politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So were there really shy Kippers?
Though every single phone poll underestimated UKIP, it was within an acceptable amount, and the largest errors were from the online polls from Panelbase and Survation, who overestimated UKIP by 3%.
The polls that underestimated UKIP, on average, underestimated UKIP by 1.6%, and the polls that overestimated, did so on average by 1.9%. The online pollsters overestimated UKIP by 0.8% and the phone underestimated UKIP by 1.7%.
This would seem to imply that the Con voters the polls hadn't seen, who probably mostly switched on the day, all came from Lib and Lab VI.
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
Interesting from Frank Field in the MoS on how Labour should look carefully at why they went wrong in the election. He can't be thinking of running for leader, can he?
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
One of the interesting things about the polling debacle is that the polls (take ELBOW for example) got the kippers, LDs, Greens, SNP and PC about right. It was Lab and Con they got wrong and ONLY Lab and Con they got wrong. Their methodology may not be as far out as first appearances suggest.
This would seem to imply that the Con voters the polls hadn't seen, who probably mostly switched on the day, all came from Lib and Lab VI.
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Survation consistently found a right of centre vote share of 50% or so, which turned out to be correct. But, they had UKIP on 16-18%. I think there may have been a late switch from Blue Kippers back to the Tories, while Red and Yellow Kippers remained in place. In the local elections, I think UKIP "won" Thurrock, Thanet South, and Boston, suggesting some tactical voting at Parliamentary level.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
This would seem to imply that the Con voters the polls hadn't seen, who probably mostly switched on the day, all came from Lib and Lab VI.
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Survation consistently found a right of centre vote share of 50% or so, which turned out to be correct. But, they had UKIP on 16-18%. I think there may have been a late switch from Blue Kippers back to the Tories, while Red and Yellow Kippers remained in place. In the local elections, I think UKIP "won" Thurrock, Thanet South, and Boston, suggesting some tactical voting at Parliamentary level.
Yup, that's how I'd see it. I mean, if there was a late swing on the day from fear of EICPM or the SNP or whatever, it seems weird for it to be confined to hitherto Lab VI.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
One of the interesting things about the polling debacle is that the polls (take ELBOW for example) got the kippers, LDs, Greens, SNP and PC about right. It was Lab and Con they got wrong and ONLY Lab and Con they got wrong. Their methodology may not be as far out as first appearances suggest.
I observed yesterday that the academic analysis of this election will be a very interesting read as basically no-one predicted the result, although there were stories around yesterday that the Tories' internal polling was closer than the newspaper polls - but still not as good as the exit poll. Oh to be a PhD student in politics and statistics!
In the shock of defeat Labour is starting to realise that it has wasted the past five years loyally indulging a leader who neither its MPs nor ordinary members wanted. With hindsight it’s no surprise the electorate said, “No, thanks,” as well.
Worse, Labour switched off its brain, choosing not to build on its most successful period in office. The sentimental party conference applauded when Ed Miliband boasted: “I am not Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.”
Labour’s wipeout in Scotland is an existential threat to its status as a natural party of government or opposition. A proper leadership contest now is the party’s best chance to re-establish itself.
Question: What are the Conservatives going to do about boundary changes? Was the reduction to 600 in their manifesto? I can't believe they're too keen to press ahead with the introduction of the revised constituencies as per the 2013 Act - could cause some serious rebellions from their own party. Isn't there also the possibility that the 2013 Act causes serious problems as it is based (I think) on registered voters - and the situation in Scotland will now be somewhat skewed in Scotland's favour (due to the big increase post referendum). But there should probably be some sort of a more traditional boundary review due anyway?
Question: What are the Conservatives going to do about boundary changes? Was the reduction to 600 in their manifesto? I can't believe they're too keen to press ahead with the introduction of the revised constituencies as per the 2013 Act - could cause some serious rebellions from their own party. But there should probably be some sort of a more traditional boundary review due anyway?
According to below, they will go ahead with a boundary review, but with 650 seats.
Whilst it sounds paradoxical, is it not possible that a signficant chunk of the UKIP vote came directly from the Liberal Democrats? On the basis that at every election there is a fairly substantial (10%+) vote that is a pure protest vote, which is guided purely by the need to oppose another party, with little consideration for the policies that their chosen party espouses. And maybe it is not even paradoxical in areas like the South West where the LibDem pro-European stance has always seemed to bear little correlation with the obvious Euroscepticism of their voters.
What is it with all these Labour MPs jumping up and down to pronounce where it all went wrong and what they need to do to put it right? Is it just to get themselves noticed early to lay down a marker for the leadership contest? What ever they may believe went wrong, they can't really know without a proper full scale analysis which should take weeks and months. There will even be some areas where things went wrong where it was beyond their control, and attempting to reach solutions would be futile. And some things where solutions do 'exist' but the solutions are basically dependent on others (eg. can't happen without Tory screw-up).
Working on the GOTV,I found no "shy" kippers.In fact.quite the opposite.The real difference was the Lab to Con switchers in the last week.On the day,many of those who said they were voting Labour were not prepared to divulge that they did in fact do just that."That's between me and the ballot box" was a phrase I heard time and time again on the day.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
One of the interesting things about the polling debacle is that the polls (take ELBOW for example) got the kippers, LDs, Greens, SNP and PC about right. It was Lab and Con they got wrong and ONLY Lab and Con they got wrong. Their methodology may not be as far out as first appearances suggest.
