Margaret Becket has just said on Sky that the British Public may not have been aware of what they were doing electing a Conservative Gov..Maybe that's why Labour got shafted... total bloody arrogance.
Labour is very much in the mind-set that the public are "in the wrong" for their defeat.
Neil Kinnock turned up on election night blaming the public for basically being a bunch of nasty, greedy, scum bags.
In many way's the Lab mind-set seem's to be where it was back in the 80's (and where the Tories were between 1997 and 2005)
That's what makes me think Labour is looking at 2025 before they get back. Their connection with the public has gone very badly wrong and that won't be turned around quickly.
Anybody thinking they can stick in Jarvis or Creasey or Kendall and recover all their losses from 2010 and 2015 in one go in 2020 is in denial about how badly wrong things have gone, IMO.
Margaret Becket has just said on Sky that the British Public may not have been aware of what they were doing electing a Conservative Gov..Maybe that's why Labour got shafted... total bloody arrogance.
Lord Kinnock and this unprepossessing woman, Becket, seem to share a contempt for democracy and the British people.
Kinnock's intemperate fist waving at the stupidity of the electorate whilst at his son's count on election night was vintage and a big highlight.
Scott think Tories winning seats in England whilst being also rans going backwards in Scotland is very funny. I care not a jot how many there are in England and Wales, my interest is in Scotland and unlike Scott I do not want reflected glory but local. Tories going backwards in Scotland as ever and lucky to hold on to their single seat.
Your interest may be Scotland but this was a UK election not a Scottish one.
I also hate to break the news to you, but you voted to stay in the UK. So I care not a jot how many there are in Scotland it is no more relevant than how many there are in the North East.
It is impossible to debate with a fool , I refuse to waste any further time.
That's fine, just keep talking to each other on the opposition benchers convincing yourselves that you matter. We'll just get on with running the country. I'm OK with that outcome.
Margaret Becket has just said on Sky that the British Public may not have been aware of what they were doing electing a Conservative Gov..Maybe that's why Labour got shafted... total bloody arrogance.
There will surely be another referendum on Scottish independence, as you say, and this time it will surely vote "yes" - Cameron will secure his niche in history as the last PM of the UK. One thing he might do, to pave the way for his English (& Welsh, or maybe not) is to arrange for Northern Ireland to become a Scottish-Irish condominium. It's got nothing to do with England.
As to English regionalism, it's not even in the oven yet, let alone cooked. The only part of England that may want to go it alone is London (there'll surely be a "London First" candidate in the Mayoralty contest next year) and if they have a plausible left-of-centre platform they could even split the vote and let another Tory in!
How do you split the vote in an SV election, unless it's by letting two alternative and disliked candidates into the final round? I wouldn't have thought that would be an issue for the centre-left in London?
The problem with SV is that the voter has to correctly judge which candidates will be in the final two - otherwise their second vote is wasted. It's one of a small number of electoral systems that are worse than AV.
I agree that SV is worse than AV (and indeed, worse than just about anything else).
However, for a centre-left voter in London, that's surely not a problem. Even if there were two strong centre-left candidates and a strong centre-right one, then you just vote for the two lefties as first and second preference.
If both left-wingers finish in the top two, the first preference counts. If its a right/left split then the preference system works. Only if neither makes it through is there a problem, and I can't see how that would come about: you'd need at least four serious challengers for the second round and London's nowhere near that at the moment; it's about the clearest two-party system in the country.
The scenario posited involved a third left-wing candidate on a "London First" platform and of course there is already the Greens.
Just also watching QT, Ashdown cannot comprehend Englishness, or an English national indentity in any form. He cannot engage with it.
That will be key now for any party going forward, to understand how to balance both English and Scottish questions and how the UK can flourish and work for everyone
Mr. Sandpit, Honda has the most potential for more power (although it's worth noting Renault expect improvements here later when they get a top engine chap to work for them, and for whom they deliberately kept a large number of tokens).
Problem is the odds on the McLarens for Q3 is evens for each driver. It's possible, but the odds are not tempting.
Mr. Slackbladder, the paper may be blank, but the limestone's brimming with promises
For me that stone was a defining moment. People looked at that and thought it would take me 2 years to earn that amount to buy such a stone (based on Labours low wages statements) Yet..... Yet they blow this on some vanity project to put a 9 foot high stone outside his office window??? What will they do with the economy then?
*moves pencil to blue team box and inserts cross*
I can't see what possessed him to do it and then within 24 hours along comes Lucy saying "yeah but just coz it carved in stone dose t mean some might be broken" I mean ....wait ?.what??
TBH Why did he not just print it on A4 paper, frame it and nail it to the office wall above his computer and below his photo of Karl Marx.
For me, it was when Ed was in that Newsnight audience debate, after Cameron had performed strongly, and the crowd turned on him when he said 'Labour didn't overspend'.
No one was with him there.
For me the turning point was the last debate, the Question Time format. An amazingly intelligent and educated audience completely called him out on the spending question. I think he was expecting a friendlier audience
Yep - too many press calls with invited audiences (some of whom booed the press) did him no favours....
more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth
Until Labour face up to the Brown binge they won't regain trust.....
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Can you tell us now whether Labour understood that the polling was so far off. There was the odd "mood music" that was talked about here so much at the time and largely discounted by me and others as Romney delusion. There was Ed going to Warwickshire which seemed odd but in fact they didn't take it either. And there was Cameron furiously campaigning in the south west going on about just needing 23 more seats and frankly sounding just a little mad.
In short there were clues that the Tories thought they were doing much better and Labour thought they were doing much worse than the polls indicated and they were both right.
I think so - the East Midlands regional party didn't seem to know about the notorious Labour Uncut report on the PVs (or maybe just weren't admitting it to me) but the evidence looks that way to me too. That said, I think everyone was surprised by the strength of the final shift.
Why are you so convinced that it was a 'final shift'?
Many of the pollsters and talking heads on TV have jumped on this as an 'easy' answer to why they got it wrong, but it is just as likely that the shift happened much earlier. Or, indeed, that there was no real shift and the polls have been out for yonks.
I'd put my money on the latter. And if the pollsters try to fix a 'late shift' problem when there was no such thing, then they're going to be in even more trouble.
Kellner explicitly ruled out a 'late shift' explanation in the election night programme between 10pm and 11pm i.e. after the exit poll but before the results came in. YouGov did polling day surveys and found no meaningful change in his opinion. Of the four possible explanations, it was the one he dismissed outright. The other three were that the opinion polls were wrong, the exit poll was wrong, or that both were wrong.
Arguably, as we now know that the opinion polls were badly wrong, you could argue that the errors there mean that there findings on polling day are also less legitimate. Possibly. But the argument for a late shift relies on the opinion polls being right, up until election day, which seems a much greater leap of faith.
In 1992, when there may well have been a late shift, there were both political and methodological explanations (Sheffield and all that). This time, particularly given the scale of postal voting, I don't see it.
Kellner has been a grating televisual regular throughout my adult life. Is it too much to ask that this discredited expert vanish from our screens ?
What I find fascinating about politics is how age changes things - IIRC you're in your early 20s. I'm now in my late 40s and first campaigned in Croydon Central in 1987, for the Tories after experiencing the GLC, Red Ken and Loony Lefties.
Before that I grew up in the 70s in Newcastle, with rampant inflation, strikes, unburied dead and rubbish 20ft high in the streets.
It cast a Very Long Shadow over my opinions of Labour run HMG/union thuggery.
I was persuaded that Labour had changed under Tony and gave them a go in 1997, 2001 and very reluctantly in 2005 - the latter I deeply regret. 2001 is marginal for me as I wasn't against Iraq until I discovered it was based on a Big Fat Lie.
Understanding this year’s defeat is, as we all know, central to bouncing back electorally. A lot has been written about the need to listen and the need to reconnect to voters. And the launch of the policy consultations in Gillingham last weekend was an attempt to listen and learn the lessons of defeat.
But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.
If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity... > more
Mr. Mark, huzzah! Maybe the new Conservative majority government, bereft of wishy-washy Lib Dems, will finally invest in the vital national infrastructure of a state-funded space cannon!
Just also watching QT, Ashdown cannot comprehend Englishness, or an English national indentity in any form. He cannot engage with it.
