politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2020 challenge for LAB: Unless its Scottish losses ca

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2020 challenge for LAB: Unless its Scottish losses can be reversed it needs a 12% lead for a majority

Within a few weeks of each general election Professor John Curtice and other leading psephologists start producing the numbers that will shape the next general election.

Read the full story here

RobD

Thousand year PB Tory Reich (as some have put it) nailed on?

peter_from_putney

Narrowly second ..... by way of a change!

RobD

peter_from_putney said:

Narrowly second ..... by way of a change!

You'd want to be up very early in the morning to catch me, Father Peter!!

Fishing

I'd quibble with the "correctly" in the DM article - JC's exit poll was out by 15 seats and forecast CON MIN not CON MAJ. And it meant that the LDs would probably need another people carrier for their MPs, though obviously the sight of Pantsdown eating his hat was most gratifying.

Anyway, people have been talking about how to revive Labour in Scotland. I think trying to out-Marxist the SNP probably won't be possible even if they wanted to. The SNP would simply move further left. Trying to out-Nationalist them is impossible unless they want to propose given chunks of the North to Scotland as a colony after independence or the compulsory wearing of kilts in London. And any such moves would simply make them look (even more) desperate. So I'm struggling to see how they could win back their Scottish seats by 2020 unless the SNP leadership is collectively found in bed with the proverbial dead girls or live boys. The SNP aren't outstandingly good or competent, but they call themselves Scottish, and that seems to be what matters up there at the moment.

But perhaps those more attuned to Scottish politics than I could try the thought experiment: how could the Socialists dislodge the SNP even if they didn't have England to worry about?

DecrepitJohnL

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

chestnut

FPT

Given the results in 2012, the results at the Euros and the result of GE 2015, isn't it time to just say that a number of pollsters are just generally useless, especially the internet ones?

Ipsos, ICM, Comres can all lay claim to being in the right ballpark a week before the event, but we had certain internet pollsters giving Labour three and four point leads. They need to be laughed out of town.

Opinium appear to be the best net pollster.

rcs1000

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

DecrepitJohnL

Fishing said:

I'd quibble with the "correctly" in the DM article - JC's exit poll was out by 15 seats and forecast CON MIN not CON MAJ. And it meant that the LDs would probably need another people carrier for their MPs, though obviously the sight of Pantsdown eating his hat was most gratifying.

Anyway, people have been talking about how to revive Labour in Scotland. I think trying to out-Marxist the SNP probably won't be possible even if they wanted to. The SNP would simply move further left. Trying to out-Nationalist them is impossible unless they want to propose given chunks of the North to Scotland as a colony after independence or the compulsory wearing of kilts in London. And any such moves would simply make them look (even more) desperate. So I'm struggling to see how they could win back their Scottish seats by 2020 unless the SNP leadership is collectively found in bed with the proverbial dead girls or live boys. The SNP aren't outstandingly good or competent, but they call themselves Scottish, and that seems to be what matters up there at the moment.

But perhaps those more attuned to Scottish politics than I could try the thought experiment: how could the Socialists dislodge the SNP even if they didn't have England to worry about?

Even in Scotland, is there are a right/left issue so much as a perception of being pro- or anti-Scots, and even more one of hope versus fear? The SNP seems to be a very broad church. Its website talks about supporting small businesses and creating apprenticeships, and so does the Conservatives' manifesto.

chestnut

OT

I'm yet to be convinced that Labour has truly hit the floor.

The last Scottish parliament was constituted on a 45-32 vote, yet we had 50-25 last week. Surely, that implies a worse position on MSPs for Labour in 2016?

Also, if seats like Gower are falling after 109 years in Labour control, are we witnessing the first signs of a Scotland like collapse in Wales?

DecrepitJohnL

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

Targeting (or if you prefer, the analysis that made targeting possible) was very important. Remember there was actually a national swing to Labour, except in those seats where it mattered. We agree on the other factors.

MarqueeMark

DecrepitJohnL said:

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

But as the good Professor points out, those peaks are on different continents.

I have to say, I am somewhat surprised by the size of the task Labour faces. Whilst it was a great result for us Blues last week, at the time it felt a close run thing for a majority. It didn't look like one that was going to shut out Labour for a decade or more. But with a bit of analysis, it does look like Labour got hit by a perfect storm.

It is hard to see Scotland returning in a way that Scottish Labour MP's could vote on English matters. Wales appears to be the next big problem for Labour, with a raft more current Labour seats heading into the marginals column. London is probably entrenching into the seats it currently holds. The rest of the south looks out of reach unless a new Blair emerges. No such person is offering themselves for election as Labour leader.

The Midlands has to be where the Labour fightback begins. They had a lousy result here outside Brum. They have to get their message right to appeal here. Whilst hoping that the Northern Powerhouse doesn't get traction in a way that voters there don't start to look at the Tories with less jaundiced eyes....

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

We have to assume that by 2020, Labour will have an equivalent system in place and this advantage will have gone. (Although pity the poor floating voter next time, profiled by both parties as a recipient for endless personalised guff!)

rcs1000

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

Targeting (or if you prefer, the analysis that made targeting possible) was very important. Remember there was actually a national swing to Labour, except in those seats where it mattered. We agree on the other factors.

Perhaps: but don't forget that the Conservative Party increased their number of seats almost entirely from the LibDems.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

Thousand year PB Tory Reich (as some have put it) nailed on?

I don't think so. The combination of EVFEL, a modest LD revival, UKIP fading eithef before or after the EU neverendum and a leader who can communicate with middle England and a substantial dent in the Con seats is very possible.

