Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big trend: CON and LAB are still failing to win voters
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big trend: CON and LAB are still failing to win voters from each other
One of the more remarkable features of the polling in the last parliament was the almost complete inability of both Labour and Conservatives to win voters from each other. Vote shares may have gone up and down but it was gains from and losses to the Lib Dems, UKIP, the Greens and SNP (and non-voters) that was responsible; the direct swing between the big two was negligible.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I see David Cameron's sofa is complaining about Mrs May's style of government in today's Times. She's doing something called 'Cabinet Government' and it is most put out......
Coulson 2p
It’s not only the right thing to do – the Conservatives would not be in government were it not for his work – it’s also the most effective way of calming the not insignificant number of Tory MPs already muttering into the Commons tea room china.
In short, when it comes to unity, the prime minister must now genuinely reach out to all parts of the Conservative family. This cannot be superficial, shop-front stuff – 'division is death’ must be the mantra.
Smelling salts on standby....
Perhaps there is another important consequence. In such a world, voters votting for smaller parties, who are essentially casting protest votes, are effectively disenfranchising themselves under FPTP.
For example, like Northern Ireland decades ago, Scotland has completely opted out of having any influence on a UK government, except in the relatively rare event of a hung Parliament, and even then it is far from clear what influence they would have, as Coalition negotiations are unpredictable and non-transparent, as the example of the Lib Dems in 2010-5 shows. Any change will come through the Scottish Parliament, or through action outside the political process, like bombs in the old days in Northern Ireland (God forbid we go back to that) or threatening another referendum in Scotland. (Of course, many Scots seemed to feel ignored anyway when they were dominated by Labour, as they were taken for granted by that party).
The same is evidently true, on a much smaller scale for the citizens of Clacton and Brighton.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/us/politics/00presidentialpetsquiz.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0
"We are building a country that works for everyone - not just the privileged few.
"A key part of that is making sure that all those who are able to work are given the support and the opportunity to do so. But it also means ensuring that we give full and proper support to those who can't.
"That includes sweeping away any unnecessary stress and bureaucracy - particularly for the most vulnerable in society".
If someone has a disease which can only get worse then it doesn't make sense to ask them to turn up for repeated appointments.
If their condition is not going to improve, it is not right to ask them to be tested time after time. So we will stop it.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-01/reassessments-to-be-scrapped-for-chronically-ill-benefit-claimins/
Also seems eminently sensible reform.......
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3816704/Blairs-ex-policy-chief-lead-employment-practices-review.html#ixzz4Lo0EGcPS
If we take Mrs May on her own words, she wants to return to One Nation Toryism. If we judge her on her actions in six years as Home Secretary, she will do nothing of note and fail to control immigration.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37517901
Steering a course between these diehards and Ken Clarke with a majority of 12 is going to be extremely testing.
This is a sharp contrast to Cameron's attitude, with his excellent Bloomberg speech about EU reform being followed by a damp squib renegotiation, as his opponents already knew his final position would be to remain.
Incidentally, I think suspect that Farron is being somewhat underrated by the metropolitan elite, perhaps, unkindly, because he’s a Northern lad who went to a Northern university, and because he’s a practising, and somewhat evangelical, Anglican.
Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/09/30/full-fox-news-poll-results-30/
National - NOLA Tracker
Clinton 45 .. Trump 35
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/09/clinton_lead_over_trump_widens.html#incart_river_home_pop
National - LA Times Tracker
Clinton 41.7 .. Trump 47.3
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/30/how_trump_and_clinton_are_faring_in_the_polls_this_week.html
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
If you answered Donald Trump then you are the winner
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/just-managing-is-not-enough-in-no-10-prime-minister/
Perhaps the last time I'll post this, but just six hours left to vote here:
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/781845030336094208
She had 6 years in which to do something to reduce this and completely failed. Either she is incompetent at her job or the forces of globalisation are to great for government to control. Humans are a migratory species.
She had 6 years in which to do something to reduce this and completely failed. Either she is incompetent at her job or the forces of globalisation are to great for government to control. Humans are a migratory species.
The reasons for voting LD, especially at local government level are, apparently, manifold, but those same reasons misunderstood and misapplied to national elections.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
It is interesting how successful Ruth Davidson is being in Scotland in picking up disillusioned Labour supporters. The Conservatives should watch and learn.
However, as of yesterday, rain was possible for both qualifying and race, so that could make things go wonky.
Picking up David's analysis from the header, there will be a lot of non-Tories unwilling to back Corbyn. In a GE it is unrealistic to suggest that all of them will stay at home. Thus there is the hopeful scenario for the LibDems, and a counter-argument to the suggestion that Farron is too left wing for the opportunity, which in the short term is on the centre-left, not the right.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/782100258977374208
Cries of 'win, win!' throughout middle America.
One thing that is implied in DH's excellent header is that the fates of Labour and LD are linked. When the vote of one goes up so does the vote of the other. In part this is tactical voting and in part it is that when people get sick of the Nasty party, they turn to whichever more suits their objections. For the last three decades the LDs have only won seats at GE in the same years that Labour has too. This does not bode well for us LDs in 2020.
That said, one other seat which the Lib Dems should target is Bath.