That will be key now for any party going forward, to understand how to balance both English and Scottish questions and how the UK can flourish and work for everyone
I thought Asdown seemed totally bushed. He’s 74 and although I understand he keeps himself fit, he’d had a long, and very upsetting, time awake!
I've been thinking much the same thing overnight - the SNP managed a huge but pointless win now the Tories have a overall majority.
I think FFA will be the most entertaining thing coming up to pop their balloon. And your point about the *only allowed* opinion isn't a recipe for success.
Look how shy even English Tories are. I wouldn't want to be in Scotland.
Probably contrary to prevailing opinion, but I think this whole situation could go very sour for the SNP very quickly. First of all, the obvious point to make is that their main slogan in the election was "vote for us and lock the Tories out". Well there's no doubt Scotland voted for them and,...er, didn't really work, did it? Some explaining to do. And the fact is that they don't have a monopoly on Scottish opinion, but they have a near monopoly on expressing what they think Scottish opinion is.
More practically, I think after the initial euphoria, I think the 56 MPs are not going to find it at all easy. There are no ready made induction/support networks for SNP MPs at Westminster which are going to have to be put in place very quickly. The sensible ones might try and form personal links with MPs from other parties, but for many I imagine that will require a different mindset from the default. Especially from a party who's mandate is to oppose/change the way Westminster operates - "slotting in" will, for many, not be an option.
Then there is the issue of what they are all going to do. There will obviously be resistance to putting them on "English" committees, and anyway there will only be so many posts to go round. The media will quickly focus on a few key individuals for quotes/reaction (Salmond, basically), resentment among the rest could quickly build up. And then there is the human reality that many of these people simply won't like each other on a personal level. 56 is a good number for factions to build up pretty rapidly. Salmond talks about how much trouble the SNP were allegedly able to cause Thatcher in the 80s, but it is easier to do that sort of thing when just a close knit small group of MPs. Corelling 56 MPs to cause trouble on a consistent basis is I imagine not such a simple matter.
Will they do pairing? How will the whipping work? How will day to day party management work and who will be in charge? I'm quite certain we will find all the controversial/close votes, especially ones on arguably "English" matters will be scheduled for Thursday evenings. The enthusiasm for sticking around in Westminster for those may quickly die away.
snip for space
That is wrong on every level I am afraid. You still know zilch about Scotland and its politics I am afraid.
Margaret Becket has just said on Sky that the British Public may not have been aware of what they were doing electing a Conservative Gov..Maybe that's why Labour got shafted... total bloody arrogance.
That's what makes me think Labour is looking at 2025 before they get back. Their connection with the public has gone very badly wrong and that won't be turned around quickly.
Anybody thinking they can stick in Jarvis or Creasey or Kendall and recover all their losses from 2010 and 2015 in one go in 2020 is in denial about how badly wrong things have gone, IMO.
If they've got real guts, they will look at the result and see that Cameron took two elections to build a majority from 100 seats back. They should therefore elect someone they're prepared to live with until the 2025 election, providing progress is made towards that target in 2020.
Mr. Mark, huzzah! Maybe the new Conservative majority government, bereft of wishy-washy Lib Dems, will finally invest in the vital national infrastructure of a state-funded space cannon!
Cameron needs to make a bold and comprehensive offer going considerably further than the sophistries of the Smith Commission. In essence, the wrong starting point has been adopted, namely should be devolved to Edinburgh in light of the referendum. The right starting point is what is the minimum that can be reserved to Westminster which is consistent with the vote of the Scottish people to remain part of the United Kingdom. There is no real need to reserve much more than defence, foreign affairs, national security, immigration/nationality, monetary policy and value added tax. The list of current reservations in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 reflects the Labour Party's desire that there should be no competition on employment, industry, taxation, consumer protection and professional regulation between England and Scotland. Other miscellaneous reservations such as those on abortion, the misuse of drugs, animal testing and equality law are unnecessary.
If Cameron grasps this opportunity, he can maintain the Union. Such an offer would be impossible for the SNP to refuse, and can be accompanied by serious political reform in England.
Another sensible person on here, could things be changing.
I would support the same. This election has fortuitously come up with the ideal Commons to settle the devomax deal. The SNP have the mandate to negotiate it, and the Conservatives too with EVFEL. The numbers are such that both parties will have to constructively engage. The SNP cannot dictate terms, but neither can the Tories. A perfect setting for devomax negotiations, though I wouldn't put it past either side to squander the opportunity.
Gove may be the best Tory for negotiations; a weighty member of cabinet with clear vision and also Scottish himself.
Get this right! we may not get the same opportunity again.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
Morning all. Staying up all night is a good way to get a good night's sleep the next night!
Anyway, I now find myself in the ridiculous position of knowing exactly who I think should be the next Tory leader but not really knowing who I want to lead my own party. Rest assured I'll be sharing my thoughts as the campaign progresses.
On Scotland, then I think SLAB need to break away and be seen as an independent Scottish party of the left with ambivalence towards the Union. That might be the defining issue for the SNP but I don't believe it should be for Labour.
Finally, well done to those PBers who called it right, and those who made money. I would love to see a guest article to learn more about what JackW enters into his model (see how I avoided the obvious double entendre there?).
Real mixed feelings for me re Ukip... 13% of the vote was at the top end of most peoples expectations.... One seat was really disappointing.
But what can you do? Get a big vote share and hope they concentrate enough in a few seats. That didn't quite happen. I'd compare it to backing a tennis player to win a match and they lose 7-6 7-6 6-4.. Fine margins but you're on the right track
If Ukip had polled 7% and he had stood and won Thurrock so we had 2 MPs, he would have done a much worse job and stayed. As it is he has done a great job and quit. A mistake methinks
UKIP as a political force is finished by the end of this parliament, by the time we get to the next election the EU issue will have been resolved for all time, also one way or the other the uncontrolled immigration issue will have been dealt with either through treaty change/negotiation or BREXIT. The two main reasons for UKIP's existence. In five years its game over for UKIP.
Agree with most of your sentiments #isam, however the days when the party depended on Farage for it's existence is over. That the party is now strong enough to stand on it's own two feet without him is his best legacy. I have a feeling that after a long needed break, Nigel will throw his hat in the ring at the leader elections in the Autumn.
You know nothing #kjohnw UKIP is now a major party with e range of policies of it's own. Grappling with the EU problem is now just one of it's many tasks. You will find that this Tory election victory will prove pyrrhic.
And now I have two betting debts to pay............
but you are slightly buggered Mike.
on paper at least you have a referendum coming up in 18-24 months and are in all likelihood likely to lose it.
What we've seen is that politics is highly unpredictable. UKIP may have vanished by 2020, or it may be a very big force.
Back in 2010, who would have predicted 56 SNP, 8 Lib Dems, four million UKIP voters, a Conservative majority, and the defeat of Ed Balls?
ceratilny not me Sean.
However if Cameron does go a head with the Euroref I think the problem is UKIP are stuck with their political baggage from 5 years campaigning rather than being a straightforward pressure group. None of the big parties owe them any favours so it looks like a tough camapign.
If UKIP are the only organisation campaigning for Out, they'll probably lose, but also likely gain members and votes in the same way as the SNP. I think UKIP will vanish, paradoxically, if Out wins.
Kellners analysis is/was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
I wholeheartedly agree that the issue of putting the Union on a better footing remains unresolved. But devomax does't resolve it. It's only about Scotland. It doesn't change anything in England. The Union is a collectivity of four countries and something has got to change in the terms of that collectivity - we need a proposal that doesn't smell too wonky, isn't first and foremost about fiscal matters (although it will involve them), and can be put in a referendum to all of the people of Britain and hopefully get majority support in all four countries.
The big problem is that one of the countries has 10 times the population of the second most populous country and several times the population of all the others combined. English regionalisation isn't the way and has already been rejected in much of the English north anyway. There are four countries involved here, and a country isn't equivalent to a region. A full-scale English parliament also isn't the way. Either it would be a useless body or it would make the British parliament increasingly irrelevant, which wouldn't be helpful at all. A way has to be found to give the four countries an equal role in some areas of the British administration without letting the smaller countries have a disproportionate say overall, which would discriminate against English people and inevitably lead to the rise of an "England first" trend, undermining the Union rather than strengthening it. If necessary, those areas of administration need to be created for the purpose, while avoiding a bureaucratic dog's breakfast. Difficult? Yes. Imagination and vision required.