If Lab gaind 50-60 seats in England then they would be able to form a minority government. This would be quite tenable. Labour should go for a leader that has enough appeal outside the party itself that she could lead a coalition if in the position of largest seats. Have I mentioned Liz Kendall?

In Scotland: it would be hard to out Nat or outspend the SNP. Better to support devomax and FFA, then reconfigure as a centrist party, which is where the gap in Scottish politics is.

rcs1000

Re Scotland and Wales, &c.

I see two ways this can go. Either we end up getting increasingly regionalist, and the SNP's success in getting sweeties for Scotland encourages PC, and perhaps even results in the appearance of a regional London party.

Or we follow the example of Canada, where the regionalist party has slowly faded from the scene. I think the Bloc Quebecois has just four seats in Canada's parliament.

I don't know which way we're going to go.

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

We have to assume that by 2020, Labour will have an equivalent system in place and this advantage will have gone. (Although pity the poor floating voter next time, profiled by both parties as a recipient for endless personalised guff!)

It's not just the system of targeting; it is the techniques. 2020 will be a very different campaign, and so will the techniques used. The use of Facebook, Twitter and whatever else comes to prominence in the next five years will be even more vital - if you don't use them as a lefty circle-jerk, as Labour did this year.

The 2016 presidential election will see the state of the art taken up a level. What worked in 2015 may not be optimal in 2010. If Labour just copy what the Conservatives did this year then they'll lose. Then there is another problem: the state of the art costs money, and the work needs to start a couple of years in advance (handily negating campaign spending limits).

And that's leaving aside any effect Team 2015 may have had.

Plato

OTish - Have I got this right?

I gather Nigel is still Kipper leader, and no one has actually left [the US chappy just isn't having his contract renewed] but now Douglas isn't going to get ANY Short Money just to spite him and the people of Clacton?

Is that about it? If so, sounds like a recipe for success - not.

Plato

For Times readers - Philip Collins is very unhappy with EdM http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4440669.ece

He refers to Mr Burham's almost tearful emoting as *therapy, not analysis* which made me laugh - but not as much as saying that *he didn't mind that Andy was Len's candidate, but did that he could be George's*

I think he's been reading PB...

It really is a cracker.

david_herdson

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

Labour lost the election in Leeds.

Ed - "No, we didn't spend and borrow too much money".
Dave, quoting Byrne - "I'm sorry, there's no money left".

Cosmic

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

Targeting (or if you prefer, the analysis that made targeting possible) was very important. Remember there was actually a national swing to Labour, except in those seats where it mattered. We agree on the other factors.

Perhaps: but don't forget that the Conservative Party increased their number of seats almost entirely from the LibDems.

Whilst the net seat gain was entirely from the LDs, there was some Con-Lab churn. The Tories lost 10 seats to Labour and gained 8 back from them, largely staying still.

If they hadn't gained those 8 Lab seats, they wouldn't have a majority right now.

So their targeting of Lab seats was very effective and very necessary.

DavidL

Hmm,.. I don't find this anymore credible that the idea that the Tories needed to be 11.4% ahead in England this time to avoid losing seats.

What the Tories did brilliantly this time was to find ways of mitigating the advantages that Labour had with the efficiency of their vote. I predicted that on here several times but the extent to which they achieved it astonishes me. Those advantages are not completely gone (otherwise Labour would have done even worse) but they are as low as they have been since the early 90s.

But these things are not set in stone. One of the key mistakes Messina identified in the pollsters is that they were using a 2010 model of the population instead of an up to date one as the Tories were using inhouse. To project what the lead in 2020 has to be on a 2015 model is to repeat the same mistake.

What this election also showed was that UNS is largely irrelevant. More than ever before the election is fought in the marginal seats and in closely targeted segments within those seats. Part of what is broken with FPTP is that the proportion of us whose votes actually matter is declining to an unacceptable extent.

The tories only have a small majority. This is no Blairite dominance. It can be reversed, even without gains in Scotland. Not easy but entirely possible. The SNP commitment to keep the Tories out means those Scottish seats have not gone away and are available for a Labour minority government. If I had to bet right now I think that is what I would go for. This government has a very difficult path to traverse over the next few years and Cameron will be a major loss to them in the breadth of their appeal. If Labour just elect someone normal...damn, it was going so well.

felix

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

We have to assume that by 2020, Labour will have an equivalent system in place and this advantage will have gone. (Although pity the poor floating voter next time, profiled by both parties as a recipient for endless personalised guff!)

I think the focus on Messina is essentially a comfort blanket that hides the big problem. Labour policy is dominated by a Londoncentric approach which bolsters left-wing support predominantly in safe Labour urban heartlands. The Tory message, emphasising work and benefit caps resonates with middle England and much of the upper aspirational w/c be they in the Midands, Wales, even parts of the north outside the big cities. In many of these areas there were swings to the Tories last week. Lessons worked because he had the right message. If Labour don't get this they are doomed.

felix

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

Thousand year PB Tory Reich (as some have put it) nailed on?

I don't think so. The combination of EVFEL, a modest LD revival, UKIP fading eithef before or after the EU neverendum and a leader who can communicate with middle England and a substantial dent in the Con seats is very possible.

If Lab gaind 50-60 seats in England then they would be able to form a minority government. This would be quite tenable. Labour should go for a leader that has enough appeal outside the party itself that she could lead a coalition if in the position of largest seats. Have I mentioned Liz Kendall?