I observed yesterday that the academic analysis of this election will be a very interesting read as basically no-one predicted the result, although there were stories around yesterday that the Tories' internal polling was closer than the newspaper polls - but still not as good as the exit poll. Oh to be a PhD student in politics and statistics!
I think that leadership approval figures are what made the difference between the Con and Lab figures. These were the only two PM candidates so the effect on the other parties much less. In the end we need to remember that Dave polls better than his party, Ed significantly less well. The final QT and the #edstone fiasco exposed Eds poor judgement to anyone with lingering doubts.
Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
Question: What are the Conservatives going to do about boundary changes? Was the reduction to 600 in their manifesto? I can't believe they're too keen to press ahead with the introduction of the revised constituencies as per the 2013 Act - could cause some serious rebellions from their own party. But there should probably be some sort of a more traditional boundary review due anyway?
According to below, they will go ahead with a boundary review, but with 650 seats.
Their manifesto said:
In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value. We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018.
Working on the GOTV,I found no "shy" kippers.In fact.quite the opposite.The real difference was the Lab to Con switchers in the last week.On the day,many of those who said they were voting Labour were not prepared to divulge that they did in fact do just that."That's between me and the ballot box" was a phrase I heard time and time again on the day.
You would do well to read Nick Cohen's article posted below then to see why your party has become so disdained by ordinary people. Look at the "protests" in London at the moment, these people are in the same ideological camp as Labour, is it any wonder that people who don't want to vote Labour or Green keep quiet about their intentions.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
Chuka first of the contenders to get a TV interview, in the soft hands of Andrew Marr at 9
Nicola is also on, presumably to explain why she failed to lock the Tories out of Downing Street and how she won't win votes against a majority government. Or not.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Chuka first of the contenders to get a TV interview, in the soft hands of Andrew Marr at 9
Nicola is also on, presumably to explain why she failed to lock the Tories out of Downing Street and how she won't win votes against a majority government. Or not.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
One of the interesting things about the polling debacle is that the polls (take ELBOW for example) got the kippers, LDs, Greens, SNP and PC about right. It was Lab and Con they got wrong and ONLY Lab and Con they got wrong. Their methodology may not be as far out as first appearances suggest.
I observed yesterday that the academic analysis of this election will be a very interesting read as basically no-one predicted the result, although there were stories around yesterday that the Tories' internal polling was closer than the newspaper polls - but still not as good as the exit poll. Oh to be a PhD student in politics and statistics!
I think that leadership approval figures are what made the difference between the Con and Lab figures. These were the only two PM candidates so the effect on the other parties much less. In the end we need to remember that Dave polls better than his party, Ed significantly less well. The final QT and the #edstone fiasco exposed Eds poor judgement to anyone with lingering doubts.
Not just that but the Scottish angle too. The 'in the pocket of Salmond' hit home because Ed was seen as weak and Salmond and Sturgeon were not. It was therefore all too credible that Ed would go into negotiations with the SNP and come out having given everything up (which, as an aside, may have also sealed his party's fate in Scotland).
None of the Labour policies..such as they were..actually hung together and were picked apart in seconds..not just by the media but by everyone except labourites..They should have had the courage to get rid of the boy and they may have got in..but that calls for something they have got rid of.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
Ipsos MORI: C 36, L 35, LD 8, UKIP 11, GRN 5, OTH 5
Result: C 37.8, L 31.2, LD 8.1, UKIP 12.9, GRN 3.8, OTH 6.3 Rounded: C 38, L 31, LD 8, UKIP 13, GRN 4, OTH 6
Variance: C -2, L +4, LD -, UKIP -2, GRN +1, OTH -1
And this was the best poll of the bunch.
There was only one poll in the whole campaign which reflected the true Tory/Lab gap (ICM/Guardian) which was dismissed as an outlier. ICM should have trusted their model rather than conformed to YouGov's static garbage.
I hope this is the death of daily polls. YouGov's panel is nowhere near large enough to warrant a daily poll, they ask too many people the same questions that their answers become metronomic after a while and because of their overwhelming volume other pollsters seemed wary of stepping out of line. The blame for the great polling failure lies with YouGov and their paymaster, News Corp.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
OK. But the £12bn still has to come from somewhere.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with going negative - the Tory attack on a Labour/SNP nightmare probably shifted hundreds of thousands of votes - but there was also a positive element to the Conservative campaign (a good life etc) that was lacking from Labour. Unless I missed it?
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with going negative - the Tory attack on a Labour/SNP nightmare probably shifted hundreds of thousands of votes - but there was also a positive element to the Conservative campaign (a good life etc) that was lacking from Labour. Unless I missed it?
Remind me again about the positive element please ?
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
OK. But the £12bn still has to come from somewhere.
Which the chancellor will outline over the next year or so via the autumn statement and budget. It's not really going to be a secret for very long.
Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
In précis form .......
"The English are a race not worth saving"
Jack Straw , Labour Party
Well, if people aren't like that, why do they read those newspapers?
But what do I know. I would no more live in suburban England than I would put out my own eyes. (I can't live in the countryside - I have grand mal and so am not allowed to drive.
