier rather than dumping them into the educational rat maze for their teenage years and then wonder why stunted 'kidults' emerge at 18 unable to communicate or relate with their elders...
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
The online voting idea throws up the possibility of a 'subscription scheme' where one could place one's vote not just in this election but in all subsequent elections.
This 'vote for life' would make things easier for the hard-working voter who may not have time to visit the polling booth or visit a postbox, and be environmentally good too.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
That's not remotely certain. My grandfather is a lifelong Labour voter disgusted by Blair who's voting UKIP. Its hubristic to assign one view to all.
Small sample but of the 6 people I know voting Ukip in Hornchurch and Upminster, 5 are ex labour and only 1 was a Tory
I'm going to split my sides if UKIP take 20 northern Labour seats. Not sure it would help the Tories, ironically, as the LDs won't enter a coalition with the kippers. Mayhem would ensue, and Nicola would sit smirking whilst enjoying a double Glenfarclas with a lorne sausage sandwich on the side.
Labour are all over this seat in full force; spoken to the campaign, who've said the feedback and support is "very strong". Julian Brazier has a majority of 6,000 - came close to losing the seat during the landslide of '97. But, I've never seen the Labour party so active in Canterbury - more so the Tories.
Tories are toxic here, especially due to the actions of the council.
Of course, I'm suggesting Labour will take the seat but it will be interesting to see what happens.
2010 result:
Con 44.8% LD 32.5% Lab 16.1% UKIP 3.9% Green 2.3% Oth 0.4%
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
That's not remotely certain. My grandfather is a lifelong Labour voter disgusted by Blair who's voting UKIP. Its hubristic to assign one view to all.
Small sample but of the 6 people I know voting Ukip in Hornchurch and Upminster, 5 are ex labour and only 1 was a Tory
Indeed. It's impossible to know for certain, but I suspect that (with the LD's going into government) UKIP has provided an outlet for anti-government protest votes other than Labour. Its quite possible Labour would have done better were it not for UKIP.
Its also worth thinking that the polling analysis that says that x% voted Tory in 2010 etc doesn't answer what % voted for which party in 2005 or before. Some may have voted for Conservatives as a then-opposition party and could now be voting UKIP as an opposition party but might vote Labour had UKIP not existed. It's absolutely impossible to know.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Where do you get the information from about Labour not making headway in the marginals?
Someone said postals are always tory but thats not what this is suggesting.
I reckon its gonna be a bloodbath … for the pollsters. Bet they try and weasel it into last minute swings and all that but it won't be. Its cos the sampling on both phone and online is up the creak. Just my view & could me thats totally wrong but no sense at all the country is gonna vote out Cameron.
Labour-ites in my area are spilling beans on postal votes. They've said that the expectation they had has not been met. They said that Tory's exceeding expectations. And they said it was a national picture. Of course, this could all be b*llocks but I believe they are struggling. The number of voters per constituency will be down because of IVR, and I am sure that is gonna hurt Labour.
Additionally, the blues have told me where the marginals are today based on their stats and they are not where I expected. IE, Labour are not piling up he votes they thought they would in close seats...apparently. Of course, the real vote is the only one that counts but Labour's depression is a real one, not mock.
if what you say is true we could be looking at 1992 again
As far as I can work out either EICIPM or pollsters are crap are fired.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
Unfortunately it is though if the tirade of heavily liked left wing anti Tory posts clogging up my Facebook feed is anything to go by. Not one of them from an under 16.
I'm not sure Facebook and Twitter are that reflective of general opinion. Twitter in particular seem's to be very heavily skewered towards lefties/luvvies...
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
The online voting idea throws up the possibility of a 'subscription scheme' where one could place one's vote not just in this election but in all subsequent elections.
This 'vote for life' would make things easier for the hard-working voter who may not have time to visit the polling booth or visit a postbox, and be environmentally good too.
A vote for life scheme is the most absurd and pathetic suggestion I've ever heard. People should think and make a conscious choice each time ... if people can't be bothered to do that little then no it shouldn't count.
Interesting that some people on here think Labour are putting out negative message to get activists motivated. They wouldn't do that. Their data is sacrosanct and they are bloody good at it. They really aren't making headway in the marginals according to their data. 1% swing is what I expect at most. Libs are cock a hoop that they can save up to 35 seats. Only time will tell but 260 is the best Miliband can hope for.