In Scotland: it would be hard to out Nat or outspend the SNP. Better to support devomax and FFA, then reconfigure as a centrist party, which is where the gap in Scottish politics is.

Liz Kendall - the untried Unite candidate - HmmmHmmmm. Anyway she won't win. The small Tory majority this time remember was achieved after five years of cuts and wage standstill at best. The fact is Labour should have won by a mile. Truth is they have no message.

david_herdson

Does Labour need to "move to the centre in England"? Aren't the more pressing problem its loss of votes to UKIP and the Greens, and its lack of economic and leadership credibility? It's not so much that it needs to "move" to the centre but to expand into it. MarqueeMark's metaphor of climbing several small hills but each on different continents is an apt one.

foxinsoxuk

felix said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

We have to assume that by 2020, Labour will have an equivalent system in place and this advantage will have gone. (Although pity the poor floating voter next time, profiled by both parties as a recipient for endless personalised guff!)

I think the focus on Messina is essentially a comfort blanket that hides the big problem. Labour policy is dominated by a Londoncentric approach which bolsters left-wing support predominantly in safe Labour urban heartlands. The Tory message, emphasising work and benefit caps resonates with middle England and much of the upper aspirational w/c be they in the Midands, Wales, even parts of the north outside the big cities. In many of these areas there were swings to the Tories last week. Lessons worked because he had the right message. If Labour don't get this they are doomed.

Benefit caps and the like are not politically toxic, indeed they are really quite popular with those who live alongsise them, but have to get out of bed in the morning and earn for themselves.

No one doubts Labour's commitment to the welfare state or the NHS. Plenty do doubt Labour's commitment to the struggling CDE groups. This is where the votes have been lost. The AB vote for Labour has not declined much.

Can Chuka or Andy reach out to these people? Or Yvette and Mary? I cannot see it myself. If not Liz Kendall then there is real potential for Tim Farron to do so. I think Nigel has done as much as he can, and will only decline in stature.

MonikerDiCanio

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

heseltine

DavidL said:

Hmm,.. I don't find this anymore credible that the idea that the Tories needed to be 11.4% ahead in England this time to avoid losing seats.

What the Tories did brilliantly this time was to find ways of mitigating the advantages that Labour had with the efficiency of their vote. I predicted that on here several times but the extent to which they achieved it astonishes me. Those advantages are not completely gone (otherwise Labour would have done even worse) but they are as low as they have been since the early 90s.

But these things are not set in stone. One of the key mistakes Messina identified in the pollsters is that they were using a 2010 model of the population instead of an up to date one as the Tories were using inhouse. To project what the lead in 2020 has to be on a 2015 model is to repeat the same mistake.

What this election also showed was that UNS is largely irrelevant. More than ever before the election is fought in the marginal seats and in closely targeted segments within those seats. Part of what is broken with FPTP is that the proportion of us whose votes actually matter is declining to an unacceptable extent.

The tories only have a small majority. This is no Blairite dominance. It can be reversed, even without gains in Scotland. Not easy but entirely possible. The SNP commitment to keep the Tories out means those Scottish seats have not gone away and are available for a Labour minority government. If I had to bet right now I think that is what I would go for. This government has a very difficult path to traverse over the next few years and Cameron will be a major loss to them in the breadth of their appeal. If Labour just elect someone normal...damn, it was going so well.

You are forgetting the boundary changes which will come into effect by 2020. I am not sure if John Curtices piece is predicated on those coming into force.

foxinsoxuk

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

DavidL

Anyway, Scotland.

What Labour need to do to have any chance in 2020 in Scotland is to do much better in 2016 than is currently being predicted. The 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections are the most important elections in SLAB's history and they currently have a leader that is not in Holyrood. This is a major mistake.

What they need to do is stop obsessing about independence or even Tories (I didn't say this was going to be easy) and focus on bread and butter politics that takes the SNP on in a conventional way. I don't think Labour have ever done this.

We have a situation in Scotland where we have an administration with a very ordinary record and stratospheric approval ratings. It is because only Ruth Davidson ever challenges them and, well, she's a tory isn't she? Nuff said.

Despite spending more our record of hospital emergency admissions is worse than England. This is because an unreformed NHS in Scotland still carries a massive excess of management and bureaucracy which soak up those resources. We have cancer drugs the Scottish NHS can't afford because of the abolition of prescription charges. Davidson got applause for saying it was ridiculous that people like her (and me) aren't paying anything for our medicines. Some radical thinking required by Labour.

This administration has reduced the number of teaching posts by 4000. Despite a promise to reduce class sizes they have gone up. Once again there is a failure to focus spending on the front line and too much absorbed by Education departments but the real problem for education is the lack of fees for universities. To fund that promise the schools budget has been cut, the college budget has been slashed and the number of places available for Scottish kids at Scottish Universities have been cut. Even with all this we are still massively dependent on charging English students the full £9K to make the budgets balance. I don't believe this can go on. More radical thinking required from Labour.

SLAB have always been statist and had centralising tendencies but even they must be gasping at what this government has done. The centralisation of the police forces is very unpopular. The collation of what should be local government functions to Holyrood is too. The changes to the Scottish Court service have again removed so many local courts making access to justice a real issue for many. Localism is an obvious line for SLAB to peddle.

All of this is bread and butter politics of a type that we don't often see from a party whose battle cry of "keep the tories out" was enough for 20 years. They have so much work to do but they will need effective leadership in Holyrood to do it.

MonikerDiCanio

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

Quite.