A blend of the symbolic, the cultural and the political and economic aspects needs to be achieved - and we need harmony and friendly cooperation to be incentivised. That's hard but there are some people working on it and they are making quite a bit of progress behind closed doors.
I wish I could say more here...
As for 'being told what to do', I hear what you say about pre-election polling, but my experience on chatrooms is that many young SNP voters do tend to have that attitude. Often when I make points in favour of the Union they also tell me "You must be English" - which as it happens I'm not.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity...
Yep.
As a rule of thumb,
righties think lefties are good people who believe in bad ideas.....
Lefties think righties are bad people.....
Of course there are exceptions to all rules of thumb - but its interesting there isn't a Conservative equivalent of Labour's 'Never Kissed a Tory' badge....
If UKIP are the only organisation campaigning for Out, they'll probably lose, but also likely gain members and votes in the same way as the SNP. I think UKIP will vanish, paradoxically, if Out wins.
What's to prevent an EU referendum being as unsuccessful for UKIP as the AV referendum was for the Lib Dems?
Kellners analysis/is was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
I think the entire concept of a pool of voters which have to sign up online and self-select themselves to answer polls must be at risk of considered to be utterly flawed.
It would be weird for the Scottish Conservatives to have two separate parties considering they are the most unionist bunch.
It would be interesting for Scotland to have FFA so they actually have responsibility for raising taxes rather than just spend spend spend
But...what is FFA? To the Nats, it requires them to have all the oil taxation revenues.... Until they get that, they will say they don't have true Scottish FFA. And giving them oil taxation revenues only happens when they get full independence, not fiscal autonomy.
FFA means all our revenues, not the kid on pocket money ones that Westminster allocate to us. It is every penny that is raised in Scotland for all taxes , oil , etc , etc. Given we have subsidised England for 30 years it is time we got our own money to spend as we wish.
There would have to be some common funding for UK-level spending: defence, national debt (perhaps limited to pre-FFA implementation), international aid and so on. That could be done by a dedicated level of income tax or whatever mix of taxes might be agreed.
Beyond that then yes, there's scope for a deal.
Question is whether they will bite the bullet and do it though David.
I have yet to lose a bet on this 'political-betting' site. Could someone emphasise with me please....
Did anyone make a bet with you on the GE ?
I steered well clear !
Not the New Year bet:
Too well crafted (even though I had a lose-loser tail)*. BigJohnOwl's owes FATJUGS fifty-quid though (and needs to understand that Mr Tissue-Price is not a SMF like me): The 33% bet was as well crafted.
* Many thanks to AntiFrank and Charles for offering to arbitrate.
1/2 There are many post-mortems taking place this weekend. One that must not escape our eyes is political-betting.com. Mike has been reasonably gracious about what happened so I hope he will leave this here. I’m not going to be rude.
Let me start by declaring my hand. Two years ago I was dismissed, literally, by Mike as ‘a pure fantasist’ for proposing that the Conservatives would win an outright majority in 2015. My ten pound bet to that effect was derided, and I was booted off the site.
Did that make me bitter? A little if I’m honest. You see, I had been around here since the inception of political betting. I probably confused people because I am a typically confused voter myself. In 2010 I voted Lib Dem but, like a lot of the public, I waiver. My political home is probably somewhere around pink Tory. When they get nasty, I part company.
Pb.com is a brilliant site. It is the foremost one in the country, without peer. A lot of this is down to the comment section where people are frequently polite. On which topic, let me commend the Labour supporters on here for being so magnanimous.
Re. Lab leader, I have a feeling Labour is now looking at a decade out of power.
2020 will be about recovering the damage that's been inflicted during this election (especially in Scotland) and generally getting themselves in the position to have a succcesful run in 2025.
So, I would say bring in someone like Burnham to play the Michael Howard role of getting the Party working again and try to rebuild the foundations in Scotland, then have a real push towards Number Ten with someone like Dan Jarvis after that.
It's interesting in itself on the fragmentation of UK politics, but the most notable aspect is the lefty commenter underneath, who bemoans the election result and then calls English voters "moronic"
Way to win back the electorate. Call them morons. Jeez.
Far too many Labourites exude a similar contempt for ordinary Brits, especially the white working class English. Most manage to hide it, in anger the mask slips.
Labour HAS to get a new generation of credible leaders, ordinary yet articulate, and devoid of this horrible sneering. Where is their Nicola Sturgeon?
Sturgeon's working class, she'd never make it in the grindingly snobbish and patronizing Labour Party.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument. 3. Over-reliance on polls and pollsters. Take a leaf from the BBC here in that polls shouldn’t drive political debate. They can, apparently, be wrong. 4. Over-reliance on a single pollster. From Angus Reid in 2005-2010 to the frankly sycophantic obeisance of Lord Ashcroft this demeaned the site. 5. Don’t ban dissonant voices. Ban rudeness, or better still moderate it with sin bins (though do let the person know). Too many good people have been forced off here. They could have been given a warning followed by a temporary suspension. That requires moderation. Well, fine, appoint some of us as moderators. I am certain you will find a dozen willing volunteers within minutes who can work a rota. 6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
I'd be very hard pushed to imagine a situation like post 1992 for the Tories. We had Maggie back-seat driving with gusto, and things so divided over Maastricht that John Major stood in the Rose Garden AND RESIGNED as Party Leader whilst PM.
On June 22nd 1995, John Major announced his resignation as Leader of the Conservative Party, though not as Prime Minister. His resignation was a response to a deep divide in the party over the still highly contentious issue of Europe. There had been questions raised on the backbenches over his ability to unite and lead the party effectively and consequently, rumours of a leadership challenge. Major said in his press conference, in the garden at Number 10, that the time had come to "Put up or shut up".
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I think Dreamland for the Conservatives is a medium sizes majority, where they aren't held hostage by the right.
Agreed to a certain extent - will be much harder for Cameron to govern in this Parliament than the last. However, I think the Tory party is much more united now that it was in the 90s. Time will tell I guess...
The difference is that unlike Labour the 56 SNP's will be seen to be voting against Tory cuts back in Scotland. They will be seen putting Scotland's interests first and it will show clearly that we just get sh** upon. So will be the exact opposite of what you believe.
Whether its 56 SNP opposition MPs voting no while the country says yes, or 56 Labour MPs voting no while the country says yes - what difference do you think that will make?
Labour voted against every cut last time too, but are still in opposition in Westminster as much as you are.
You just cannot be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot at Westminster , it is how it is seen in Scotland. Labour MP's going down and voting with their pals has got them their just desserts. The SNP will not be ordered which way to vote by London Leaders. I cannot make it any simpler for you.
You can't be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot how it is seen in Scotland, it matters at Westminster.
What are you going to do, try and take our one MP off us? Oh no, we'll only have 329 MPs then, whatever are we going to do?
I don't expect SNP to be ordered by Cameron on how to vote, any more than I'd expect Labour to be ordered by Cameron. You're our opponents sat on the opposition benches, not our allies. There's nothing wrong if you're treated as any other opponent would. Nothing wrong with you being treated how you treat Tories.
You are so stupid you did not even understand what I posted. I was referring to what the options were based on a Labour government versus a Tory one. Given you wear union jack specs and have no inkling of political opinion in Scotland it seems pointless discussing anything as you are unable to grasp the points I am making. Just wave your union jack about and save your keyboard.
Kellner explicitly ruled out a 'late shift' explanation in the election night programme between 10pm and 11pm i.e. after the exit poll but before the results came in. YouGov did polling day surveys and found no meaningful change in his opinion. Of the four possible explanations, it was the one he dismissed outright. The other three were that the opinion polls were wrong, the exit poll was wrong, or that both were wrong.
Arguably, as we now know that the opinion polls were badly wrong, you could argue that the errors there mean that there findings on polling day are also less legitimate. Possibly. But the argument for a late shift relies on the opinion polls being right, up until election day, which seems a much greater leap of faith.
In 1992, when there may well have been a late shift, there were both political and methodological explanations (Sheffield and all that). This time, particularly given the scale of postal voting, I don't see it.
What is fascinating is the disparity between pollsters using data from potential voters - which has gone horribly wrong - and actual voters - with exit polls now gobsmackingly good for the past two elections.