And everyone I know is either a graduate or a member of an ethnic minority - except my son.
What is it with all these Labour MPs jumping up and down to pronounce where it all went wrong and what they need to do to put it right? Is it just to get themselves noticed early to lay down a marker for the leadership contest? What ever they may believe went wrong, they can't really know without a proper full scale analysis which should take weeks and months. There will even be some areas where things went wrong where it was beyond their control, and attempting to reach solutions would be futile. And some things where solutions do 'exist' but the solutions are basically dependent on others (eg. can't happen without Tory screw-up).
Why? I've known where it all went wrong since 2010 (and said so) and so have they. Judge-led inquiry not required.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
He certainly would. I wonder if he and Nigel-as-was have ever had a heart-to-heart?
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
Another question, (when) do we get the data tables for the exit poll? It will be a very, very interesting read, especially as the only halfway accurate poll of the entire bloody campaign.
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
With a Labour leadership election due soon is there a reliable record anywhere that summarises the make up of the parliamentary party on a left right basis compared to pre election?
I seem to remember they were very proud of increasing party membership over the last couple of years. Do we know the drivers of this? As it is purported to be one member one vote analysis would be interesting.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
One of the interesting things about the polling debacle is that the polls (take ELBOW for example) got the kippers, LDs, Greens, SNP and PC about right. It was Lab and Con they got wrong and ONLY Lab and Con they got wrong. Their methodology may not be as far out as first appearances suggest.
I observed yesterday that the academic analysis of this election will be a very interesting read as basically no-one predicted the result, although there were stories around yesterday that the Tories' internal polling was closer than the newspaper polls - but still not as good as the exit poll. Oh to be a PhD student in politics and statistics!
I think that leadership approval figures are what made the difference between the Con and Lab figures. These were the only two PM candidates so the effect on the other parties much less. In the end we need to remember that Dave polls better than his party, Ed significantly less well. The final QT and the #edstone fiasco exposed Eds poor judgement to anyone with lingering doubts.
Not just that but the Scottish angle too. The 'in the pocket of Salmond' hit home because Ed was seen as weak and Salmond and Sturgeon were not. It was therefore all too credible that Ed would go into negotiations with the SNP and come out having given everything up (which, as an aside, may have also sealed his party's fate in Scotland).
Indeed.
The Conservatives had a stroke of luck post Indyref. I'm afraid Ed Miliband didn't really scare enough voters Salmond and Sturgeon on the other hand were guaranteed to give people sleepless nights if they held the balance of power.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
An interesting scenario could be Cameron calling him in as an advisor and telling Frank "to think the unthinkable" and then NOT sacking him when he does.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
Not entirely sure that can be true. UKIP got a great result with 13% of the vote. AND the Tories slightly increased their vote. The 'right' got over 50% of the UK vote and over 55% of the England vote.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with going negative - the Tory attack on a Labour/SNP nightmare probably shifted hundreds of thousands of votes - but there was also a positive element to the Conservative campaign (a good life etc) that was lacking from Labour. Unless I missed it?
Well I missed the Conservatives campaign positives. It was all scare and unfunded bribes.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
Not entirely sure that can be true. UKIP got a great result with 13% of the vote. AND the Tories slightly increased their vote. The 'right' got over 50% of the UK vote and over 55% of the England vote.
I expect the "right" got up to two-thirds of the vote in the shires.
With a Labour leadership election due soon is there a reliable record anywhere that summarises the make up of the parliamentary party on a left right basis compared to pre election?
I seem to remember they were very proud of increasing party membership over the last couple of years. Do we know the drivers of this? As it is purported to be one member one vote analysis would be interesting.
I think the main driver was £1 for annual membership and you get cheap beer for 12 months.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
An interesting scenario could be Cameron calling him in as an advisor and telling Frank "to think the unthinkable" and then NOT sacking him when he does.
Only saying.....
Nah, kippers elect him leader and wipe out Labour in their last bastions in N England.
Apparently boundary review will go through, but on 650 seats, not 600
I don't think this can be objected to. Suddenly 650 becomes acceptable. Saving money on 50 MPs not so important anymore. Wonder why ?
This policy (boundary reviews and seat reductions) always looked like it was dreamt up in the dark days of opposition, and owed much to a failure to realise most of the apparent bias to Labour was due to differential turnout.
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
So have any of the multitude of Labour MPs writing in today's papers recognised that their campaign was far too negative and too focused on "nasty NHS eating rich Tories and their non-dom friends"? If they put something positive forward - and no, banging on about rent controls, "freezing" energy prices and mansion taxes is not remotely positive - people might actually vote for them
It wasn't too negative; it was too unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with going negative (though it does help if that's offset with something positive), but the attacks have to hit home. Made-up 'secret Tory plans' just doesn't cut it.
Of course there's nothing wrong with going negative - the Tory attack on a Labour/SNP nightmare probably shifted hundreds of thousands of votes - but there was also a positive element to the Conservative campaign (a good life etc) that was lacking from Labour. Unless I missed it?
Well I missed the Conservatives campaign positives. It was all scare and unfunded bribes.
You must be the only "Tory" gutted about the result....
Another question, (when) do we get the data tables for the exit poll? It will be a very, very interesting read, especially as the only halfway accurate poll of the entire bloody campaign.