DavidL

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

Hmm,.. I don't find this anymore credible that the idea that the Tories needed to be 11.4% ahead in England this time to avoid losing seats.

What the Tories did brilliantly this time was to find ways of mitigating the advantages that Labour had with the efficiency of their vote. I predicted that on here several times but the extent to which they achieved it astonishes me. Those advantages are not completely gone (otherwise Labour would have done even worse) but they are as low as they have been since the early 90s.

But these things are not set in stone. One of the key mistakes Messina identified in the pollsters is that they were using a 2010 model of the population instead of an up to date one as the Tories were using inhouse. To project what the lead in 2020 has to be on a 2015 model is to repeat the same mistake.

What this election also showed was that UNS is largely irrelevant. More than ever before the election is fought in the marginal seats and in closely targeted segments within those seats. Part of what is broken with FPTP is that the proportion of us whose votes actually matter is declining to an unacceptable extent.

The tories only have a small majority. This is no Blairite dominance. It can be reversed, even without gains in Scotland. Not easy but entirely possible. The SNP commitment to keep the Tories out means those Scottish seats have not gone away and are available for a Labour minority government. If I had to bet right now I think that is what I would go for. This government has a very difficult path to traverse over the next few years and Cameron will be a major loss to them in the breadth of their appeal. If Labour just elect someone normal...damn, it was going so well.

You are forgetting the boundary changes which will come into effect by 2020. I am not sure if John Curtices piece is predicated on those coming into force.

I was not forgetting. But Cameron has to get them through yet and he may not find it easy. I think Curtice's point is that if he does that will make it even harder for Labour. That is true but it is not as hard as he is claiming.

Scott_P

@BBCr4today: .@Nigel_Farage's ex-chief of staff @RaheemKassam calls for @DouglasCarswell & @oflynnmep to leave UKIP over party row http://t.co/LInCNJTIEy

That's right, he wants their only MP to be kicked out...

heseltine

DavidL said:

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

Hmm,.. I don't find this anymore credible that the idea that the Tories needed to be 11.4% ahead in England this time to avoid losing seats.

What the Tories did brilliantly this time was to find ways of mitigating the advantages that Labour had with the efficiency of their vote. I predicted that on here several times but the extent to which they achieved it astonishes me. Those advantages are not completely gone (otherwise Labour would have done even worse) but they are as low as they have been since the early 90s.

But these things are not set in stone. One of the key mistakes Messina identified in the pollsters is that they were using a 2010 model of the population instead of an up to date one as the Tories were using inhouse. To project what the lead in 2020 has to be on a 2015 model is to repeat the same mistake.

What this election also showed was that UNS is largely irrelevant. More than ever before the election is fought in the marginal seats and in closely targeted segments within those seats. Part of what is broken with FPTP is that the proportion of us whose votes actually matter is declining to an unacceptable extent.

The tories only have a small majority. This is no Blairite dominance. It can be reversed, even without gains in Scotland. Not easy but entirely possible. The SNP commitment to keep the Tories out means those Scottish seats have not gone away and are available for a Labour minority government. If I had to bet right now I think that is what I would go for. This government has a very difficult path to traverse over the next few years and Cameron will be a major loss to them in the breadth of their appeal. If Labour just elect someone normal...damn, it was going so well.

You are forgetting the boundary changes which will come into effect by 2020. I am not sure if John Curtices piece is predicated on those coming into force.

I was not forgetting. But Cameron has to get them through yet and he may not find it easy. I think Curtice's point is that if he does that will make it even harder for Labour. That is true but it is not as hard as he is claiming.

Why won't it be easy?
This is the easiest chance he has to get them through..only 9 tory seats would be abolished in entirety and I'm sure there will be more than 9 Tory MPs standing down next time.
The legislation is in place it just needs to be voted on..

rcs1000

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

DavidL

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

You are forgetting the boundary changes which will come into effect by 2020. I am not sure if John Curtices piece is predicated on those coming into force.

I was not forgetting. But Cameron has to get them through yet and he may not find it easy. I think Curtice's point is that if he does that will make it even harder for Labour. That is true but it is not as hard as he is claiming.

Why won't it be easy?
This is the easiest chance he has to get them through..only 9 tory seats would be abolished in entirety and I'm sure there will be more than 9 Tory MPs standing down next time.
The legislation is in place it just needs to be voted on..

The vote, AIUI, is not going to be until 2018. Will Cameron or his successor still have a majority by then post referendum? Will this not need to go through the Lords where he has no majority even now?

I am not saying it is not going to happen but it should not be taken for granted.

heseltine

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Problem for the LibDems though is going to be ground operations. Not only did they lose MPs but they lost over 380 cllrs last week. TheLD MPs used to employ activists in their constituency offices and this enabled them also to build up delivery networks in many areas. This tie up has now been blown apart and it will take great organisational skills and tenacity to build these networks up again.

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

But unlike Labour we are pretty much extinct.

The Lib Dem losses in LG on the 7th were every bit as serious as those in Westminster. They have such a long way to come back. I would love the Lib Dems to replace Labour so we were given a choice of 2 parties who could both be trusted with the economy. It is not going to happen, certainly not in my lifetime.

DecrepitJohnL

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

Scotland pretty much does fund itself, at least while the oil is flowing at a high enough price.

SquareRoot

Pass the popcorn please. The uncomfortable state of the opposition parties is going to keep us PB Tories entertained indefinitely, or so it seems.

heseltine

DavidL said:

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

heseltine said:

DavidL said:

You are forgetting the boundary changes which will come into effect by 2020. I am not sure if John Curtices piece is predicated on those coming into force.