That does seem to suggest they are just not getting to people. Forget phones, computers. Do it the old fashioned way - go out and meet people, armed with a clipboard. But that is expensive. Not going to happen.
I do think that people are intimidated by views they are expected to hold, held back from expressing those they actually hold. I wonder what opinion polling would come up with on say corporal punishment for kids? It is not "fashionable" to believe in it. Would surveys REALLY find the true state of the nation's position? Or do people self-censor to pollsters - especially if they think those views are being recorded and might somehow come back on them?
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
The basic thrust of my argument is that the SNP at Westminster have no actual power. No ability to do, or even try to do, anything beyond oppose. And opposition without the power to prevent. It is from that starting point that most of my imagined problems follow.
Surely you listened to the PB brains trust several weeks ago stating unequivocally that EICIPM and this would be really bad for the EssEnPee as they would be stuck propping up Labour without any influence. What the SNP really wanted was 5 more years of the Tories in charge to push against in Scotland.
Of course I can understand any confusion as many of the same brains are now saying 56 SNP mps and the Tories in power is, wait for it, really bad for the EssEnPee.
So all the people who don't like the SNP think all outcomes are bad for the SNP, and all independence/SNP supporters think all outcomes are... good for the SNP! That's tribalism for you
Still think the SNP MPs are going to get rapidly bored/disillusioned. To have a role which basically amounts to lobby fodder opposing the Tories, to bolster the SNP govt in Holyrood isn't particularly inspiring.
With all those subsidised restaurants , bars and the high life in London. You really are barking , it sounds like 5 years of serious fun to any normal person. Even if only one term , you leave with bulging bank account , a big pay off and good pension , how could anyone think other than they had won the lottery.
Glad to hear it. I was a bit worried they couldn't be turned. Hopefully they'll go the full hog and model themselves on the UKIP MEP example
Kellners analysis/is was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
I think the entire concept of a pool of voters which have to sign up online and self-select themselves to answer polls must be at risk of considered to be utterly flawed.
Indeed. I said Re. Populus that something wasn't right. Their polls were just too stable, never, ever deviating.
As I said, it was like they were just asking the same people, the same questions and getting the same answers, over and over again.
I wouldn't say the whole concept of online polling is worthless but it is clearly flawed and that flaw has been made much worse by the dominance of online polls over the past few years.
What is interesting though is that Opinium did seem to find genuine Con crossover and they are an online pollster. Maybe the difference is that Opinium were just polling weekly rather than daily or several times a week like the other online pollsters?
So Hodges career continues, reputation massively enhanced and it is Ed's which effectively ends.
Imagine how his career might alter if Lab elect a leader who he actually rates... I imagine his services will then be in demand by the leftie mags once more and if he doesn't then the rightie ones will want him.
I don't see how you can bring about FFA for Scotland without a UK wide referendum - it is a fundamental rewriting of the constitutional makeup of the UK that affects everyone, it is not a Scotland only decision.
Which is slightly ironic as I think Scottish Independence is a Scotland only decision.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I think Dreamland for the Conservatives is a medium sizes majority, where they aren't held hostage by the right.
Agreed to a certain extent - will be much harder for Cameron to govern in this Parliament than the last. However, I think the Tory party is much more united now that it was in the 90s. Time will tell I guess...
'If you don't do what I want I'll defect to UKIP' hasn't got the potency it once had......
I've been thinking much the same thing overnight - the SNP managed a huge but pointless win now the Tories have a overall majority.
I think FFA will be the most entertaining thing coming up to pop their balloon. And your point about the *only allowed* opinion isn't a recipe for success.
Look how shy even English Tories are. I wouldn't want to be in Scotland.
Probably contrary to prevailing opinion, but I think this whole situation could go very sour for the SNP very quickly. First of all, the obvious point to make is that their main slogan in the election was "vote for us and lock the Tories out". Well there's no doubt Scotland voted for them and,...er, didn't really work, did it? Some explaining to do. And the fact is that they don't have a monopoly on Scottish opinion, but they have a near monopoly on expressing what they think Scottish opinion is.
More practically, I think after the initial euphoria, I think the 56 MPs are not going to find it at all easy. There are no ready made induction/support networks for SNP MPs at Westminster which are going to have to be put in place very quickly. The sensible ones might try and form personal links with MPs from other parties, but for many I imagine that will require a different mindset from the default. Especially from a party who's mandate is to oppose/change the way Westminster operates - "slotting in" will, for many, not be an option.
Then there is the issue of what they are all going to do. There will obviously be resistance to putting them on "English" committees, and anyway there will only be so many posts to go round. The media will quickly focus on a few key individuals for quotes/reaction (Salmond, basically), resentment among the rest could quickly build up. And then there is the human reality that many of these people simply won't like each other on a personal level. 56 is a good number for factions to build up pretty rapidly. Salmond talks about how much trouble the SNP were allegedly able to cause Thatcher in the 80s, but it is easier to do that sort of thing when just a close knit small group of MPs. Corelling 56 MPs to cause trouble on a consistent basis is I imagine not such a simple matter.
Will they do pairing? How will the whipping work? How will day to day party management work and who will be in charge? I'm quite certain we will find all the controversial/close votes, especially ones on arguably "English" matters will be scheduled for Thursday evenings. The enthusiasm for sticking around in Westminster for those may quickly die away.
snip for space
That is wrong on every level I am afraid. You still know zilch about Scotland and its politics I am afraid.
Mr. Pulpstar, I agree. Umunna may play well with metropolitans, but he'll not go down well in northern England.
Con Gain Derbyshire NE if Labour choose the wrong leader. And the economy stays on track.
Speaking of which: Mastermind !
" Lammy considers Labour leadership bid David Lammy says he will consider standing for Labour leader if colleagues want him to do it as Alan Johnson warns it could take the party 10 years to recover from its election defeat. "
Oh....that would be to beautiful to even consider happening....... Mind you they had Miliband so who knows?
If UKIP are the only organisation campaigning for Out, they'll probably lose, but also likely gain members and votes in the same way as the SNP. I think UKIP will vanish, paradoxically, if Out wins.
What's to prevent an EU referendum being as unsuccessful for UKIP as the AV referendum was for the Lib Dems?
UKIP aren't taking all the flack as a junior coalition partner.
Scott think Tories winning seats in England whilst being also rans going backwards in Scotland is very funny. I care not a jot how many there are in England and Wales, my interest is in Scotland and unlike Scott I do not want reflected glory but local. Tories going backwards in Scotland as ever and lucky to hold on to their single seat.
Your interest may be Scotland but this was a UK election not a Scottish one.
I also hate to break the news to you, but you voted to stay in the UK. So I care not a jot how many there are in Scotland it is no more relevant than how many there are in the North East.
It is impossible to debate with a fool , I refuse to waste any further time.
That's fine, just keep talking to each other on the opposition benchers convincing yourselves that you matter. We'll just get on with running the country. I'm OK with that outcome.
So Hodges career continues, reputation massively enhanced and it is Ed's which effectively ends.
Imagine how his career might alter if Lab elect a leader who he actually rates... I imagine his services will then be in demand by the leftie mags once more and if he doesn't then the rightie ones will want him.
Nice position to be in.
I wonder how long EdM will be able to tolerate sitting amongst the Labour back bench deadbeats. Not long. I'd guess.
The difference is that unlike Labour the 56 SNP's will be seen to be voting against Tory cuts back in Scotland. They will be seen putting Scotland's interests first and it will show clearly that we just get sh** upon. So will be the exact opposite of what you believe.
Whether its 56 SNP opposition MPs voting no while the country says yes, or 56 Labour MPs voting no while the country says yes - what difference do you think that will make?
Labour voted against every cut last time too, but are still in opposition in Westminster as much as you are.
You just cannot be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot at Westminster , it is how it is seen in Scotland. Labour MP's going down and voting with their pals has got them their just desserts. The SNP will not be ordered which way to vote by London Leaders. I cannot make it any simpler for you.
You can't be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot how it is seen in Scotland, it matters at Westminster.
What are you going to do, try and take our one MP off us? Oh no, we'll only have 329 MPs then, whatever are we going to do?
I don't expect SNP to be ordered by Cameron on how to vote, any more than I'd expect Labour to be ordered by Cameron. You're our opponents sat on the opposition benches, not our allies. There's nothing wrong if you're treated as any other opponent would. Nothing wrong with you being treated how you treat Tories.