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
I'd be really interested in the data tables.
My switching model had two fundamentally wrong assumptions:
a) it assumed that 90% of 2010 LD voters would continue to vote LD in LD seats (but only 25% would stick with the LDs in none LD seats). b) it assumed that UKIP would get 16% of 2010 Con voters and 8% of 2010 Lab voters.
If I change the assumptions to
a) only 70% of 2010 LD voters continued to vote LD in LD seats (i.e. a much bigger "leakage") b) UKIP gets only 8% of 2010 Con voters but 16% of 2010 voters (i.e. a reversal of the makeup of UKIP's vote so that it is mainly ex Lab) then the model is almost spot on: Con 228 Lab 230 LD 11 SNP 57.
If this is right, then the Tories managed to get many blue Kippers to vote Tory, but Lab totally failed to attract back the red kippers who were also larger in number.
The data tables should shed some light on this hypothesis.
PS My model still doesn't totally explain some London seats e.g. Twickenham where it is clear that many ex-LDs voted Tory. Could this be the mansion tax effect?
On reflection I think the GE result is a fabulous success for the UK not because it returns a Tory government with a tiny majority, but because it probably forces the Labour party to become a bit more sensible. Fear drove this election. Fear that we'd actually get a red in tooth and claw redistributive state control commie in No.10. I sincerely hope that Labour now accepts that electoral victory requires taking small c conservative Middle England with you. Labour has to de-scarify itself for the average low paid English voter. By choosing Miliband as leader they went full throttle in the wrong direction. They spent five years denying their mistakes and putting precisely zero effort into rethinking who they are. From a purely tribal self-interested righty viewpoint I hope they again go for an Islington guardianista knobber. For the UK it would be better that they select a normal person with a hinterland outside politics who can talk human to a car mechanic in Kidderminster and lead the party in a brutal re-appraisal of itself.
Who is to blame for Labour's defeat? What about Alistair Darling, whose entirely negative Better Together campaign allowed Labour to become tainted as anti-Scots, in the same way the Conservatives already were?
Apparently boundary review will go through, but on 650 seats, not 600
I don't think this can be objected to. Suddenly 650 becomes acceptable. Saving money on 50 MPs not so important anymore. Wonder why ?
This policy (boundary reviews and seat reductions) always looked like it was dreamt up in the dark days of opposition, and owed much to a failure to realise most of the apparent bias to Labour was due to differential turnout.
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
No it isn't justified, they have their own Parlt. Same rule applied to NI up to 1972, they had their own form of devolution and were actually underrepresented. Why should Wales be over except for it gives Labour a few safe seats ?
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
Not entirely sure that can be true. UKIP got a great result with 13% of the vote. AND the Tories slightly increased their vote. The 'right' got over 50% of the UK vote and over 55% of the England vote.
I expect the "right" got up to two-thirds of the vote in the shires.
I suspect most of the UKIP vote is ex-Lab. You shouldn't assume UKIP voters are all right wing.
On reflection I think the GE result is a fabulous success for the UK not because it returns a Tory government with a tiny majority, but because it probably forces the Labour party to become a bit more sensible. Fear drove this election. Fear that we'd actually get a red in tooth and claw redistributive state control commie in No.10. I sincerely hope that Labour now accepts that electoral victory requires taking small c conservative Middle England with you. Labour has to de-scarify itself for the average low paid English voter. By choosing Miliband as leader they went full throttle in the wrong direction. They spent five years denying their mistakes and putting precisely zero effort into rethinking who they are. From a purely tribal self-interested righty viewpoint I hope they again go for an Islington guardianista knobber. For the UK it would be better that they select a normal person with a hinterland outside politics who can talk human to a car mechanic in Kidderminster and lead the party in a brutal re-appraisal of itself.
More fun of course is for once Cameron will get a benefit from parking his tanks on the centre lawn. If he co-opts his right the Conservatives are in a strong position. Labour will have to fight their way back in to the centre at the same time as the LDs are looking their seats back.
Question on the right time to select a new leader.
Labour will have over for years to become established and fill in the inherited blank sheet of paper. Tory will be able to select a fresh face for 2020 who could be selected as the best person to beat a known Labour opponent.
Given the unlikely situation that the Tory selection is done well without ripping the party apart, I'm not sure who is in the better position.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Apparently boundary review will go through, but on 650 seats, not 600
I don't think this can be objected to. Suddenly 650 becomes acceptable. Saving money on 50 MPs not so important anymore. Wonder why ?
This policy (boundary reviews and seat reductions) always looked like it was dreamt up in the dark days of opposition, and owed much to a failure to realise most of the apparent bias to Labour was due to differential turnout.
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
No it isn't justified, they have their own Parlt. Same rule applied to NI up to 1972, they had their own form of devolution and were actually underrepresented. Why should Wales be over except for it gives Labour a few safe seats ?
Realpolitik: because Conservatives now hold 11 Welsh seats and do not want to be locked out of Wales as they have been locked out of Scotland. The Conservative Party does not want to become the de facto English Nationalist Party.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
Not entirely sure that can be true. UKIP got a great result with 13% of the vote. AND the Tories slightly increased their vote. The 'right' got over 50% of the UK vote and over 55% of the England vote.