Not really bothered to stress it before, but FWIW the Uncut article was simply wrong, at last as far as the East Midlands go (I was concerned enough to look into it at regional level). It's not that we have samples showing us doing wonderfully; the position is that the electoral authorities have tightened up to the point that it's not possible to get meaningful samples at all. We simply have no useful data from the PVs either way. (It would be illegal to tell you if we did, but it's not illegal to tell you that we don't!)
It's also incorrect that the Labour data shows no significant swing since 2010. The data is very much in line with the average of all the polls, neither better nor worse. i think the Tory hope at this point comes down to people in the ballot box having a last-second change of heart.
You also have to question the motivation of those writing the articles, Labour Uncut very much has an anti Miliband agenda (lots of friends of Dan Hodges). Their analysis might be proved right, I think not but we dont have long to wait to find out.
There is also a rather geeky point made in a New Statesman article in the same vein. Labour has changed how it records voter's likely voting intention, from a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being definitive supporter) in 2010 to a set of three questions now. So if someone got an L3 last time (ie more probable than not to vote labour) this time they would be down as a D ie doubtful even if the following questions show they are pretty certain to support. This way the "promise" total seems to have dropped but in fact all that has happened is the method of recording the intention has changed.
It only takes one short conversation with a tired member of part staff for this sort story to get some legs and then starts getting recycled through the endless echo chambers of the blogs and forums like this one.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Votes at 16 is a stupid idea - we have no real life experience of paying taxes or even uses public services.
It's a stupid idea with large potential for the corruption of results. If you can't be bothered to walk to the polling station then you shouldn't be able to vote.
That video should be watched by anyone who thinks that electronic, and especially on-line, voting is in any way a good idea. It shows why it is absolute madness given current technology.
(Indeed, the whole of Computerphile should be compulsory viewing) ;-)
I have an election seat model that takes the votes / shares for all elections going back to 1979 and tries to 'predict' the outcome in terms of how many seats each party gets. It can predict the past with amazing accuracy (a few seats +/-). Putting in a Tory lead of 2% (or more) currently shows Dave getting a small absolute majority (or more). But...I think the underlying 'two party plus also rans' dynamic is probably broken now. Hmmm.....
The result is still tantalizingly unclear. But probably with more potential upside for Dave than Ed at this stage.
Conservative modernisers learnt the wrong lessons from the New Labour modernisers: that rejecting core policy tenants, embracing presentationism and shunning your traditional base was the way to win.
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
If it wasn't for UKIP though, the Tories would be cruising to a majority and we wouldn't even be having the above discussion.
That's not remotely certain. My grandfather is a lifelong Labour voter disgusted by Blair who's voting UKIP. Its hubristic to assign one view to all.
Small sample but of the 6 people I know voting Ukip in Hornchurch and Upminster, 5 are ex labour and only 1 was a Tory
I would expect UKIP to come second in Hornchurch & Upminster with about 25-30%, their best showing in Greater London. Romford would be better except Andrew Rosindell hoovers up most potential UKIP support.
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
The online voting idea throws up the possibility of a 'subscription scheme' where one could place one's vote not just in this election but in all subsequent elections.
This 'vote for life' would make things easier for the hard-working voter who may not have time to visit the polling booth or visit a postbox, and be environmentally good too.
A vote for life scheme is the most absurd and pathetic suggestion I've ever heard. People should think and make a conscious choice each time ... if people can't be bothered to do that little then no it shouldn't count.
I think you'll find there was a touch of intended irony there
Electoral reform is not just about changing how we elect MPs. Let's have votes@16, and a fully elected second chamber. Let's also look into voting online.
Let's not. Going to a voting booth is not the same as pressing Like on Facebook.
Unfortunately it is though if the tirade of heavily liked left wing anti Tory posts clogging up my Facebook feed is anything to go by. Not one of them from an under 16.
Comes down to Scotland, about which I have no clue. We will win a few dozen seats in England and Wales, in my opinion. If the Scottish result is a bit better than meltdown, we should have most seats (if it's a lot better then we're looking at a majority, but I really doubt that), but I'd like to see more than subsamples to bear out that hope.
Comments
The problems of the two main parties were and are different:
Labour have always had a strong brand, but they had a serious competence and credibility problem, and were viewed as too tribal, ideological and in hock to the unions. The Conservatives have generally been seen as competent and patriotic but also hard-headed, interested chiefly in the rich, agnostic about the public services, out-of-touch and arrogant. However, a lot of Conservative policies when polled (and not branded with their name) proved fairly popular.