You are so stupid you did not even understand what I posted. I was referring to what the options were based on a Labour government versus a Tory one. Given you wear union jack specs and have no inkling of political opinion in Scotland it seems pointless discussing anything as you are unable to grasp the points I am making. Just wave your union jack about and save your keyboard.
I prefer the Cross of St George personally as a flag. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the only thing that matters is the views of Scots, that you can have your cake and eat it to. We English don't matter except in how we can help the Scottish.
Sorry to break it to you, but the views of the English matter too. But you keep waving your Saltire while while having no inkling of the points I am making.
Kellners analysis/is was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
I think the entire concept of a pool of voters which have to sign up online and self-select themselves to answer polls must be at risk of considered to be utterly flawed.
Indeed. I said Re. Populus that something wasn't right. Their polls were just too stable, never, ever deviating.
As I said, it was like they were just asking the same people, the same questions and getting the same answers, over and over again.
I wouldn't say the whole concept of online polling is worthless but it is clearly flawed and that flaw has been made much worse by the dominance of online polls over the past few years.
What is interesting though is that Opinium did seem to find genuine Con crossover ans they are an online pollster. Maybe the difference is that Opinium were just polling weekly rather than daily or several times a week like the other online pollsters?
I have been polled twice by Populus in the last twelve months, as a side-effect of being on e-Rewards, where I earn Avios points by answering questionnaires.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Much to ponder on there. Sad that you were not able to post your "7% lead" output from your Al Gore Rhythm. And I would be fascinated to know how you arrived at your outcome....!
It would be weird for the Scottish Conservatives to have two separate parties considering they are the most unionist bunch.
It would be interesting for Scotland to have FFA so they actually have responsibility for raising taxes rather than just spend spend spend
But...what is FFA? To the Nats, it requires them to have all the oil taxation revenues.... Until they get that, they will say they don't have true Scottish FFA. And giving them oil taxation revenues only happens when they get full independence, not fiscal autonomy.
FFA means all our revenues, not the kid on pocket money ones that Westminster allocate to us. It is every penny that is raised in Scotland for all taxes , oil , etc , etc. Given we have subsidised England for 30 years it is time we got our own money to spend as we wish.
There would have to be some common funding for UK-level spending: defence, national debt (perhaps limited to pre-FFA implementation), international aid and so on. That could be done by a dedicated level of income tax or whatever mix of taxes might be agreed.
Beyond that then yes, there's scope for a deal.
Question is whether they will bite the bullet and do it though David.
By the time the Scottish election comes around a draft agreement will be in place. The election will be the chance for the electorate to judge how the SNP have done. There is a lot of pressure for the SNP to get a good deal. While half SNP voters are solid the other half are lending them their vote. This will be an intriguing negotiation. Cameron has probably the better hand as FFA would lead to huge cuts in Scotland even with the oil. He also has no stress as he will not face another election ever.
Cameron needs to make a bold and comprehensive offer going considerably further than the sophistries of the Smith Commission. In essence, the wrong starting point has been adopted, namely should be devolved to Edinburgh in light of the referendum. The right starting point is what is the minimum that can be reserved to Westminster which is consistent with the vote of the Scottish people to remain part of the United Kingdom. There is no real need to reserve much more than defence, foreign affairs, national security, immigration/nationality, monetary policy and value added tax. The list of current reservations in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 reflects the Labour Party's desire that there should be no competition on employment, industry, taxation, consumer protection and professional regulation between England and Scotland. Other miscellaneous reservations such as those on abortion, the misuse of drugs, animal testing and equality law are unnecessary.
If Cameron grasps this opportunity, he can maintain the Union. Such an offer would be impossible for the SNP to refuse, and can be accompanied by serious political reform in England.
Another sensible person on here, could things be changing.
I would support the same. This election has fortuitously come up with the ideal Commons to settle the devomax deal. The SNP have the mandate to negotiate it, and the Conservatives too with EVFEL. The numbers are such that both parties will have to constructively engage. The SNP cannot dictate terms, but neither can the Tories. A perfect setting for devomax negotiations, though I wouldn't put it past either side to squander the opportunity.
Gove may be the best Tory for negotiations; a weighty member of cabinet with clear vision and also Scottish himself.
Get this right! we may not get the same opportunity again.
Fox , I agree last and best chance saloon for sure. It will soon be too late.
Yes - lets hope the courage & generosity he showed towards his prospective coalition partners in 2010 appears again. I think FFA with some transition arrangement (vs 'cold turkey') is the way to go. Both the Scots and English people are fair, even if their politicians frequently emphasise differences which are fundamentally trivial.....
The Scotland Act 2012 has created a separate Scottish Consolidated Fund. The Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (asp 16) has made provision for the new Scottish tax authority. The infrastructure which could allow a very rapid roll out of further of tax powers is in place. As for reservations of substantive law on employment, equality, abortion etc, these matters could be devolved immediately without administrative consequences. The great advantage of the election result is that it will allow Cameron to deal directly with the SNP without having to consider the interests of the Scottish Labour Party, which infect the current lopsided devolution settlement and the recommendations of the Smith Commission.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Quite possibly you're right.
Though I suspect that Miliband saying that was a mistake. The problem is that it confirmed the worst fears on the leadership approval ratings and economic competence. It played straight into his biggest weakness.
"A clearly upset Mr Ward could not even bring himself to share the podium with the victor, Bradford Council deputy leader Councillor Imran Hussain as the results were declared"
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either. If he stays as an MP and active in the party I could only see him as unhelpful and divisive. Any one heard about his plans?
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
Philip is not quite getting that bit.
Philip gets it but doesn't care. You don't get that, you think only Scots could want the Union dissolved. There are many English people who are all too happy for Scotland to bugger off.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Lebo and Norpoth are going to feel a bit silly abandoning their original methodology.
Alot of herding amongst the academic community, not just pollsters.
Sturgeon's leader ratings made me feel a bit more confident in the Scottish constituency polls than any where Labour had a lead in England in particular.
Given the outcome of the General Election, the only thing that makes any sense is that Cameron released a genie from a bottle, who gave him the following three wishes:
- Let me win a working majority at the election.
- Let Nicola Sturgeon win most of the seats in Scotland, but spend five years consumed by impotent rage because she has no power in Westminster
- Let Ed Balls lose......
....oh, and Vince Cable. Did I get that one in in time?
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
Thirded...
Also maybe time for an amnesty for all banned posters? Tim, banned or not, when he could control some his worst bile and smears had value, along with many others.
Mike got the last few years very very wrong, dismissing valid points and opinions.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument. 3. Over-reliance on polls and pollsters. Take a leaf from the BBC here in that polls shouldn’t drive political debate. They can, apparently, be wrong. 4. Over-reliance on a single pollster. From Angus Reid in 2005-2010 to the frankly sycophantic obeisance of Lord Ashcroft this demeaned the site. 5. Don’t ban dissonant voices. Ban rudeness, or better still moderate it with sin bins (though do let the person know). Too many good people have been forced off here. They could have been given a warning followed by a temporary suspension. That requires moderation. Well, fine, appoint some of us as moderators. I am certain you will find a dozen willing volunteers within minutes who can work a rota. 6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
Thirded...
Also maybe time for an amnesty for all banned posters? Tim, banned or not, when he could control some his worst bile and smears had value, along with many others.
Mike got the last few years very very wrong, dismissing valid points and opinions.
As a LibDem I am extremely disappointed with the result.
For what it is worth I take the following view that it was all about mood music and almost nothing done at a constituency level was going to sufficiently change that.
Key points for me was that the tuition fee was not the problem per se but taken to be an illustrative example of us saying one thing and then doing another (albeit with the best intentions). This then lead into the question about what are Libdems for/about/going to do.
Whilst the message about being in the central ground and temporing the others was a good message, because of the above there was not a clear back story of who the libdems actually are. In this I agree with Jeremy Browne about active liberalism, but this is something that takes years to infiltrate the background noise and should have been focused upon immediately in 2010.
The task for the next 4 years is not to talk detailed policy but to build the structure of what liberalism is/means in the 2020s particularly in an open multicultual constantly changing world. Only in year 5 of this parliament should we then start illustrating this with specific policy proposals.
Is Tim Farron the best man (we have no women MPs!) for the job?