I was not forgetting. But Cameron has to get them through yet and he may not find it easy. I think Curtice's point is that if he does that will make it even harder for Labour. That is true but it is not as hard as he is claiming.

Why won't it be easy?
This is the easiest chance he has to get them through..only 9 tory seats would be abolished in entirety and I'm sure there will be more than 9 Tory MPs standing down next time.
The legislation is in place it just needs to be voted on..

The vote, AIUI, is not going to be until 2018. Will Cameron or his successor still have a majority by then post referendum? Will this not need to go through the Lords where he has no majority even now?

I am not saying it is not going to happen but it should not be taken for granted.

i understood they could have the vote whenever the govt wanted but they wouldn't come into effect until 2018.

SquareRoot

Has the Ed Stone been found yet?

DavidL

DecrepitJohnL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

Scotland pretty much does fund itself, at least while the oil is flowing at a high enough price.

I think that is almost true.

But the responsibility for raising that tax currently lies with London. All the Scottish Parliament does is think of new ways of spending money. Where there is not enough money it is the fault of those English tories. It infantilises debate to a level that is hard to believe.

This focus on spending has caused an enormous distortion in Scottish politics and embedded the money tree philosophy. I think that FFA might be the start of a rebalancing that is very necessary.

heseltine

SquareRoot said:

Has the Ed Stone been found yet?

It's being used to adorn the Elysian Fields at Glastonbury this year.

Millsy

Yes, Labour are fcuked!

They will only win when the Tory government (and the SNP government) has run out of steam, hopefully not until 2025...

heseltine

By the way has Mark Senior been seen on here since the election...?

SouthamObserver

England is the key. The SNP have Scotland sown up for the foreseeable future. Labour has plenty of work to do to become relevant to a majority of English voters, though a new leader will help. None of those contesting the leadership will be as bad as EdM was, or as off-putting. Kendall is my preferred option, but I could live with either Cooper or Umana. As the comfort blanket candidate, Burnham would be the worst choice, so I expect it will be him.

The other factor is how the Tories govern. There was a strong and very disciplined anti-Tory vote for four elections in England. The LDs benefited from it hugely, Labour did too in parts of the country. That fractured last week and lost its potency. Will five years of the Tories governing alone see it go forever, or will those five years revive it? Labour can't control that one; it's down to the Tories.

On Scotland, by 2020 there should be a much clearer picture of where things are. Either independence will have happened or will be in the process of happening, or there will be a new constitutional settlement. If it's the former, Scotland will not matter one bit; if it is the latter the Scots may start voting on bread and butter issues once more as the decisions a Scottish government makes become more closely associated with the taxes Scots pay. That probably will not win Labour many more seats north of the border, but it may make the SNP a less frightening prospect for many English voters.

rcs1000

heseltine said:

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Problem for the LibDems though is going to be ground operations. Not only did they lose MPs but they lost over 380 cllrs last week. TheLD MPs used to employ activists in their constituency offices and this enabled them also to build up delivery networks in many areas. This tie up has now been blown apart and it will take great organisational skills and tenacity to build these networks up again.

Used to employ?

I am not sure there have ever been very many full time LibDem campaign staff.

SquareRoot

heseltine said:

By the way has Mark Senior been seen on here since the election...?

To be fair to Mark, He did post iirc that he had not been well. HIs absence is highly unlikely to be election related. He can stand his corner.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

Thousand year PB Tory Reich (as some have put it) nailed on?

I don't think so. The combination of EVFEL, a modest LD revival, UKIP fading eithef before or after the EU neverendum and a leader who can communicate with middle England and a substantial dent in the Con seats is very possible.

If Lab gaind 50-60 seats in England then they would be able to form a minority government. This would be quite tenable. Labour should go for a leader that has enough appeal outside the party itself that she could lead a coalition if in the position of largest seats. Have I mentioned Liz Kendall?

In Scotland: it would be hard to out Nat or outspend the SNP. Better to support devomax and FFA, then reconfigure as a centrist party, which is where the gap in Scottish politics is.

I was just poking fun at those who called it a 1000 yr reich! Of course the Tories won't win for ever!

felix

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Good luck with that one. Farron is more 'statist' than Labour - not sure that will bring many votes back in the south. Correction, I am sure - it won't.

AlastairMeeks

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

RobD

heseltine said:

The vote, AIUI, is not going to be until 2018. Will Cameron or his successor still have a majority by then post referendum? Will this not need to go through the Lords where he has no majority even now?

I am not saying it is not going to happen but it should not be taken for granted.

i understood they could have the vote whenever the govt wanted but they wouldn't come into effect until 2018.

It would be utterly despicable if boundary changes were voted down again.

Plato

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

SquareRoot

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

Has there been any measure of whether incumbency helped MP's?

SouthamObserver

DecrepitJohnL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

Scotland pretty much does fund itself, at least while the oil is flowing at a high enough price.

Not sure that is true:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-great-escape.html

Scotland has funded itself now and again. Mostly, though, it hasn't.

heseltine

SquareRoot said:

heseltine said:

By the way has Mark Senior been seen on here since the election...?

To be fair to Mark, He did post iirc that he had not been well. HIs absence is highly unlikely to be election related. He can stand his corner.

Sorry to hear that but I was hoping to get his take on the LD situation because he used to have a better handle on what was going on within the LD machine than most..