I expect the "right" got up to two-thirds of the vote in the shires.
I suspect most of the UKIP vote is ex-Lab. You shouldn't assume UKIP voters are all right wing.
Is there not a possibility that a proportion of Labour voters are more right wing than the labour party?
This would seem to imply that the Con voters the polls hadn't seen, who probably mostly switched on the day, all came from Lib and Lab VI.
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Survation consistently found a right of centre vote share of 50% or so, which turned out to be correct. But, they had UKIP on 16-18%. I think there may have been a late switch from Blue Kippers back to the Tories, while Red and Yellow Kippers remained in place. In the local elections, I think UKIP "won" Thurrock, Thanet South, and Boston, suggesting some tactical voting at Parliamentary level.
Or It could just be that people have learned they can split their vote. They may not think that UKIP are a serious enough party for government, but OK for local government. For many people the reason they support a particular party will be based on national issues - economics, attitude to civil liberties, defence etc - not really relevant to local issues.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Jim Messina couldn't have won it if SLAB hadn't put in the groundwork of villainising everything Tory and English. They slit their own throats.
Scottish Labour has spent the last 3 elections fighting the wrong enemy.
One of the things that the pollsters might have got right is that there was a late swing on the importance of economic competence. The most telling point of the campaign might well have been when a BBC audience, a BBC audience (as Kinnock might say) was openly derisory of Ed's response that the last Labour government did not spend too much.
The much higher levels of approval for leadership and economic competence crystallised in this way and persuaded the undecided that it was safer to stay with people who had done quite well and knew what they were doing.
In my opinion the only time in my adult life time this has not been a major problem for Labour was when Blair and (incredibly with hindsight) Brown worked so hard to assure the City, business and indirectly the people that they could be trusted with the economy in 1997. They kept that up for a decade and dominated UK politics as a result.
Ed, in contrast, consistently came across as anti business. His attacks on fat cats and millionaires seemed an attack on aspiration and far more importantly made people wonder if he could make a success of the economy. He simply had no interest in the detail of making money rather than spending it.
For me, this makes it as plain as a pikestaff where Labour has to go next. They need leadership which is not tainted with failures of Brown; who, like Mandelson, is extremely relaxed about people getting filthy rich and who want to concentrate at least as much on making money as spending it.
There is much to do in this area. Blair went on about education, education, education but it took a right wing radical like Gove to really attack the way that children from poorer families are so badly treated by our educational establishment. One of the consequences of this failure is very poor productivity and the consequence of that is poverty wages. The last government had some success in addressing our fiscal crisis (although there is a lot more to do) but very, very little success in addressing our productivity problems and our chronic trade deficit. Our failures in these areas mean poor people remain poor.
For me, this makes it fairly obvious that Chuka Umunna is the obvious candidate for the next leader. He has already spoken well on this area. It also means the next leader needs to get to work developing a program of government addressing these problems. No more blank sheets of paper.
And Alec Douglas-Home when the former Prime Minister became Foreign Secretary for Edward Heath. Similarly, Neville Chamberlain was Lord President under Winston Churchill.
Can anyone get past the paywall on: http://t.co/MC1fwnzzBp? Specifically the bit about the Tories 'helping' Clegg?
"Miliband’s plans emerged as a minister suggested the Tories are prepared to help Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader, and two of his ousted ministers — Danny Alexander and David Laws — land a big international role, a public sector post or City job.
The minister said Clegg would be nominated for a role at the UN if he wanted one, but that he might reject a “bauble” from his former coalition partners.
He added: “There’s a lot of interest in and sympathy towards Danny. He doesn’t want to go into the Lords. Whether in the public or private sector, there would be a place where he could do well and make a difference."
And Alec Douglas-Home when the former Prime Minister became Foreign Secretary for Edward Heath. Similarly, Neville Chamberlain was Lord President under Winston Churchill.
I wonder if Cam would do this. I suppose 15 years of leading the Tory party and 10 as PM might be enough!
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Jim Messina couldn't have won it if SLAB hadn't put in the groundwork of villainising everything Tory and English. They slit their own throats.
Scottish Labour has spent the last 3 elections fighting the wrong enemy.
See my post about Alistair Darling's wholly negative, anti-Scots Better Together campaign.
Another question, (when) do we get the data tables for the exit poll? It will be a very, very interesting read, especially as the only halfway accurate poll of the entire bloody campaign.
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
Actually I don't think there will be any data tables for the exit poll.
By coincidence IPSOS Mori were conductng an exit poll at the polling station I was telling at in Barnes (Richmond Park). Their method was to pick people exiting the polling station (I think using random number tables) and ask them to fill in a ballot paper similar to the one they had just filled in, and post it in a dummy ballot box. It was a secret poll and they were asked for no other information. I don't know how they could produce data tables on this basis.
I was told that they were conducting the exit polls at 139 different polling stations in the UK, most of them identical to the ones used in 2010 so they could analyse any shifts. Maybe this analysis might produce some useful switching data?
The polling station I was at, sporting an LD rosette, was in an ex Council estate (council houses now worth much more than £1m each though many with the original working class owners). In previous years this was full of Labour tactical voters for LDs. This time, judging by the reaction to myself and the Tory teller beside me with a big blue rosette, many of the voters at this polling station were Lab or UKIP. Some openly said they were voting UKIP. Others told me to eff off. NB Richmond Park overall did not get a large UKIP vote. It is not natural Labour territory.