I don't think this analysis suggests increased polarisation in society - just that Labour is at bedrock. (How deep they can drill down into the bedrock is the interesting question)
Fwiw I do not think Sam should ever have been appointed but the Telegraph exposed greed, not corruption. Sam went along expecting and wanting six figure speaking engagements, which he did say he'd need to clear with the FA, and though he talked about skirting round the third-party ownership laws, he was quick to correct the guy who crossed the line.
Today's revelation that Harry Redknapp once managed a side who'd bet on itself winning a game is also pretty lame.
There are worse rumours about both men but it looks like the Telegraph has no real evidence against either, though it may have caught a couple of minnows -- quick, without googling, name the assistant manager of Barnsley (and even he denies it).
Let's wait and see what else the Telegraph has, including the names of the eight premier league managers allegedly at it, but so far they've damaged the national side for less than an MP's duck house.
2005 - didn't want Howard
2010 - split between fear of change (voted LD) and desire for change (voted Tory)
2015 - happy with status quo and real fears expressed of Sturgeon and Miliband
If that isn't mere centrism, I don't know what is. It was a strong maj in 05, smallest LD maj
Over Tory in 2010 and now has a romping 10k Tory maj.
Real majority is 40 for any issue that matters.
If you think the likes of Ian Paisley, Douglas Carswell and Nigel Dodds are going to come to the progressive lefts rescue you are deluding yourself.
One nation includes the 48%
Yesterdays comments about how those in their 30s are being screwed over relative to those in their 40s and above are highly relevant. Will the Tories do anything about it?
Hardly surprising as voting patterns will cut across usual demographic voting trends which makes baselining as easy as it was on the Brexit referendum.
Where is the early declaring equivalent of Sunderland I wonder.
It may be that, as with Brexit, the best value betting will be after the first results have been declared.
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less than full Brexit, then the Eurosceptic vote is split. In that scenario, the LibDems might sneak through the middle in a seat or two. (Especially if West country Labour voters are unenamoured with Mr Corbyn.)
This is interesting. I had thought that the apparent net movement in the polls represented an (admittedly modest) additional transfer of moderate Labour voters directly to the Conservatives in response to Corbyn, but perhaps I was mistaken?
If so, then the fact that we have seen a lot of large Tory leads in the polls, and yet Ukip and especially the Lib Dems seem generally to be polling around their GE levels of support, suggests a good deal of churn. Might it be possible that - in the national polls at least - voters are flowing away from the Lib Dems and Ukip toward the Tories, and to the Lib Dems and Ukip from Labour, in roughly equal numbers?
I know that the Lib Dems are doing well in all these little by-elections, but I remain to be convinced that a big national revival is on the cards. It's one thing making a protest vote; it's an altogether different matter when you're confronted with the choice of who's going to run the country.
Southern voters deserted the Lib Dems in their millions to keep Ed Miliband locked out of No.10. Are all the Yellow Tories going to want to go back again when the party is led by a social democrat whom they fear (with full justification) would be willing to use his votes in the Commons to put the Far Left into power, both out of revenge and in the mistaken belief that his influence would significantly moderate their policies? Huge tax and spending rises and an open borders immigration policy would swiftly follow.
Regardless, it's very hard to see how Labour wins, or the Tories lose, an election under current circumstances. If the flow of voters between the big two is as constricted as David Herdson believes it to be then Labour is already stuffed, for reputable analysis from the Fabians and others suggests that most of the votes Labour needs to get anywhere close to power again must be captured directly from the Tories. The Lib Dems are currently an unattractive place for centre-right votes to go, for reasons given above, there is no sign of this happening in the national VI polls, and they would need to start attracting very large swings away from the Tories to win back more than a small handful of seats. Ukip still appears to have a relatively low ceiling of support, and if it were to disappear then the likelihood has to be that its vote would fragment between Lab, Con and stay-at-home, giving no real advantage to anybody.
It's hard to see Labour doing as well as EdM did last time, or the Tories doing significantly worse than they did under Cameron. Now, but especially under revised boundaries in 2020, the next election is very much May's to lose.
He was a fans favourite on the wing for Leicester City, still fondly remembered.
Never mind them. Can Corbyn really rely on Gisella and Kate Hoey?
And Frank.
A Lib Dem MP with a large personal vote could overcome that, but there aren't any MP's left in the South West, and the new Conservative MP's have the chance to build up a personal vote.
Which supports your point, and is actually a reason why the key issue for Conervative prospects is that extent to which May can maintain her one nation positioning against her activists (and some of her own instincts) and with Brexit going on in the background.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/gordon-macintyre-kemp-independence-can-save-us-from-british-nationalism.22995
I think in 2012 Indiana was the US Sunderland. It is pretty safe for the Republicans, but a win by only 3-4% would be the pivot point in my rough estimate. If Trump wins by less then that then pile on Clinton, with the best value probably to be found on the states markets.
DYOR! as always.
It's far easier to get someone fired up against something than for something.
Imagine trying to get someone fired up for the EU, or for expertise and experience.
Arguably Dave's big advantage in 2015 rested solely upon the (false) assumption that Miliband might win (or at least come close)
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.