I could be entirely wrong, but when I heard he had serious back trouble - I felt a real pang of sympathy. When he was all sweaty and pale and tired - I remembered how debilitating it is.
Perhaps it's just that - he needs to get well again before making any longer term decisions. No one with that much personality and energy throws in the towel without a very good reason.
Real mixed feelings for me re Ukip... 13% of the vote was at the top end of most peoples expectations.... One seat was really disappointing.
But what can you do? Get a big vote share and hope they concentrate enough in a few seats. That didn't quite happen. I'd compare it to backing a tennis player to win a match and they lose 7-6 7-6 6-4.. Fine margins but you're on the right track
IMO though I think Farage is making a big mistake by resigning... Clegg and Miliband have failed in terms of moving their party forward in the last 5 years, Farage has turned Ukip from nobodies into the 3rd most popular party in the UK. I think it's lazy thinking to assume he has taken the party as far as he can, many voters in dagenham talked of him in such glowing terms as their only hope!
The spectacular SNP results have put Ukip in the shade but that doesn't mean Ukip need to press panic buttons, strip it down and start again a la lib dem and labour. The situations sre completely different, and if anything i feel let down that Farage is standing aside
If Ukip had polled 7% and he had stood and won Thurrock so we had 2 MPs, he would have done a much worse job and stayed. As it is he has done a great job and quit. A mistake methinks
He resigned because he didn't win South Thanet, didn't he? Thurrock was irrelevant. Anyway he hasn't really resigned - I'm sure he'll be extolling his record when he joins the contest after his summer holiday!
Hope so
I mention Thurrock only because it was a more likely Ukip seat than South Thanet, which didn't even make it in the list as a good one without Farage as candidate. Hypothetically if he won that and we got 7% I would say he did a worse job than the state of play
Reading between the lines I reckon he thought he couldn't be leader if Ukip had 4-5 MPs and he wasn't one of them... But as we only have one, nothing's changed other than 3.8m people voted for us. He should stand again win easily and carry on the good work.
I bet the other parties hope he is no longer Ukip leader
Kellner explicitly ruled out a 'late shift' explanation in the election night programme between 10pm and 11pm i.e. after the exit poll but before the results came in. YouGov did polling day surveys and found no meaningful change in his opinion. Of the four possible explanations, it was the one he dismissed outright. The other three were that the opinion polls were wrong, the exit poll was wrong, or that both were wrong.
Arguably, as we now know that the opinion polls were badly wrong, you could argue that the errors there mean that there findings on polling day are also less legitimate. Possibly. But the argument for a late shift relies on the opinion polls being right, up until election day, which seems a much greater leap of faith.
In 1992, when there may well have been a late shift, there were both political and methodological explanations (Sheffield and all that). This time, particularly given the scale of postal voting, I don't see it.
What is fascinating is the disparity between pollsters using data from potential voters - which has gone horribly wrong - and actual voters - with exit polls now gobsmackingly good for the past two elections.
That does seem to suggest they are just not getting to people. Forget phones, computers. Do it the old fashioned way - go out and meet people, armed with a clipboard. But that is expensive. Not going to happen.
I do think that people are intimidated by views they are expected to hold, held back from expressing those they actually hold. I wonder what opinion polling would come up with on say corporal punishment for kids? It is not "fashionable" to believe in it. Would surveys REALLY find the true state of the nation's position? Or do people self-censor to pollsters - especially if they think those views are being recorded and might somehow come back on them?
It was revealed on the news channels yesterday that
1) Survation had the Tories on 37% in a poll on Wednesday and they shredded it, because they didn't believe it
2) The phone pollsters didn't believe the Tories were 3% ahead, so they changed some parts of their model in the final week in order to converge with the online pollsters i.e neck and neck.
Maybe it isn't just the general public are "intimidated", but the pollsters were too.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
@RepublicanTory - believe we had a £20 charity bet that the Tories win more votes than Labour in 2015. Can you send the money to the pb.com site fund please
@Pulpstar we had a £5 charity or OGH bet that UKIP wouldn't win a seat. Where do you want me to send the money? (I assume I lost!)
@LucianFletcher [if you still post] we had a £5 Dirty Dicks drinks bet that UKIP wouldn't win a seat. Where do you want me to send the money? (I assume I lost!)
You are being very noble. 'That Tory' won in Clacton. Carswell does not represent UKIP. He represents himself and if Farage sees UKIP as an alternate labour party these days than Carswell is certainly in the wrong party.
Has civil war not broken out in UKIP yet over Farage not appointing the deputy party leader as the stand-in leader after he resigned? How does it work that the deputy (deputy!) Chairman becomes the stand in leader?
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
I agree with Sean, and that is unusual. I think we all need to be a bit more generous to each other and take posters at face value, especially new posters. I remember being annoyed when a couple of posters didn't believe that I had voted LibDem in 2010. Yes, we might fall for some fakery at times but usually it is obvious, and I would rather see a breadth of alternative views posted and debated.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either. If he stays as an MP and active in the party I could only see him as unhelpful and divisive. Any one heard about his plans?
He once taught at Harvard for a year. He could do a regular seminar on "predistribution" and its electoral impact.
Banning trolls who are rude and offensive or spammers makes sense.
Banning people for holding unusal ideas I don't think helps.
But I'll give Mike a lot of credit. I've criticised his views and he's responded to it, not banned. This is a remarkably liberal (lowercase l) site that allows views from across the spectrum.
I confess I thought that the negative impacts of being in government during a difficult economic time would hinder the Tories and help Labour, despite the economy picking up and Labour still carrying some of the blame. What a right wally I was.
That gives me some more hope on the question of today's thread, as I am a longstanding pessimistic unionist who is struggling to see a solution that keeps us together in the medium or long term, and the issue that with the SNP so massively endorsed in Scotland more than last time Cameron cannot really just do whatever he wants in Scotland - and that they have no incentive to play nice with him even should he try to - makes me even more worried, but I was so clearly and consistently wrong about Labour winning the GE that hopefully my judgement on this issue is similarly incorrect.
Off topic, and entirely meaninglessly, I was scrolling through a list of Labour leadership hopefuls, and a passing relative, Labour voter but not clued up on politics, reacted viscerally against the mere sight of Tristram Hunt (not that they knew who he was). A bit harsh I thought, but amusing nonetheless.
For me too many of the discussions on the polls were dismissive of those who questioned the tablets of stone, about LD incumbency for example. Someone else quickly smashed me down for suggesting that the polling inaccuracies over the euros mattered by saying that the Labour vote would push up again in a GE. Of course many of such comments may be inaccurate or flawed but surely now we all need to re-think the old shibboleths after the events of Thursday. I heard the YG chap on Sky saying they got the euros right and talking about a few tweaks. The first point was untrue and the latter will simply not cut it.
On the thread headers yes many were somewhat bizarre but they provided fun for the more resilient PB tories.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
Thanks Sean et. al.
There's a rather good header by Alison Pearson today: 'Forgive me if I ever doubted the sense and sensibility of the voting British public.'
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
There is much in that post which I agree with, the one on Crosby & Boris towards the end being a peak of thread choice... The red liberals and as you say the E&W swings in the polls were also broken records.
But
PB has been unmissable, helped me win a lot of money (esp that SNP poll from Lord A on somewhere in Scotland I still don't know/care where it is) and as a site did fantastically to cope on election night too.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
And you keep polishing your jackboots. Or should it be jockboots?
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
It is a fascinating watch and you can see what the Tories were up to now with him and Messina, and the signs were there when it was revealed now much they were spending on Facebook 6 months ago and they were trying to keep it quiet.
The take always were
#1) General polls in the papers are waste of time
#2) Just because a policy is popular / unpopular in those polls doesn't mean it will convert in to more / less votes. They are far too blunt a tool.
#3) You don't use poll to work out what policy to pursue, you using research to tailor the message of your policy, and work out how different people can be messaged differently.
#3) You can't sudden engage people in the final month. It doesn't matter if your man does amazingly well during the campaign, if you haven't made the connection with your targets they won't change their votes.
#4) Must engage with your targets way way before the election and build up some sort of rapport / connection.
I've been thinking much the same thing overnight - the SNP managed a huge but pointless win now the Tories have a overall majority.
I think FFA will be the most entertaining thing coming up to pop their balloon. And your point about the *only allowed* opinion isn't a recipe for success.
Look how shy even English Tories are. I wouldn't want to be in Scotland.