Labours selling points...Pink Bus..Large slab of stone..Brand..THE Hobbitt..class envy..wealth envy..the undefined mansion tax..the increase in benefits ..TAX RISES..Envy politics.. The possibility of joining a failing currency..no EU REF.. gimmicks and negativity all the way through.
Assuming the new boundaries rules go through (as modified to avoid unsettling Tory backbenchers) Labour need to pull their fingers out and work out how they're going to get people in their safe seats back on the electoral register. It doesn't matter whether the people they get on the register support them or not - they just need to prevent their electorates from shrinking so that the Boundary Commission don't abolish their seats.
Apart from the obvious organizational things, Labour local authorities need to start thinking up controversial things to have referendums about. It doesn't matter what, anything that riles people up. Supermarkets? Jeremy Clarkson?
He will need to move to identifying better solutions to difficult problems. his ability to do this could depend on the quality of the people he surrounds himself with. As yet that isn't one of his strengths.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Jim Messina couldn't have won it if SLAB hadn't put in the groundwork of villainising everything Tory and English. They slit their own throats.
Scottish Labour has spent the last 3 elections fighting the wrong enemy.
See my post about Alistair Darling's wholly negative, anti-Scots Better Together campaign.
Apparently boundary review will go through, but on 650 seats, not 600
I don't think this can be objected to. Suddenly 650 becomes acceptable. Saving money on 50 MPs not so important anymore. Wonder why ?
This policy (boundary reviews and seat reductions) always looked like it was dreamt up in the dark days of opposition, and owed much to a failure to realise most of the apparent bias to Labour was due to differential turnout.
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
No it isn't justified, they have their own Parlt. Same rule applied to NI up to 1972, they had their own form of devolution and were actually underrepresented. Why should Wales be over except for it gives Labour a few safe seats ?
Wales have much less control over their affairs than either Scotland or pre-1972 NI.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Most of those ad views are tiny relative to the electorate. The proportion of swing voters they got, minuscule.
It was Liam Byrne wot won it. The week before polling, the attack had been SNP. That softened up a lot of voters. The final week was delivery of a glossy leaflet - comparing where we were 5 years ago - "there is no money" - versus where we are today, one of the strongest economies in the world. It was the PERFECT encapsulation of Labour's weakness.
Liam Byrne may have cost Labour 20 seats. Maybe more.
Another question, (when) do we get the data tables for the exit poll? It will be a very, very interesting read, especially as the only halfway accurate poll of the entire bloody campaign.
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
I'm not sure you weight an exit poll in the same way as a VI poll, you just ask lots of people how they voted in mostly marginal constituencies.
Apparently boundary review will go through, but on 650 seats, not 600
I don't think this can be objected to. Suddenly 650 becomes acceptable. Saving money on 50 MPs not so important anymore. Wonder why ?
This policy (boundary reviews and seat reductions) always looked like it was dreamt up in the dark days of opposition, and owed much to a failure to realise most of the apparent bias to Labour was due to differential turnout.
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
No it isn't justified, they have their own Parlt. Same rule applied to NI up to 1972, they had their own form of devolution and were actually underrepresented. Why should Wales be over except for it gives Labour a few safe seats ?
Wales have much less control over their affairs than either Scotland or pre-1972 NI.
but more than England
Wales is the most over-represented part of the UK at Westminster. From memory England and NI return one MP per 100k population in Wales it's 86k.
Ironically it was the sworn enemy of the tories, SNP, who were the single biggest factor in their success. Plenty of people 'wanted" to vote ukip, they were the undecideds, but fear of a labour/SNP stitch up made them vote tory. In a very negative election in so many respects, people voted along lines of what they didn't want rather than what they did want. I see no great scenes of jubilation outside Downing Street.
I had been reporting back here for a couple of weeks prior to Thursday that there was a sizeable Kipper-favourable vote that was struggling - hating the idea of being ruled by Scotland even more than being ruled by Brussels. As suggested, many were prepared to split their vote in the national and locals.
It was Jim Messina what won it, as Conservative/Ukip waverers could be targeted with SNP-pwns-Labour attacks.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25 53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29 61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58 67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49 84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45 88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14 89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19 174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41 420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Most of those ad views are tiny relative to the electorate. The proportion of swing voters they got, minuscule.
It was Liam Byrne wot won it. The week before polling, the attack had been SNP. That softened up a lot of voters. The final week was delivery of a glossy leaflet - comparing where we were 5 years ago - "there is no money" - versus where we are today, one of the strongest economies in the world. It was the PERFECT encapsulation of Labour's weakness.
Liam Byrne may have cost Labour 20 seats. Maybe more.
Am I alone in feeling a bit sorry for Liam Byrne? A little joke has destroyed his career and, in Cameron's hands, done terrible damage to his party. It's a bit unfair and demonstrates what a rough trade politics is.
Another example of that is that the idea that the next Labour leader would want Ed in his next shadow cabinet or indeed anywhere near him is patently absurd.
Another question, (when) do we get the data tables for the exit poll? It will be a very, very interesting read, especially as the only halfway accurate poll of the entire bloody campaign.