It's therefore pretty clear to me that the modernisation project for the Conservative party should have been different to the Labour one. But that judgement proved beyond the intelligence of the core band of modernisers at the heart of the Conservative party who embraced the New Labour hymn book belt & braces.
Now, both main parties have alienated swathes of their traditional bases, and turbo-charged political cynicism across the board.
Well done.
I do agree with you that this is all shadow boxing and a third of electorate have yet to make up their mind.
Listening to DC on Today this morning was a typically frustrating experience. Same old lines. Heart definitely in it, but not smart enough to get the message across.
I'll miss him after 10 years in the job, but he has been a massive massive letdown.
Con 35% (+2)
Lab 32% (-1)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
UKIP 14% (+1)
Green 4% (-3)
Others 6% (NC)
It'll be Labour all the way, although there are signs in these historic Labour communities (just as in Scotland) that people are realising that Labour take these seats for granted. There has been some vitriol towards Wayne David on social media over ignorance and reneged promises. But I guess all sitting MPs get that, whatever the party.
Bloke cutting my hair is voting UKIP as "all the others are w@nkers"
A plague on all their houses!
Realistically? We will screw it up and it will be dog eat dog.
Edit - as for banks. Let them fail. A culture of fear needs to control these curs
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/02/revealed-eds-night-time-dash-to-casa-brand-driven-by-postal-ballot-panic/
50% tax rate undermining all in it together, fiddling whilst London burned as the riots spread, obsessing about gay marriage whilst people struggled to make ends meet, a continuation of Blair's dangerous interventionist foreign policy, the donors, and a failure to get a grip on immigration and thus boost real wages were all serious failings. Not getting the constituencies rebalanced was basic political manoeuvring gone wrong.
SNP have fought by far the best campaign and will reap the rewards accordingly. They might hit the big FIVE O.
The Tory rhetoric in this election is probably the finish of the union if they win. If they lose the Cameron goes and the union is finished with bonkers Boris.
If he gets half a chance Milliband will deal with the SNP or if that gets to embarrassing someone else will. Milliband has received credit in this campaign for basically just tripping but not falling over on loiuve television. Strategically his campaign has been totally inept. His blurting nonsense in the TV debate has taken him from heavy odds on to be Prime Minister to no better than evens.
The Fib Dems are unlikely to be a factor if they lose a substantial number of seats because the rest will just want to survive. Clegg will likely hold on but then be removed while Danny Alexander is toast and will supply the moment of the evening which most reasonable people will celebrate. He will then join the Tories where he belongs and next time stand for a south of England seat.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1992/apr/11/past.electionspast?redirection=guardian
My favourite part is this:
"It is difficult today to construct a convincing scenario for a Labour victory at the next election under the present electoral system. At the next election a redistribution of boundaries will be worth between 10 and 15 seats to the Conservatives. Labour will need a swing greater than it achieved in 1992."
Just how wrong they were...
Con 44.8%
LD 32.5%
Lab 16.1%
UKIP 3.9%
Green 2.3%
Oth 0.4%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a90.stm
It's also incorrect that the Labour data shows no significant swing since 2010. The data is very much in line with the average of all the polls, neither better nor worse. i think the Tory hope at this point comes down to people in the ballot box having a last-second change of heart.
I smell bullsh1t .
http://order-order.com/2015/05/06/new-bullingdon-photo-found-with-cameron-at-centre/
- Cons to edge seats. Lab end up leading a minority coalition in power with the LD as formal coalition partners, with the other lefties (SNP, PC, Green, SDLP) supporting on a nod-and-a-wink basis.
Dumb or plausible?
Poster watch - Don't think Henderson has done himself any favours round here with the white billboard colouring. You can barely make out the lettering. That said, the Tories have most of the out of town landowning spots tied up, but there are just as many UKIP posters I'd say, with Labour signs clutching tight to the two main town centres in Sittingbourne and Sheerness (but probably not as numerous).
I don't think its a good idea to look at what's happened in the last five years and ever draw a line as to saying this is what we're going to be divided over in 5, 10 or 15 years time.
Oddly enough I think if the Tories lose (narrowly) this time then I'd fully expect a 2020 election to result in a Tory majority. If its eg Tory+LD+DUP this time then no I wouldn't Mainly just because governments don't score gains in the same way as oppositions are supposed to do (but EIC).