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Labour has been failing Scotland for years and has at last been eradicated. The SNP has now taken on the Labour mantle of letting the Scottish people down as Wednesday's horrific increase in Scotland's unemployment rate demonstrated ( despite a booming UK jobs market ). Logic demands that Scotland returns to its prosperous Tory roots sooner or later.

FFA is the shortest route to Tory Scotland. The only popular taxes are those paid by other people. Scotland will become less left wing when it has to fund itself.

Scotland pretty much does fund itself, at least while the oil is flowing at a high enough price.

Not sure that is true:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-great-escape.html

Scotland has funded itself now and again. Mostly, though, it hasn't.

This is a discussion about Scotland, facts aren't welcome here!!

SouthamObserver

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

MikeSmithson

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

That is true and might be a theme in 2019 if I'm still blogging then.

The big question at the moment Labour’s leadership election. Which way will the party want to go. Obscurity or being in position to make some sort of come back.

heseltine

SquareRoot said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

Has there been any measure of whether incumbency helped MP's?

The 8 LD MPs left have incumbency though. Think most of them will have to change their bar charts though..

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

It's all to lull you into a false sense of security by making you think that we believe that

logical_song

felix said:

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Good luck with that one. Farron is more 'statist' than Labour - not sure that will bring many votes back in the south. Correction, I am sure - it won't.

I didn't think that you could get much more 'statist' than Labour, except maybe SNP. I don't know that much about Farron but I thought that LibDems generally were interested in 'community politics'.
Could you provide a link or two to back up your assertion?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Only watched the first question or two of QT. Surprised, frankly, the first was about Farage rather than a general election question, but there we are.

I do like May's songs but I really disliked his assertion the Conservatives were the party of the [undeserving] rich.

From what I saw, Jeremy Hunt was more assured and relaxed and generally better than expected [I do not subscribe to the view he will be a top contender for next leader]. Tristram Hunt was as rubbish as usual. If Labour pick him the Lib Dems and SNP would perhaps be even more delighted than the Conservatives.

Edited extra bit: and the fifth episode of Zodiac Eclipse should be up this evening. All episodes are here [free-to-read], earliest at the bottom: http://www.kraxon.com/category/zodiac-eclipse/

SouthamObserver

MikeSmithson said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

That is true and might be a theme in 2019 if I'm still blogging then.

The big question at the moment Labour’s leadership election. Which way will the party want to go. Obscurity or being in position to make some sort of come back.

Vote comfort blanket.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

I don't think there will be complacency for as long as Osborne is in charge. As I have commented before he rarely makes the same mistake twice and the increase in professionalism of the tory campaign from 2010 to 2015 was palpable.

But nothing lasts forever and these are going to be bumpy years in government. if we get hit by a bad recession Osborne will be under pressure.

Labour's first priority is to get themselves in the game as a credible alternative. If they do and the Tories screw up or fall apart the British people will find a way.

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

SMukesh

If Nicola and Alec have their way,Scotland will not be part of the union in 2020.

Labour needs to concentrate on England and forget Scotland.

If the SNP become unpopular,Labour voters will return.

AlastairMeeks

The Conservatives can lose their majority very easily, and may well do so before the end of this Parliament. In 2020 they look clear favourites to have most seats. But as was exhaustively explored this time, Labour could be in government in 2020 even if it was not the largest party.

Perhaps the Labour leadership contest will show whether their new leader is of an ecumenical bent. He or she would be wise to forge links with other progressive parties early.

RobD

SMukesh said:

If Nicola and Alec have their way,Scotland will not be part of the union in 2020.

Labour needs to concentrate on England and forget Scotland.

If the SNP become unpopular,Labour voters will return.

Labour giving up on Scotland? Paving the way for a Tory surge north of the border

Pulpstar

Can Tristram get 35 MPs - is there a groundswell for his progressive internationalist social democratic yearnings ?

SquareRoot

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

Unlike you to make such a call error. Most PB Tories are not complacent and are just taking time out to have some fun at the discomfiture of the left
We called it right, ED was a dork, Ed was not prime ministerial, and in the end he got roundly thrashed.
If there was any hubris, it was the left believing a 35% strategy would win the election

another_richard

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

The Conservatives won because much of medium town England and Wales fear Labour and with reason.

Labour is regarded as the party of 'immigrants and single mothers'. An association which Labour encouraged by obsessing about the 'bedroom tax' and food banks and Islamophobia.

Labour is regarded as obsessive spenders.

Now people like to spend money but they usually want something in return whereas with Labour the spending by itself is regarded as morally right regardless of the outcome.

1 unit spending for 2 units return is what most people want but Labour prefer 2 units of spending for 1 unit of return.

Slackbladder

SouthamObserver said:

MikeSmithson said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

That is true and might be a theme in 2019 if I'm still blogging then.

The big question at the moment Labour’s leadership election. Which way will the party want to go. Obscurity or being in position to make some sort of come back.

Vote comfort blanket.

It will be Burnham, He's labours comfort blanket.

SouthamObserver

SMukesh said:

If Nicola and Alec have their way,Scotland will not be part of the union in 2020.

Labour needs to concentrate on England and forget Scotland.

If the SNP become unpopular,Labour voters will return.

This.

It's all about England.

richardDodd

SCOTT P..If it was obvious to the rest of the world that Ed was crap why couldn't the Labour Party see it..That is what led to their defeat..they tried to sucker the British Public...and failed.

Slackbladder

heseltine said:

SquareRoot said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

Has there been any measure of whether incumbency helped MP's?