Probably contrary to prevailing opinion, but I think this whole situation could go very sour for the SNP very quickly. First of all, the obvious point to make is that their main slogan in the election was "vote for us and lock the Tories out". Well there's no doubt Scotland voted for them and,...er, didn't really work, did it? Some explaining to do. And the fact is that they don't have a monopoly on Scottish opinion, but they have a near monopoly on expressing what they think Scottish opinion is.
More practically, I think after the initial euphoria, I think the 56 MPs are not going to find it at all easy. There are no ready made induction/support networks for SNP MPs at Westminster which are going to have to be put in place very quickly. The sensible ones might try and form personal links with MPs from other parties, but for many I imagine that will require a different mindset from the default. Especially from a party who's mandate is to oppose/change the way Westminster operates - "slotting in" will, for many, not be an option.
Then there is the issue of what they are all going to do. There will obviously be resistance to putting them on "English" committees, and anyway there will only be so many posts to go round. The media will quickly focus on a few key
snip for space
That is wrong on every level I am afraid. You still know zilch about Scotland and its politics I am afraid.
If it is real YES. Given they cannot work out how to split the income tax for Smith bollox I find it hard to see how they coudl untangle the lies and obfuscation on real Scottish revenue in any reasonable timescale, so expect we will be independent before that in any case.
Yes - lets hope the courage & generosity he showed towards his prospective coalition partners in 2010 appears again. I think FFA with some transition arrangement (vs 'cold turkey') is the way to go. Both the Scots and English people are fair, even if their politicians frequently emphasise differences which are fundamentally trivial.....
The great advantage of the election result is that it will allow Cameron to deal directly with the SNP without having to consider the interests of the Scottish Labour Party.
The difference is that unlike Labour the 56 SNP's will be seen to be voting against Tory cuts back in Scotland. They will be seen putting Scotland's interests first and it will show clearly that we just get sh** upon. So will be the exact opposite of what you believe.
Whether its 56 SNP opposition MPs voting no while the country says yes, or 56 Labour MPs voting no while the country says yes - what difference do you think that will make?
Labour voted against every cut last time too, but are still in opposition in Westminster as much as you are.
You just cannot be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot at Westminster , it is how it is seen in Scotland. Labour MP's going down and voting with their pals has got them their just desserts. The SNP will not be ordered which way to vote by London Leaders. I cannot make it any simpler for you.
You can't be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot how it is seen in Scotland, it matters at Westminster.
What are you going to do, try and take our one MP off us? Oh no, we'll only have 329 MPs then, whatever are we going to do?
I don't expect SNP to be ordered by Cameron on how to vote, any more than I'd expect Labour to be ordered by Cameron. You're our opponents sat on the opposition benches, not our allies. There's nothing wrong if you're treated as any other opponent would. Nothing wrong with you being treated how you treat Tories.
You are so stupid you did not even understand what I posted. I was referring to what the options were based on a Labour government versus a Tory one. Given you wear union jack specs and have no inkling of political opinion in Scotland it seems pointless discussing anything as you are unable to grasp the points I am making. Just wave your union jack about and save your keyboard.
I prefer the Cross of St George personally as a flag. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the only thing that matters is the views of Scots, that you can have your cake and eat it to. We English don't matter except in how we can help the Scottish.
Sorry to break it to you, but the views of the English matter too. But you keep waving your Saltire while while having no inkling of the points I am making.
Philip, you are talking to a genius , I understand implicitly what you are prattling on about.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
Good
On a serious note I do love this country for how we can have "a good ding dong" and still respect each other. That we can have a divisive election and still live with each other.
We really are lucky and fortunate to live in such a free society and do owe a big debt for the previous generations who fought for these rights. In one way it was very apt for the election to be followed by the VE day memorials.
Comments
Neil Kinnock turned up on election night blaming the public for basically being a bunch of nasty, greedy, scum bags.
In many way's the Lab mind-set seem's to be where it was back in the 80's (and where the Tories were between 1997 and 2005)
That's what makes me think Labour is looking at 2025 before they get back. Their connection with the public has gone very badly wrong and that won't be turned around quickly.
Anybody thinking they can stick in Jarvis or Creasey or Kendall and recover all their losses from 2010 and 2015 in one go in 2020 is in denial about how badly wrong things have gone, IMO.
That will be key now for any party going forward, to understand how to balance both English and Scottish questions and how the UK can flourish and work for everyone
could I interest you in a cruise round Scotland ?
Problem is the odds on the McLarens for Q3 is evens for each driver. It's possible, but the odds are not tempting.
The BBC only seem to have them by each constituency (no download) - haven't seen a full data table anywhere else.
more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth
Until Labour face up to the Brown binge they won't regain trust.....
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Then there was the EdStone......
I've only made three bets on site, but am running three for three so can't complain.
Before that I grew up in the 70s in Newcastle, with rampant inflation, strikes, unburied dead and rubbish 20ft high in the streets.
It cast a Very Long Shadow over my opinions of Labour run HMG/union thuggery.
I was persuaded that Labour had changed under Tony and gave them a go in 1997, 2001 and very reluctantly in 2005 - the latter I deeply regret. 2001 is marginal for me as I wasn't against Iraq until I discovered it was based on a Big Fat Lie.
So my only advice would be - almost everyone in politics wants a good outcome for everyone, they just have different ways to get there. Peter Watt, one time Gen Sec of Labour wrote this after 2010. I honestly don't think enough Labour Party supporters took it to heart. He's now in charge of the NSPCC
I steered well clear !
Gove may be the best Tory for negotiations; a weighty member of cabinet with clear vision and also Scottish himself.
Get this right! we may not get the same opportunity again.
Anyway, I now find myself in the ridiculous position of knowing exactly who I think should be the next Tory leader but not really knowing who I want to lead my own party. Rest assured I'll be sharing my thoughts as the campaign progresses.
On Scotland, then I think SLAB need to break away and be seen as an independent Scottish party of the left with ambivalence towards the Union. That might be the defining issue for the SNP but I don't believe it should be for Labour.
Finally, well done to those PBers who called it right, and those who made money. I would love to see a guest article to learn more about what JackW enters into his model (see how I avoided the obvious double entendre there?).
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
The big problem is that one of the countries has 10 times the population of the second most populous country and several times the population of all the others combined. English regionalisation isn't the way and has already been rejected in much of the English north anyway. There are four countries involved here, and a country isn't equivalent to a region. A full-scale English parliament also isn't the way. Either it would be a useless body or it would make the British parliament increasingly irrelevant, which wouldn't be helpful at all. A way has to be found to give the four countries an equal role in some areas of the British administration without letting the smaller countries have a disproportionate say overall, which would discriminate against English people and inevitably lead to the rise of an "England first" trend, undermining the Union rather than strengthening it. If necessary, those areas of administration need to be created for the purpose, while avoiding a bureaucratic dog's breakfast. Difficult? Yes. Imagination and vision required.
A blend of the symbolic, the cultural and the political and economic aspects needs to be achieved - and we need harmony and friendly cooperation to be incentivised. That's hard but there are some people working on it and they are making quite a bit of progress behind closed doors.
I wish I could say more here...
As for 'being told what to do', I hear what you say about pre-election polling, but my experience on chatrooms is that many young SNP voters do tend to have that attitude. Often when I make points in favour of the Union they also tell me "You must be English" - which as it happens I'm not.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
As a rule of thumb,
righties think lefties are good people who believe in bad ideas.....
Lefties think righties are bad people.....
Of course there are exceptions to all rules of thumb - but its interesting there isn't a Conservative equivalent of Labour's 'Never Kissed a Tory' badge....
Too well crafted (even though I had a lose-loser tail)*. BigJohnOwl's owes FATJUGS fifty-quid though (and needs to understand that Mr Tissue-Price is not a SMF like me): The 33% bet was as well crafted.
* Many thanks to AntiFrank and Charles for offering to arbitrate.
There are many post-mortems taking place this weekend. One that must not escape our eyes is political-betting.com. Mike has been reasonably gracious about what happened so I hope he will leave this here. I’m not going to be rude.
Let me start by declaring my hand. Two years ago I was dismissed, literally, by Mike as ‘a pure fantasist’ for proposing that the Conservatives would win an outright majority in 2015. My ten pound bet to that effect was derided, and I was booted off the site.