Bullingdon Club: get drunk, trash an Oxford curry house, pay for the repairs
Labour: trash the economy, deny it, leave bill with taxpayers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32604037
In regards to online voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
(online voting is e-voting but with more flaws)
It's a stupid idea with large potential for the corruption of results. If you can't be bothered to walk to the polling station then you shouldn't be able to vote.
However the various parties do have a pretty good idea as to how the postal votes in each constituency are panning out. Nothing untoward as long as no one starts broadcasting their knowledge.
Basically as the postal votes arrive they need to be verified to check that the signature of the person to whom the ballot paper has been issued matches the one on the returned form. The outer envelope is open and the signature checked and then the second envelope is opened and the ballot paper is placed face down on the pile.
Each candidate is allowed to have an observer at each of these sessions (there will be a number over the two weeks prior to election day). Even though the front of the ballot cant be seen it is perfectly possible to make an accurate guess as to the vote on many of the ballots (felt tip or pen shows through). Even though tally sheets or similar are not allowed at verification counts it is perfectly possible to make useful sample counts. You simply count the number of papers where you can identify a mark and out of those which you can identify as yours.
This way you can get a reasonably accurate indication of your vote lets say out of the 100 papers you could identify with a vote 35 had your party on, this would indicate about 35% support for your party.
These details should not be divulged to anyone outside of the verification room although in practice the info is sent to party HQ.
However quite what this info means is another matter. As was pointed out here when this first came up a few days ago, in the last London assembly elections the tories "won" the postal votes in most constituencies (in these elections a breakdown of ward and postal votes is published afterwards) however in most cases the tories lost the overall vote, so the amount of real info gleaned from this sort of thing is pretty minimal.
There is no good reason for any of the wealth and corporations to base themselves in the UK or even western Europe - so presuming that lot go - what will the rest of the UK live on - self sufficiency? and who will you then be taxing - or are you suggesting getting rid of the big state?
Louth & Horncastle
Plymouth Moor View
Forest of Dean
Hartlepool
Sittingbourne & Sheppey
Christchurch
Cleethorpes
Penistone & Stocksbridge
Alyn & Deeside
Precisely and I can see no reason why this will happen to any great degree and to the extent it does Lib Dems (vote marginally edging up in recent polls), Ukip and Greens are just as likely to be the beneficiaries. All bar a single handful of the 100 polls or so we've had in the six week campaign have pointed to a Lab minority government. Mike Smithson has been something of a lone voice out there in warning about this but I expect him to be vindicated.
LAB 32% (-1), CON 33% (-1), LIB DEM 8% (+1), UKIP 14% (-1), GREEN 6% (+1), OTHER 6% (+1
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-parties-have-reached-stalemate
On that topic Kinnock got 271 seats of 34 percent of the vote. I think Miliband is going to almost exactly mirror that.
Disagree vehemently about voting at 16. Lowet the voting age, and we might actually start engaging with and respecting young people properly, earlier rather than dumping them into the educational rat maze for their teenage years and then wonder why stunted 'kidults' emerge at 18 unable to communicate or relate with their elders...
This 'vote for life' would make things easier for the hard-working voter who may not have time to visit the polling booth or visit a postbox, and be environmentally good too.
280?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html
Broxtowe front and centre...
Its also worth thinking that the polling analysis that says that x% voted Tory in 2010 etc doesn't answer what % voted for which party in 2005 or before. Some may have voted for Conservatives as a then-opposition party and could now be voting UKIP as an opposition party but might vote Labour had UKIP not existed. It's absolutely impossible to know.
This however, means Tory collapse implosion disaster as they sit on 11%.
Saves a hammering this time.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
At this stage shouldn't the headline numbers be all based on 100% certain to vote?
There is also a rather geeky point made in a New Statesman article in the same vein. Labour has changed how it records voter's likely voting intention, from a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being definitive supporter) in 2010 to a set of three questions now. So if someone got an L3 last time (ie more probable than not to vote labour) this time they would be down as a D ie doubtful even if the following questions show they are pretty certain to support. This way the "promise" total seems to have dropped but in fact all that has happened is the method of recording the intention has changed.
It only takes one short conversation with a tired member of part staff for this sort story to get some legs and then starts getting recycled through the endless echo chambers of the blogs and forums like this one.
(Indeed, the whole of Computerphile should be compulsory viewing) ;-)
The result is still tantalizingly unclear. But probably with more potential upside for Dave than Ed at this stage.
of intended irony there
North: 2.5%
Mids: 2.1%
South: 6.5%