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
I'm not sure you weight an exit poll in the same way as a VI poll, you just ask lots of people how they voted in mostly marginal constituencies.
They used the same constituencies as last time, just with more people AIUI so there can be a 2010/2015 comparison.
Comments
Arent both of these within MOE?
Another possibility would be that there were more Kippers out there than the polls found, but some of them switched at the last minute, like Lib and Lab VI.
Yes the UKIP vote was about right, at least with MoE for most polls. But that was about all they did get right, they missed the Con and Lab votes by a long way, turning a very hung Parliament into a clear result.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3075157/Yes-Ed-DID-spend-money-say-sorry-Miliband-explain-Labour-lost-badly-writes-former-minister-FRANK-FIELD.html
I guess this means new legislation that has to go through the Lords etc...
@MrDuttonPeabody: Comment Is Free has become a wailing sandpaper circle jerk of ambitious Labour MP's who were fine with the strategy until Thursday.
EDIT: how about i read previous comments first!
Nick Cohen in the Guardian seems to be the closest one to sane that I've found so far:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english
An honourable mention to Frank Field in the MoS too, linked below.
They have to pay for Ed's gravestone somehow
Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes
of more equal value. We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018.
"The English are a race not worth saving"
Jack Straw , Labour Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32677341
Nicola is also on, presumably to explain why she failed to lock the Tories out of Downing Street and how she won't win votes against a majority government. Or not.
Liz Kendal has to wait until 1:30...
...and gets Andrew Neil.
Scotand, England & Wales excl. London, London.
If we do England & Wales excl. London then PC has to be estimated in. Better still have Wales separate.
I still have not seen London total votes figure yet. The previous BBC Election sites was so much better.
Frank Field is a bit too old for a leadership challenge, and unfortunately for Labour, he's not mainstream. I stopped voting Labour in the late nineties but I'd happily return if he were leader. He will never be.
He'd be an interesting leader candidate for Ukip, though.
Ipsos MORI: C 36, L 35, LD 8, UKIP 11, GRN 5, OTH 5
Result: C 37.8, L 31.2, LD 8.1, UKIP 12.9, GRN 3.8, OTH 6.3
Rounded: C 38, L 31, LD 8, UKIP 13, GRN 4, OTH 6
Variance: C -2, L +4, LD -, UKIP -2, GRN +1, OTH -1
And this was the best poll of the bunch.
There was only one poll in the whole campaign which reflected the true Tory/Lab gap (ICM/Guardian) which was dismissed as an outlier. ICM should have trusted their model rather than conformed to YouGov's static garbage.
I hope this is the death of daily polls. YouGov's panel is nowhere near large enough to warrant a daily poll, they ask too many people the same questions that their answers become metronomic after a while and because of their overwhelming volume other pollsters seemed wary of stepping out of line. The blame for the great polling failure lies with YouGov and their paymaster, News Corp.
But what do I know. I would no more live in suburban England than I would put out my own eyes. (I can't live in the countryside - I have grand mal and so am not allowed to drive.
And everyone I know is either a graduate or a member of an ethnic minority - except my son.
Embarrassing scenes unfolded at Broxtowe Borough Council on Friday when two uncounted ballot boxes were discovered
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/embarrassing-scenes-bungling-council-bosses-5665689?ICID=FB_mirror_main
[BBC editorial meeting] The Tories have had a brilliant night. Who can we get to say bad things about it?
I would be very interested to see if it was UKIP > Con/Lab > UKIP or Lab > Con that did it, and how many LD > Lab there really were.
I seem to remember they were very proud of increasing party membership over the last couple of years. Do we know the drivers of this? As it is purported to be one member one vote analysis would be interesting.
The Conservatives had a stroke of luck post Indyref. I'm afraid Ed Miliband didn't really scare enough voters Salmond and Sturgeon on the other hand were guaranteed to give people sleepless nights if they held the balance of power.
Only saying.....
"Balls deep in ermine"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7zjeSkXqVU&src_vid=EFVwyTmFzq4&feature=iv&annotation_id=5218a503-0-2cf5-956a-47d7b3a8fdc
;-)
Bliss :-)
It is mainly in Wales there are smaller seats, but now Conservatives hold 11 of the Welsh seats, up from 8 last time and 3 in 2005, so suddenly this does not look so bad either. The real danger for the Conservatives now is that if they are painted as anti-Welsh, they may be locked out again: this is basically what happened in Scotland, and you can bet that Plaid Cymru, Labour and the LibDems would do their best to portray any seat reduction as anti-Welsh. Since independence for Wales is not viable, it might be decided that a small Welsh over-representation at Westminster is still justified.
My switching model had two fundamentally wrong assumptions:
a) it assumed that 90% of 2010 LD voters would continue to vote LD in LD seats (but only 25% would stick with the LDs in none LD seats).
b) it assumed that UKIP would get 16% of 2010 Con voters and 8% of 2010 Lab voters.
If I change the assumptions to
a) only 70% of 2010 LD voters continued to vote LD in LD seats (i.e. a much bigger "leakage")
b) UKIP gets only 8% of 2010 Con voters but 16% of 2010 voters (i.e. a reversal of the makeup of UKIP's vote so that it is mainly ex Lab)
then the model is almost spot on:
Con 228 Lab 230 LD 11 SNP 57.