Did that make me bitter? A little if I’m honest. You see, I had been around here since the inception of political betting. I probably confused people because I am a typically confused voter myself. In 2010 I voted Lib Dem but, like a lot of the public, I waiver. My political home is probably somewhere around pink Tory. When they get nasty, I part company.
Pb.com is a brilliant site. It is the foremost one in the country, without peer. A lot of this is down to the comment section where people are frequently polite. On which topic, let me commend the Labour supporters on here for being so magnanimous.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’
2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
3. Over-reliance on polls and pollsters. Take a leaf from the BBC here in that polls shouldn’t drive political debate. They can, apparently, be wrong.
4. Over-reliance on a single pollster. From Angus Reid in 2005-2010 to the frankly sycophantic obeisance of Lord Ashcroft this demeaned the site.
5. Don’t ban dissonant voices. Ban rudeness, or better still moderate it with sin bins (though do let the person know). Too many good people have been forced off here. They could have been given a warning followed by a temporary suspension. That requires moderation. Well, fine, appoint some of us as moderators. I am certain you will find a dozen willing volunteers within minutes who can work a rota.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you.
The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
That was a real Conjones Moment that dared the snipers to shut up. bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/leadership/lead95.shtml
Nick Palmer, so do you I believe?
That does seem to suggest they are just not getting to people. Forget phones, computers. Do it the old fashioned way - go out and meet people, armed with a clipboard. But that is expensive. Not going to happen.
I do think that people are intimidated by views they are expected to hold, held back from expressing those they actually hold. I wonder what opinion polling would come up with on say corporal punishment for kids? It is not "fashionable" to believe in it. Would surveys REALLY find the true state of the nation's position? Or do people self-censor to pollsters - especially if they think those views are being recorded and might somehow come back on them?
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
As I said, it was like they were just asking the same people, the same questions and getting the same answers, over and over again.
I wouldn't say the whole concept of online polling is worthless but it is clearly flawed and that flaw has been made much worse by the dominance of online polls over the past few years.
What is interesting though is that Opinium did seem to find genuine Con crossover and they are an online pollster. Maybe the difference is that Opinium were just polling weekly rather than daily or several times a week like the other online pollsters?
Imagine how his career might alter if Lab elect a leader who he actually rates... I imagine his services will then be in demand by the leftie mags once more and if he doesn't then the rightie ones will want him.
Nice position to be in.
Which is slightly ironic as I think Scottish Independence is a Scotland only decision.
Yes or no will do.
Curiously Nicola doesn't.....Independence '18 months'...FFA 'several years'.....
Sadly the plagiarising Mr Cork was beaten to coining the phrase by Dick Tuck in 1966.
Sorry to break it to you, but the views of the English matter too. But you keep waving your Saltire while while having no inkling of the points I am making.
https://youtu.be/G5qIgSKG_s4?t=1m1s
Much to ponder on there. Sad that you were not able to post your "7% lead" output from your Al Gore Rhythm. And I would be fascinated to know how you arrived at your outcome....!
Though I suspect that Miliband saying that was a mistake. The problem is that it confirmed the worst fears on the leadership approval ratings and economic competence. It played straight into his biggest weakness.
according to local paper
"A clearly upset Mr Ward could not even bring himself to share the podium with the victor, Bradford Council deputy leader Councillor Imran Hussain as the results were declared"
If he stays as an MP and active in the party I could only see him as unhelpful and divisive. Any one heard about his plans?
Alot of herding amongst the academic community, not just pollsters.
Sturgeon's leader ratings made me feel a bit more confident in the Scottish constituency polls than any where Labour had a lead in England in particular.
- Let me win a working majority at the election.
- Let Nicola Sturgeon win most of the seats in Scotland, but spend five years consumed by impotent rage because she has no power in Westminster
- Let Ed Balls lose......
....oh, and Vince Cable. Did I get that one in in time?
Also maybe time for an amnesty for all banned posters? Tim, banned or not, when he could control some his worst bile and smears had value, along with many others.
Mike got the last few years very very wrong, dismissing valid points and opinions.
Dusting myself down after the shellacking my betting accounts took on Friday.
Thoughts turn to Lab leadership. Anyway take my tip in March of Dan Jarvis being value at 23/1? He's now on around 5. Tempted to cash-out.
labour elections, lib dem elections, scotland, English questions etc etc.
For what it is worth I take the following view that it was all about mood music and almost nothing done at a constituency level was going to sufficiently change that.
Key points for me was that the tuition fee was not the problem per se but taken to be an illustrative example of us saying one thing and then doing another (albeit with the best intentions). This then lead into the question about what are Libdems for/about/going to do.
Whilst the message about being in the central ground and temporing the others was a good message, because of the above there was not a clear back story of who the libdems actually are. In this I agree with Jeremy Browne about active liberalism, but this is something that takes years to infiltrate the background noise and should have been focused upon immediately in 2010.
The task for the next 4 years is not to talk detailed policy but to build the structure of what liberalism is/means in the 2020s particularly in an open multicultual constantly changing world. Only in year 5 of this parliament should we then start illustrating this with specific policy proposals.
Is Tim Farron the best man (we have no women MPs!) for the job?
Perhaps it's just that - he needs to get well again before making any longer term decisions. No one with that much personality and energy throws in the towel without a very good reason.
1) Survation had the Tories on 37% in a poll on Wednesday and they shredded it, because they didn't believe it
2) The phone pollsters didn't believe the Tories were 3% ahead, so they changed some parts of their model in the final week in order to converge with the online pollsters i.e neck and neck.
Maybe it isn't just the general public are "intimidated", but the pollsters were too.
Carswell does not represent UKIP. He represents himself and if Farage sees UKIP as an alternate labour party these days than Carswell is certainly in the wrong party.
Has civil war not broken out in UKIP yet over Farage not appointing the deputy party leader as the stand-in leader after he resigned?
How does it work that the deputy (deputy!) Chairman becomes the stand in leader?
Banning people for holding unusal ideas I don't think helps.
But I'll give Mike a lot of credit. I've criticised his views and he's responded to it, not banned. This is a remarkably liberal (lowercase l) site that allows views from across the spectrum.
That gives me some more hope on the question of today's thread, as I am a longstanding pessimistic unionist who is struggling to see a solution that keeps us together in the medium or long term, and the issue that with the SNP so massively endorsed in Scotland more than last time Cameron cannot really just do whatever he wants in Scotland - and that they have no incentive to play nice with him even should he try to - makes me even more worried, but I was so clearly and consistently wrong about Labour winning the GE that hopefully my judgement on this issue is similarly incorrect.
Off topic, and entirely meaninglessly, I was scrolling through a list of Labour leadership hopefuls, and a passing relative, Labour voter but not clued up on politics, reacted viscerally against the mere sight of Tristram Hunt (not that they knew who he was). A bit harsh I thought, but amusing nonetheless.
On the thread headers yes many were somewhat bizarre but they provided fun for the more resilient PB tories.
There's a rather good header by Alison Pearson today: 'Forgive me if I ever doubted the sense and sensibility of the voting British public.'
But
PB has been unmissable, helped me win a lot of money (esp that SNP poll from Lord A on somewhere in Scotland I still don't know/care where it is) and as a site did fantastically to cope on election night too.
Who will be the TPD2 in this Parliament?
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/lynton-crosby-wedge-politics-general-election-tories
It is a fascinating watch and you can see what the Tories were up to now with him and Messina, and the signs were there when it was revealed now much they were spending on Facebook 6 months ago and they were trying to keep it quiet.
The take always were
#1) General polls in the papers are waste of time
#2) Just because a policy is popular / unpopular in those polls doesn't mean it will convert in to more / less votes. They are far too blunt a tool.
#3) You don't use poll to work out what policy to pursue, you using research to tailor the message of your policy, and work out how different people can be messaged differently.
#3) You can't sudden engage people in the final month. It doesn't matter if your man does amazingly well during the campaign, if you haven't made the connection with your targets they won't change their votes.
#4) Must engage with your targets way way before the election and build up some sort of rapport / connection.
On a serious note I do love this country for how we can have "a good ding dong" and still respect each other. That we can have a divisive election and still live with each other.
We really are lucky and fortunate to live in such a free society and do owe a big debt for the previous generations who fought for these rights. In one way it was very apt for the election to be followed by the VE day memorials.