The 8 LD MPs left have incumbency though. Think most of them will have to change their bar charts though..

How many of the 8 will want to fight the next election though?

logical_song

heseltine said:

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Problem for the LibDems though is going to be ground operations. Not only did they lose MPs but they lost over 380 cllrs last week. TheLD MPs used to employ activists in their constituency offices and this enabled them also to build up delivery networks in many areas. This tie up has now been blown apart and it will take great organisational skills and tenacity to build these networks up again.

This might help them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11600345/Why-are-so-many-people-joining-the-Liberal-Democrats.html
Also don't forget that things change in politics, that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. In Canada in 1993 the Conservative Prime Minister' party went from 156 seats to 2, yet they recovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

SouthamObserver

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.

How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.

Slackbladder

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.

How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.

People which don't vote, don't count, There's a block which will just never vote not becuase they are disillusioned, but because they are, and always will be disengaged.

SquareRoot

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.

How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.

How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.

331 seats that's more than 50%.. We can play this game all day if you like. If you don't like the voting system, vote for a party that will change it ... if they can get elected under FPTF that is and then actually want to change a formula on which they won..

Greenwich_Floater

Cosmic said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not convinced that last week's result had much to do with policy, let alone political philosophy and left and right.

The main factors were surely Messina's voter targeting, Labour's wipe-out in Scotland, the rise of Ukip and demise of the LibDems. Then you had Ed Miliband looking inept and the fear of SNP dominance. But it is hard to recall any great clashes on policy; we can all agree #Edstone was a bloody stupid idea but I doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus can remember what was inscribed on it, let alone understand what it would have meant in practice.

So it is not a mountain Labour must climb but several smaller peaks, which might be even harder.

It was not Messina's vote targetting that gave the Conservatives a 6.5% lead and a majority. It was that the rise of UKIP, the decline of the LibDems, and the end of the left wing tactical voting.

Targeting (or if you prefer, the analysis that made targeting possible) was very important. Remember there was actually a national swing to Labour, except in those seats where it mattered. We agree on the other factors.

Perhaps: but don't forget that the Conservative Party increased their number of seats almost entirely from the LibDems.

Whilst the net seat gain was entirely from the LDs, there was some Con-Lab churn. The Tories lost 10 seats to Labour and gained 8 back from them, largely staying still.

If they hadn't gained those 8 Lab seats, they wouldn't have a majority right now.

So their targeting of Lab seats was very effective and very necessary.

Agree, I posted about CON gains from LAB a couple of days before the election, I suggested a few and think I pulled Telford, Plymouth Moor View and Southampton (whichever one went blue).

Another contributor suggested Gower, which was a great call.

I did, along with most others, expect LAB to make a bit more headway into CON targets.

Tissue_Price

SquareRoot said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

Has there been any measure of whether incumbency helped MP's?

This chart from Anthony Wells says it all - though I think it's as much targeting as incumbency:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/labourswing.jpg

Financier

The 2016 elections in Wales and Scotland could provide pointers for the future. In Wales where they will run away completely from any suggestion of FFA (their economy is still a disgrace), Labour's share of the vote could decline but due to the electoral system they may not lose that many seats. It would be interesting if PC would support them as Wales would then swing further left.

Thought Farage and Hunt did quite well on QT and were reasonably well received by the audience who resisted Dimbleby's line of priorities.

another_richard

I don't know if anyone has analysed the LibDems constituencies yet but O&S is the only constituency which was LibDem both in 1992 and 2015.

The other 2015 LibDem constituencies in 1992 were:

Ceredigon - PC
Westmoreland - Con
Southport - Con
Leeds NW - Con
Sheffield Hallam - Con
Norfolk N - Con
Carshalton - Con

Now if we consider the other 1992 LibDem constituencies and look at which party held them before they were Lib/LibDem and which party holds them now:

Caithness – Lab, SNP
Ross – Con, SNP
Inverness – Con, SNP
Gordon – Con, SNP
Fife NE – Con, SNP
Argyll – Con, SNP
Tweeddale – Con, SNP
Berwickshire – Con, SNP (now effectively merged with Tweedale)
Montgomery – Con, Con
Berwick – Con, Con
Rochdale – Lab, Lab
Liverpool Mossley Hill – Lab, Lab **
Cheltenham – Con, Con
Bath – Con, Con
Yeovil – Con, Con
Devon N – Con, Con
Cornwall N – Con, Con
Truro – Con, Con
Southwark – Lab, Lab

It shows that the Conservatives, despite their impressive results this year, are still suffering from the rise of the LibDems.

** Liverpool Mossley Hill was notionally Conservative but David Alton was first elected in Liverpool Edge Hill, a gain from Labour.

Slackbladder

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

If Nicola and Alec have their way,Scotland will not be part of the union in 2020.

Labour needs to concentrate on England and forget Scotland.

If the SNP become unpopular,Labour voters will return.

This.

It's all about England.

In which case, as Mike said, they'll need that 12% lead. Now, how are they going to do that....

I have to agree with you by the way. Scotland and England are now too divided in what they look for, Labour will recover a bit, and they could get 10-15 seats back in time, but nowhere near the powerbase they had.

heseltine

logical_song said:

heseltine said:

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Problem for the LibDems though is going to be ground operations. Not only did they lose MPs but they lost over 380 cllrs last week. TheLD MPs used to employ activists in their constituency offices and this enabled them also to build up delivery networks in many areas. This tie up has now been blown apart and it will take great organisational skills and tenacity to build these networks up again.