If this is right, then the Tories managed to get many blue Kippers to vote Tory, but Lab totally failed to attract back the red kippers who were also larger in number.
The data tables should shed some light on this hypothesis.
PS My model still doesn't totally explain some London seats e.g. Twickenham where it is clear that many ex-LDs voted Tory. Could this be the mansion tax effect?
Labour will have over for years to become established and fill in the inherited blank sheet of paper. Tory will be able to select a fresh face for 2020 who could be selected as the best person to beat a known Labour opponent.
Given the unlikely situation that the Tory selection is done well without ripping the party apart, I'm not sure who is in the better position.
Look at the number of views for what are mainly US-style attack ads on the Conservative Party Youtube channel (numbers from a day or two ago when I first posted them).
14,856 views Salmond Alert 0:25
53,402 views Alex Salmond: "I'm writing the Labour Party budget" 0:29
61,966 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative on Thursday 1:58
67,014 views David Cameron: Vote Conservative today 0:49
84,380 views Our note to you: let's keep going (Labour left "no more money") 1:45
88,876 views Don't risk it with Ed Miliband and the SNP 0:14
89,097 views The SNP propping up Ed Miliband: you'll pay for it 0:19
174,548 views What type of country do we want to be? 2:41
420,080 views It's working - don't let them wreck it. Vote Conservative on Thursday. 2:46
Scottish Labour has spent the last 3 elections fighting the wrong enemy.
The much higher levels of approval for leadership and economic competence crystallised in this way and persuaded the undecided that it was safer to stay with people who had done quite well and knew what they were doing.
In my opinion the only time in my adult life time this has not been a major problem for Labour was when Blair and (incredibly with hindsight) Brown worked so hard to assure the City, business and indirectly the people that they could be trusted with the economy in 1997. They kept that up for a decade and dominated UK politics as a result.
Ed, in contrast, consistently came across as anti business. His attacks on fat cats and millionaires seemed an attack on aspiration and far more importantly made people wonder if he could make a success of the economy. He simply had no interest in the detail of making money rather than spending it.
For me, this makes it as plain as a pikestaff where Labour has to go next. They need leadership which is not tainted with failures of Brown; who, like Mandelson, is extremely relaxed about people getting filthy rich and who want to concentrate at least as much on making money as spending it.
There is much to do in this area. Blair went on about education, education, education but it took a right wing radical like Gove to really attack the way that children from poorer families are so badly treated by our educational establishment. One of the consequences of this failure is very poor productivity and the consequence of that is poverty wages. The last government had some success in addressing our fiscal crisis (although there is a lot more to do) but very, very little success in addressing our productivity problems and our chronic trade deficit. Our failures in these areas mean poor people remain poor.
For me, this makes it fairly obvious that Chuka Umunna is the obvious candidate for the next leader. He has already spoken well on this area. It also means the next leader needs to get to work developing a program of government addressing these problems. No more blank sheets of paper.
The minister said Clegg would be nominated for a role at the UN if he wanted one, but that he might reject a “bauble” from his former coalition partners.
He added: “There’s a lot of interest in and sympathy towards Danny. He doesn’t want to go into the Lords. Whether in the public or private sector, there would be a place where he could do well and make a difference."
By coincidence IPSOS Mori were conductng an exit poll at the polling station I was telling at in Barnes (Richmond Park). Their method was to pick people exiting the polling station (I think using random number tables) and ask them to fill in a ballot paper similar to the one they had just filled in, and post it in a dummy ballot box. It was a secret poll and they were asked for no other information. I don't know how they could produce data tables on this basis.
I was told that they were conducting the exit polls at 139 different polling stations in the UK, most of them identical to the ones used in 2010 so they could analyse any shifts. Maybe this analysis might produce some useful switching data?
The polling station I was at, sporting an LD rosette, was in an ex Council estate (council houses now worth much more than £1m each though many with the original working class owners). In previous years this was full of Labour tactical voters for LDs. This time, judging by the reaction to myself and the Tory teller beside me with a big blue rosette, many of the voters at this polling station were Lab or UKIP. Some openly said they were voting UKIP. Others told me to eff off. NB Richmond Park overall did not get a large UKIP vote. It is not natural Labour territory.
Apart from the obvious organizational things, Labour local authorities need to start thinking up controversial things to have referendums about. It doesn't matter what, anything that riles people up. Supermarkets? Jeremy Clarkson?
It was Liam Byrne wot won it. The week before polling, the attack had been SNP. That softened up a lot of voters. The final week was delivery of a glossy leaflet - comparing where we were 5 years ago - "there is no money" - versus where we are today, one of the strongest economies in the world. It was the PERFECT encapsulation of Labour's weakness.
Liam Byrne may have cost Labour 20 seats. Maybe more.
F1: my pre-race thoughts, including a tip, are up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/spain-pre-race.html
Wales is the most over-represented part of the UK at Westminster. From memory England and NI return one MP per 100k population in Wales it's 86k.
Any justifiable reason why this should be ?
Apart from Labour gerrymandering.
Another example of that is that the idea that the next Labour leader would want Ed in his next shadow cabinet or indeed anywhere near him is patently absurd.