This might help them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11600345/Why-are-so-many-people-joining-the-Liberal-Democrats.html
Also don't forget that things change in politics, that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. In Canada in 1993 the Conservative Prime Minister' party went from 156 seats to 2, yet they recovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Sure but they didn't recover in 5 years. Interestingly not only is the LD membership up but so is Lab and Tory..they are just not making such a song and dance about it. In the constituency in SW London that I am in we have had 20 new Tory members since last Thursday. That is in a seat we don't hold so if you extrapolate that across the country the Tories have gained just as many members I would have thought. The LDs just need something to hang their hat on at present.

SquareRoot

Tissue_Price said:

SquareRoot said:

antifrank said:

Post-election, our host isn't winding up the Tories as much. I was hoping for an early appearance of "With few new MPs in marginals, the Conservatives cannot hope for help from a first term incumbency bounce".

Has there been any measure of whether incumbency helped MP's?

This chart from Anthony Wells says it all - though I think it's as much targeting as incumbency:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/labourswing.jpg

tyvm

richardDodd

Labour presented a Geek as Leader and he had no policies..and they wonder why they lost...Keep it up lads..

Financier

Has there been a full analysis of where the LD 2010 vote ended up and how the redLds voted?

surbiton

The Boundary Commission will be interesting. If the terms of reference stays the same, it should actually help Labour.

What the Tories used to call electoral bias is now the other way round.

rcs1000

heseltine said:

Sure but they didn't recover in 5 years.

In 1993, the Conservatives in Canada got 2 seats. In 1997, it was 20.

They may not have gotten back to their pre-1993 highs in five years, but they definitely recovered somewhat in five years.

Charles

logical_song said:

Also don't forget that things change in politics, that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. In Canada in 1993 the Conservative Prime Minister' party went from 156 seats to 2, yet they recovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Wasn't that because of a reverse take over by the Reform Party.

If UKIP were to merge with the Tories, with Nigel Farage leading, Patrick O'Flynn, Suzanne Evans, Douglas Carswell and Paul Nuttall taking the top 5 Cabinet posts, would you regard it as a "Conservative Recovery" if the combined group was called the "Conservative Party"?

surbiton

Was Nick Clegg a Tory plant ? Discuss.

CD13

Surby,

"The Boundary Commission will be interesting. If the terms of reference stays the same, it should actually help Labour."

If that's true, will Labour still call it gerrymandering?

Plato

That the electorate didn't warm to a weird metropolitian, academic socialist with Marxist tendencies is hardly surprising - that so many in Labour pretended it wasn't an issue were simply deluding themselves.

richardDodd said:

Labour presented a Geek as Leader and he had no policies..and they wonder why they lost...Keep it up lads..

Charles

Slackbladder said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of Labour's quickest routes back would be for the Tories to believe that they won the election because a majority of voters wanted a Tory government. If the hubris and complacency we see on PB every day is mirrored within the party organisation then Labour have a real chance. Sadly, I fear it is not.

SO, for 5 years the PBTories said that Ed was crap, and that EMWNBPM.

We were right.

Where in that did anyone ever say "a majority of voters wanted a Tory Government", although of course that is ultimately what happened...?

Slightly less than 25% of voters wanted a Tory government; around 38% of those who voted.

How the 75%/62% coalesce next time is one of the key issues.

People which don't vote, don't count, There's a block which will just never vote not becuase they are disillusioned, but because they are, and always will be disengaged.

They do count.

They just don't participate in the selection of the government

another_richard

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

If Nicola and Alec have their way,Scotland will not be part of the union in 2020.

Labour needs to concentrate on England and forget Scotland.

If the SNP become unpopular,Labour voters will return.

This.

It's all about England.

But much of Labour thinks its all about London.

MarqueeMark

heseltine said:

logical_song said:

heseltine said:

rcs1000 said:

@foxinsox

I'm assuming the LibDem pitch under Farron would be

"Like Labour, we care. Unlike Labour, we are competent"

Problem for the LibDems though is going to be ground operations. Not only did they lose MPs but they lost over 380 cllrs last week. TheLD MPs used to employ activists in their constituency offices and this enabled them also to build up delivery networks in many areas. This tie up has now been blown apart and it will take great organisational skills and tenacity to build these networks up again.

This might help them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11600345/Why-are-so-many-people-joining-the-Liberal-Democrats.html
Also don't forget that things change in politics, that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. In Canada in 1993 the Conservative Prime Minister' party went from 156 seats to 2, yet they recovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Sure but they didn't recover in 5 years. Interestingly not only is the LD membership up but so is Lab and Tory..they are just not making such a song and dance about it. In the constituency in SW London that I am in we have had 20 new Tory members since last Thursday. That is in a seat we don't hold so if you extrapolate that across the country the Tories have gained just as many members I would have thought. The LDs just need something to hang their hat on at present.

The effort at voter profiling in the marginals has also made it much easier to find potential new members. That is what we will be doing over the summer. Cementing in these marginals. While the LibDems and Labour are both navel gazing.

surbiton

Why did the latest God Messina's targeting help the Tories in London ? Sometimes these things are overblown.

What really happened was that outside the big cities, there was a swing towards the Tories. It is as simple as that.

Plato

I got a Sign Up to membership email yesterday from CCHQ - their database isn't quite in sync with itself, but top marks for being quick off the mark.

MarqueeMark said:

The effort at voter profiling in the marginals has also made it much easier to find potential new members. That is what we will be doing over the summer. Cementing in these marginals. While the LibDems and Labour are both navel gazing.